The Rise and Decline of Charismatic Leadership

3233

THE RISE AND DECLINE OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIPPRIVATE

By

Chanoch Jacobsen

Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Mananagement

Technion - Israel Institute of Technology

Haifa, Israel

and

Robert J. House

The Wharton School

The University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA

(Revised: Jan 26, 1999)

. . . leadership, whether personal or impersonal, makes all the difference in the way a system gets organized. . . . Culture is what allows individual actors to stand apart from leaders, the way children eventually weaken their attachment to caregivers."

Thomas Spence Smith, Strong Interaction, 1992, p. 197.

INTRODUCTION

Max Weber introduced the concept of charisma to account for the process by which radical change is brought about and legitimized in societies and organizations (Weber, 1922; 1947; 1968).. Since Weber, the sociological literature on charisma has attended to the introduction and routinization of radical change induced by charismatic leaders societies (Bendix, 1985; Dow, 1969; Eisenstadt, 1968; Friedland, 1964; Trice and Beyer, 1986). Several sociologically oriented scholars argue that charismatic leadership can also emerge and be effective in formal, complex organizations (Dow, 1969; Shils, 1965; Beetham, 1974; Bryman, 1992; Etzioni, 1961).

In the recent past, a body of literature complementary to the Weberian and post-Weberian literature has emerged. Since the mid-1970's, social psychologically oriented students of organizational behavior have sought to explain how leaders influence change in formal organizations, recognizing the fact that formal organizations must often make major changes in strategies, structural forms, cultures and practices in order to adapt to changing technological demands and compete effectively with international competition. This new orientation represents a major paradigm shift in the psychologically oriented leadership research and theory. Attention was shifted from an emphasis on normal supervisory and managerial behavior to an emphasis on exceptional leaders who have extraordinary effects on followers and social systems. It was found that such leaders frequently have powerful effects on follower affective states as well as improved organizational performance. Such leadership is referred to in this new genre of theory as either charismatic (House, 1977; Conger and Kanungo, 1987), transformational (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985), inspirational (Yukl and Van Fleet, 1982) or visionary (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Sashkin, 1988).

Theoretically, such leaders affect followers in ways that are quantitatively greater than, and qualitatively different from the effects specified in past theories. As of the present datemore that one hundred empirical investigations of this new genre of theory have been conducted. These tests have employed a wide variety of methods and have been based on widely varying samples. With surprising consistency this new genre of leadership theory has been supported. Further, the amount of variance in the dependent variables accounted for has consistently ranged between 12 and 50 percent, frequently in the neighborhood of 25 percent. These effects generally exceed the variance accounted for by earlier theories which was usually 10 percent or less. (See House and Shamir, 1993; Bass and Avolio, 1993; Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996, and House and Aditya, 1997, for reviews of empirical studies).

We refer to this general class of theory as the neocharismatic leadership paradigm. This title is chosen for three reasons. First, this new genre of theory is consistent with the Weberian conceptualization of charisma. Neocharismatic theory asserts that exceptionally effective leaders are visionary, offer innovative solutions to major social problems, stand for nonconservative if not radical change, generally emerge and are more effective under conditions of social stress and crisis, and induce significant social and organizational changes which are based on ideological values. Second, charismatic behavior (visionary, change oriented, nonconservative) is either implicitly or explicitly a central concept in all of the theories of this paradigm. Third, the term charisma has had an enduring and honorable tradition in the sociological literature.

We believe the assertions of the neocharismatic paradigm are compatible with, and complementary to, the Weberian and post-Weberian perspectives of charismatic leadership (Gerth and Mills, 1946; Weber, 1947; Friedland, 1964; Shils, 1965; Eisenstadt, 1968; Dow, 1969; Etzioni, 1961;Willner, 1984; Bendix, 1985; Glassman and Swatos, 1985). We also believe that the various versions of the neocharismatic paradigm and the Weberian and post-Weberian perspectives can be combined to yield a theory capable of explaining the rise and decline, or the routinization of charismatic leadership.

In this paper we advance such a theory. We refer to the theory as the Theory of the Rise and Decline of Charismatic Leadership, or in more abbreviated form, the Rise-Decline Theory of Charisma. This theory includes a description of the social conditions which facilitate the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leaders, the behaviors and personality characteristics that distinguish charismatic leaders from others, their psychological effects on followers, their sociological effects on normative social arrangements of the collectives they lead, and the process of routinization of the charismatic vision and relationship.

The literature on which we draw consists of the most frequently cited, and the most influential writings in the sociological, political science, and psychological literatures. It is our hope that this theory will bring some coherence to these diverse literatures by integrating the Weberian and post-Weberian sociological and the neocharismatic psychological perspectives on charismatic leadership. It is also our hope that this theory will provide some guidance for future research, and that it will stimulate a broader concern with the charismatic leadership phenomenon and its effects. In the following two sections we briefly summarize the sociological (Weberian and post-Weberian) and the social psychological (neocharismatic) perspectives of charismatic leadership. We then advance the Theory of the Rise and Decline of Charismatic Leadership.

THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

For most of the time since Max Weber introduced the concept into modern sociology, students of charisma have considered it within the contexts of political sociology or the sociology of religion. Such a preoccupation is understandable, as charismatic leaders recorded in history have tended to be either political, military, or religious leaders. Accordingly, most of the empirical work conducted by sociologists consists of either case studies or comparative analyses of the times and activities of persons reputed to have been charismatic leaders. (For example, see Willner and Willner, 1984; Apter, 1968; Jones and Asnervits, 1975). As a result of this historical orientation, the major focus has been, and remains, the social contingencies that give rise to charismatic leadership and the process by which a leader's personal charisma is or is not routinized into a legitimate social order (Onnen, 1987; Eisenstadt, 1968; Dow, 1969).

