In the field of sociology,charismatic authority is a concept of organizationalleadership wherein theauthority of the leader derives from thepersonal charisma of the leader. In thetripartite classification of authority, the sociologistMax Weber contrasts charismatic authority (character, heroism, leadership, religious) against two other types of authority: (i)rational-legal authority (modern law, the sovereign state, bureaucracy) and (ii)traditional authority (patriarchy, patrimonialism, feudalism).
The Ancient Greek wordcharisma became known through thePauline epistles to Christian communities in the first century of theCommon Era, wherein the wordcharisma denoted and described agift of divine origin that demonstrated the divine authority possessed by the early leaders of the Church. Weber developed the theological term and the concept ofcharisma into a secular term for the sociological study of organizations.[1] Terms derived fromcharisma includecharismatic domination[2] andcharismatic leadership.[3]
Weber applies the termcharisma to
[A] certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader. . . . How the quality in question would be ultimately judged from an ethical, aesthetic, or other such point of view is naturally indifferent for the purpose of definition.[4][a]
In the modern era, some psychologists have defined charisma in terms of practical outcomes (i.e. charismatic leaders are effective).[5] However, such a definition results in circular in reasoning.[6] The conclusions derived such definitions (and measures) cannot be refuted given that the proponents claim something akin toif effective, therefore charismatic.[7] Charisma, however, can be studied scientifically if seen as a costly signal, using values, symbols, and emotions.[7][8][9] It was shown to correlate strongly with general intelligence[10] and observers infer that those signaling charisma are more competent.[11] Its economic value in consequential settings has also been scientifically examined.[12] Thus Weber's insights were valuable in naming the construct of charisma, although his definitions and insights did not allow for its scientific study. Modern social science however, has found supports for the notion that charismatic leaders can, under certain conditions, be very persuasive.
Weber interchanges authority and dominance
[H]as been considered insociological terms as indicating thelegitimate or socially approved use of power. It is the legitimate power which one person or a group holds and exercises over another. The element of legitimacy is vital to the notion of authority and is the main means by which authority is distinguished from the more general concept of power. Power can be exerted by the use of force orviolence. Authority, by contrast, depends on the acceptance bysubordinates of the right of those above them to give them orders or directives.Charismatic authority is often the most lasting of regimes because the leader is seen as infallible and any action against him will be seen as a crime against the state. Charismatic leaders eventually develop acult of personality often not by their own doing.
[P]ower legitimized on the basis of a leader's exceptional personal qualities or the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment, which inspire loyalty and obedience from followers.[13]
Leadership is the power to diffuse a positive energy and a sense of greatness. As such, it rests almost entirely on theleader. The absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority's power dissolving. However, due to its idiosyncratic nature and lack of formalorganization, charismatic authority depends much more strongly on the perceivedlegitimacy of the authority than Weber's other forms of authority. For instance, a charismatic leader in areligious context might require an unchallengedbelief that the leader has been touched byGod, in the sense of aprophet.[14] Should the strength of this belief fade, the power of the charismatic leader can fade quickly, which is one of the ways in which this form of authority shows itself to be unstable.
In contrast to the current popular use of the termcharismatic leader, Weber saw charismatic authority not so much as character traits of the charismatic leader but as a relationship between the leader and his followers. The validity ofcharisma is founded on its "recognition" by the leader's followers (or "adepts" –Anhänger).His charisma risks disappearing if he is "abandoned by God" or if "his government doesn't provide any prosperity to those whom he dominates".[b]
Charismatic authority almost always endangers the boundaries set bytraditional (coercive) orrational (legal) authority. It tends to challenge this authority, and is thus often seen asrevolutionary.[16][17] Usually this charismatic authority is incorporated into society. Hereby the challenge that it presents to society will subside. The way in which this happens is calledroutinization.[citation needed]
By routinization, the charismatic authority changes:
[C]harismatic authority is succeeded by a bureaucracy controlled by a rationally established authority or by a combination of traditional and bureaucratic authority.[18]
A religion which evolves its ownpriesthood and establishes a set of laws and rules is likely to lose its charismatic character and move towards another type of authority. For example,Muhammad, who had charismatic authority as "The Prophet" among his followers, was succeeded by the traditional authority and structure ofIslam, a clear example of routinization.[citation needed]
In politics, charismatic rule is often found in variousauthoritarian states,autocracies,dictatorships andtheocracies. To help to maintain their charismatic authority, such regimes will often establish a vastpersonality cult. When the leader of such a state dies or leaves office, and a new charismatic leader does not appear, such a regime is likely to fall shortly thereafter, unless it has become fully routinized.[15]
Because theauthority is concentrated in one leader, the death of the charismatic leader would constitute the destruction of the government unless prior arrangements were made. A society that faces the end of their charismatic leader can choose to move to another format ofleadership or to have a transference of charismatic authority to another leader by means of succession.
