Can Charisma Be Taught? Tests of Two Interventions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2011, Vol. 10, No. 3, 374–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0012 ........................................................................................................................................................................ Can Charisma Be Taught? Tests of Two Interventions JOHN ANTONAKIS MARIKA FENLEY SUE LIECHTI University of Lausanne We tested whether we could teach individuals to behave more charismatically, and whether changes in charisma affected leader outcomes. In Study 1, a mixed-design field experiment, we randomly assigned 34 middle-level managers to a control or an experimental group. Three months later, we reassessed the managers using their In Study 2, a within-subjects .(321 ؍ Time 2 raters ;343 ؍ coworker ratings (Time 1 raters laboratory experiment, we videotaped 41 MBA participants giving a speech. We then taught them how to behave more charismatically, and they redelivered the speech rated the speeches. Results from the (135 ؍ weeks later. Independent assessors (n 6 studies indicated that the training had significant effects on ratings of leader charisma and that charisma had significant effects on ratings of leader (62. ؍ mean D) prototypicality and emergence. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Can leadership, and in particular charisma, be be taught is evidence that heritable traits includ- taught? If answered in the affirmative, this ques- ing intelligence and personality (Bouchard & Loeh- tion has important implications for training and lin, 2001; Bouchard & McGue, 2003) predict leader- practice. The management and economics litera- ship (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge, tures have established that leadership matters a Colbert, & Ilies, 2004; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, great deal, whether at the country, organization, or 1986). Such findings feed into popular notions that team level of analysis (Chen, Kirkman, & Kanfer, “leaders are born.” Teaching adults to be better 2007; Flynn & Staw, 2004; House, Spangler, & leaders should, thus, be quite a feat. A recent meta- Woycke, 1991; Jones & Olken, 2005; Judge & Piccolo, analysis, though, indicates that leadership is 2004). More importantly, when measuring specific learnable (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, components of leadership, charismatic leadership & Chan, 2009); however, the specific mechanisms demonstrates strong effects on leader outcomes, as by which charisma can be trained are still largely meta-analyses have repeatedly established (De- unknown. Groot, Kiker, & Cross, 2001; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avo- Our objective, therefore, was to add to the liter- lio, 2002; Gasper, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, ature on leader development (cf. Day, 2001) by test- Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Knowing ing whether a theoretically designed intervention whether charisma can be learned is, therefore, an can make individuals appear more charismatic to important practical question. independent observers. In a field and laboratory Casting some doubt on whether leadership can setting, we investigated whether we could manip- ulate participant charisma and whether charisma We are grateful to the special issue editors and the reviewers would have a significant effect on leader outcomes for their helpful feedback; our action editor, Sim Sitkin, was (i.e., observer perceptions); as we discuss below, it particularly constructive in shepherding our manuscript. We also thank Marius Brulhart, Fabrizio Butera, Anne d’Arcy, Sas- is only by way of observer attributions that we can kia Faulk, Deanne den Hartog, Klaus Jonas, Alexis Kunz, Rafael study the impact of charisma. Lalive, and Boas Shamir for their helpful suggestions on earlier Apart from our substantive findings, which have versions of this work; any errors or omissions are our responsi- important implications for theory and training, our bility. Finally, we thank the participant depicted in Figure 1a study has some methodological novelties: In Study for giving us permission to publish pictures of him. Note. For correspondence contact [email protected]. 1, we used 2-stage least squares (2SLS), a mainstay Tel: ϩ41 21 692 3438. of economics, to estimate the causal effect of 374 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2011 Antonakis, Fenley, and Liechti 375 trained charisma on leader outcomes. In Study 2, dation of charisma is an emotional interaction that which was conducted in the context of an MBA leaders have with followers and that the “gift” was program wherein we were unable to have a control due, in part to the leader’s “personal characteris- group, we used a nonequivalent dependent vari- tics, and the behavior the leader employs” (House, able that we did not manipulate—communication 1977: 193). He stated further that “Because of other skills—as a control variable to remove learning ‘gifts’ attributed to the leader, such as extraordi- effects inherent to within-subject designs. Also, in nary competence, the followers believe that the both studies, we used a naturalistic design by ma- leader will bring about social change and will thus nipulating charisma in working adults (i.e., we deliver them from their plight” (House, 1977: 204). did not use confederates). Followers of charismatic leaders show devotion Our paper is organized as follows: First, we dis- and loyalty toward the cause that the leader rep- cuss how charisma has been conceptualized and resents (Bass, 1985) and willingly place their des- defined; we differentiate psychological from soci- tiny in their leader’s hands (Weber, 1968). Such ological perspectives. Next, we discuss observable leaders reduce follower uncertainty or feelings of markers of charisma. We then present our hypoth- threat (Hogg, 2001). Simply put, charismatic lead- eses, as well as an overview of the two studies we ers are highly influential leaders. conducted. We report detailed results and consider Sociological accounts of charisma were usually their theoretical and practical implications. associated with high-level political leadership and crisis (cf. Downton, 1973; Weber, 1947); how- CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP ever, modern notions of charisma have departed from the original conceptualization, and do not Before providing a specific definition of charisma view charisma as a rare and unusual quality (cf. that will guide our research, we first distinguish Beyer, 1999). There is debate as to whether cha- charisma from a related construct, transforma- risma can be studied in organizational settings: tional leadership. Bass (1985) suggested that cha- Neocharismatic theorists take more of a psycholog- risma is a subcomponent of transformational lead- ical and organizational tack on charisma and ership; however, some scholars state that these do not agree with some assumptions made by so- constructs are isomorphic or have similar effects ciologists. Neocharismatic theorists view charisma (cf. Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Charisma and transfor- in a more “tame” way, suggesting it can be studied mational leadership are related but theoretically in a variety of organizational milieux (Antonakis & distinct (see Antonakis, 2012; Yukl, 1999). Transfor- House, 2002; House, 1999; Shamir, 1999), and usu- mational leadership is much broader and includes means of influence predicated on the leader hav- ally study its “close” rather than “distant” mani- ing a developmental and empowering focus (e.g., festation (cf. Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Shamir, individualized consideration) and on using “ratio- 1995). Even Shils (1965: 202), who wrote from a so- nal” influencing means (e.g., intellectual stimula- ciological perspective, noted that Weber “did not tion). However, key in neocharismatic perspectives consider the more widely dispersed, unintense op- is that charismatic leadership uses symbolic influ- eration of the charismatic element in corporate ence and stems from certain leader actions and bodies governed by the rational-legal type of au- attributions that followers make of leaders, which thority.” Furthermore, although crisis can facilitate produces the alchemy known as charisma (Conger the emergence of charismatic leadership, it is not & Kanungo, 1998; House, 1999; Shamir, 1999). Cha- necessary for its emergence (Conger & Kanungo, risma’s consequences are only evident in the per- 1998; Etzioni, 1961; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Shils, ceptions of followers, who “validate” the leader’s 1965). charisma. Only when followers have accepted the Following House (1999), we focus on organiza- leader as a symbol of their moral unity can the tional charisma, which depends on leaders and leader have charisma (Keyes, 2002). followers sharing ideological values and is predi- The concept of charisma was first proposed by cated on the leader’s use of symbolic power. This Weber (1947, 1968), who referred to charisma as a type of power is emotions and ideology based and gift “of the body and spirit not accessible to every- does not use reward, coercive or expert influence body” (Weber, 1968: 19). House (1977: 189), who was indicative of leadership styles such as transac- the first to present an integrated psychological tional or task-focused leadership (cf. Antonakis & theory