According to Max Weber, the methods of succession are: search, revelation, designation by original leader, designation by qualified staff, hereditary charisma, and office charisma.[19] These are the various ways in which an individual and a society can contrive to maintain the unique energy and nature of charisma in their leadership.
"The search for a new charismatic leader (takes place) on the basis of the qualities which will fit him for the position ofauthority." An example of this search method is the search for a newDalai Lama. "It consists in a search for a child with characteristics which are interpreted to mean that he is areincarnation of theBuddha." This search is an example of the way in which an original charismatic leader can be forced to "live on" through a replacement.[19]
"In this case thelegitimacy of the new leader is dependent on the legitimacy of the technique of selection." The technique of selection is themodus operandi of the selection process. In ancient times,oracles were believed to have special access to "divine judgment" and thus their technique in selection was perceived to belegitimate. Their choice was imbued with the charismatic authority that came with the oracle's endorsement.[19]
In this form, the original holder of charismatic authority is perceived to have passed their authority to another. An example isJoseph Stalin's claim thatVladimir Lenin had designated him to be his successor as leader of the USSR. Insofar as people believed in this claim, Stalin gained Lenin's charismatic authority.[19]
"A successor (may be designated) by the charismatically qualified administrative staff... (T)his process should not be interpreted as 'election' or 'nomination'... It is not determined by merely a majority vote...Unanimity (is) often required." A case example of this form of succession is thepapal conclave ofcardinals to choose a newpope. The cardinals taking part in the papal conclave are viewed to be charismatically qualified by theirRoman Catholic congregations and thus their choice is imbued with charismatic authority.[19]
Charisma can be perceived as "a quality transmitted by heredity". This method of succession is present inKim Il Sung's charisma being passed on to his son,Kim Jong Il. This type of succession is a difficult undertaking and often results in a movement towardtraditionalization andlegalization inauthority.[20][19][21]
"The concept of charisma may be transmitted byritual means from one bearer to another...It involves a dissociation of charisma from a particular individual, making it an objective, transferable entity."Priestly consecration is believed to be a modus through which priestly charisma to teach and perform other priestly duties is transferred to a person. In this way,priests inherit priestly charisma and are subsequently perceived by their congregations as having the charismatic authority that comes with the priesthood.[19]
Weber's model of charismatic leadership giving way to institutionalization is endorsed by several academic sociologists.
Eileen Barker discusses the tendency fornew religious movements to have founders or leaders who wield considerable charismatic authority and are believed to have special powers or knowledge. Charismatic leaders are unpredictable, Barker says, for they are not bound by tradition or rules and they may be accorded by their followers the right to pronounce on all aspects of their lives. Barker warns that in these cases the leader may lack any accountability, require unquestioning obedience, and encourage a dependency upon the movement for material, spiritual and social resources.[22]
George D. Chryssides asserts that not all new religious movements have charismatic leaders, and that there are differences in the hegemonic styles among those movements that do.[23]
Len Oakes, anAustralian psychologist who wrote adissertation about charisma, had eleven charismatic leaders fill in a psychometric test, which he called theadjective checklist, and found them as a group quite ordinary. Following thepsychoanalystHeinz Kohut, Oakes argues that charismatic leaders exhibit traits ofnarcissism and also argues that they display an extraordinary amount of energy, accompanied by an inner clarity unhindered by the anxieties and guilt that afflict more ordinary people. He did, however, not fully follow Weber's framework of charismatic authority.[24][clarification needed]
| Charismatic | Traditional | Legal-Rational | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of ruler | Charismatic leader | Dominant personality | Functional superiors or bureaucratic officials |
| Position determined by | Having a dynamic personality | Established tradition or routine | Legally established authority |
| Ruled using | Extraordinary qualities and exceptional powers | Acquired or inherited (hereditary) qualities | Virtue of rationally established norms, decrees, and other rules and regulations |
| Legitimized by | Victories and success to community | Established tradition or routine | General belief in the formal correctness of these rules and those who enact them are considered a legitimized authority |
| Loyalty | Interpersonal & personal allegiance and devotion | Based on traditional allegiances | To authority/rules |
| Cohesion | Emotionally unstable and volatile | Feeling of common purpose | Abiding by rules (seeMerton's theory of deviance) |
| Leadership | Rulers and followers (disciples) | Established forms of social conduct | Rules, not rulers |
Informational notes
Citations
Bibliography