According to the sociological perspective charismatic leadership is born out of social crises. Charismatic leaders emerge under conditions in which potential followers have extraordinary need deprivation due to the existence of the crisis (Weber, 1968; Camic, 1980). Under such conditions potential followers of emergent charismatic leaders suffer either stress, alienation, loss of meaning in life, or feelings of impotence to deal with the crisis they face. Although most scholars agree that crisis facilitates the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leaders there is some controversy as to or not social crisis is a necessary condition for the emergence of charismatic leadership.

According to the Weberian perspective, if an individual emerges who offers a solution to the social crisis faced by potential followers, and if that individual is seen as capable of delivering potential followers from their "extraordinary needs," that deliverance will be attributed to a special gift, perhaps even a gift endowed by divinity. The force of the leader's personality, and the attributions of potential followers result in the emergence of the potential leader as a charismatic leader .

The leader articulates a vision to which followers have a right. The vision is made ideological by asserting that the attainment of the vision isa moral right of the follows. This ideology, reflecting both latent and manifest values of followers, gives meaning to the lives of followers. Charismatic visions embrace end-values such as peace, equality, freedom, honesty, respect, human dignity, human rights, independence from domination, and individual and collective efficacy. Such end-values are self sufficient and cannot be exchanged for pragmatic values such as wealth or economic security. Mullin (1992) states that end-values have a transcendent quality in that they concern that which goes beyond what can be logically explained by self-interest alone. "The follower's response is freely given, not in exchange for any extrinsic return, though intrinsic satisfaction may result" Mullin, 1992, p.5). ".. further, for charismatic followers, expectancies and instrumentalities are operational only when relevant to achievement of the end-value" (p.31). Thus charismatic leaders appeal to followers' manifest and latent end-values, draw and communicate new conclusions concerning the existing nature of the situation, and induce change in situation-specific norms. As a result of the behavior of the charismatic leader, in interaction withsituational social demands, a movement is born.

The movement may endure for as long as the charismatic leader continues to provide leadership and the movement appears to be gaining ground. Upon the demise or departure of the leader the movement may continue or it may disband. If the vision is successfully attained, or if the movement appears to be succeeding, however modestly, and if the leader or the leader's immediate cadre routinize the values inherent in the vision, the movement and the collective will likely endure (Weber, 1947; Trice and Beyer, 1986).

Routinization of charisma involves creation and maintenance of symbols, myths, rites, rituals and ceremonies which reflect the values inherent in the vision. If the mission succeeds, but routinization does not take place then the movement initiated by the leader will not endure, at least not as initially envisioned by the leader and the early joiners. Thus, it is possible for goal displacement to set in, and for the collective, especially if formally organized, to continue in quest of another vision. An example of such displacement is the substitution of the United Appeals goals for the organization which was originally founded to conduct the March of Dimes to assist victims of polio (Sills, 1957).

Note that the sociological perspective says little about the behavior of charismatic leaders, their personality, their interaction with their followers, or their psychological impact on followers. The neocharismatic perspective addresses these concerns.

RECENT ADVANCES IN CHARISMATIC THEORY:

THE NEOCHARISMATIC PERSPECTIVE

In the last two decades there has been an explosion of both theoretical (House, 1977; Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Sashkin, 1988; Bryman, 1992; Shamir, House and Arthur, 1993) and empirical inquiry (Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996; House and Aditya, 1998) into the charismatic leadership phenomena. Psychologically oriented students of leadership have addressed concerns about the personality characteristics, behavior and effects of charismatic leaders. At least 100 empirical studies have been published since about 1980.

This more recent organizational behavior literature offers several complementary extensions of Weberian and post-Weberian theory. First, the nature of the social conditions that induce followers' susceptibility to charismatic influence has been given additional theoretical thought and has been empirically investigated. Consistent with the theoretical positions of Weber and Camic the more recent empirical studies have shown that it is under conditions of stress and uncertainty that charismatic leaders emerge and are most effective (House, Spangler and Woyke, 1991; Pillai and Meindl, 1991; House, Delbecq and Taris, 1998; Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam, 1998).

Second, in agreement with sociological interpretations, the psychologically oriented studies have also demonstrated that charismatic leadership can emerge and be effective in secular organizations - even rather normal business organizations (Howell and Higgins, 1990; Curphy, 1990; Hater and Bass, 1988; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Koene, Pennings and Schreuder, 1993; Koh, Terborg and Steers, 1991; Roberts, 1985; Trice and Beyer, 1986; Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam, 1999),Third, collectively, the more recent empirical investigations suggest that it is the coincidence of an extraordinary personality with extraordinary social conditions that gives rise to that sequence of events, leader behaviors and follower responses which we associate with charismatic leadership (House, Spangler and Woyke, 1991; Pillai and Meindl, 1991; House, Delbecq and Taris, 1998; Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam, 1999).

A recent summary of the empirical evidence has recently been provided by (Fiol, Harris and House, 1999). These authors state

The theories of the neo-charismatic paradigm have been subjected to more than one hundred empirical tests. Collectively, the empirical findings demonstrate with surprising consistency that leaders described as charismatic, transformational, or visionary cause followers to become highly committed to the leaders mission, to make significant personal sacrifices in the interest of the mission, and to perform above and beyond the call of duty. The findings also demonstrate that such leaders have positive effects on their organizations and followers, with effect sizes ranging from .35 to .50 for organizational performance effects, and from .40 to .80 for effects on follower satisfaction and organizational identification and commitment.

A recent meta-analysis by Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam (1996) of 32 correlations between leader charisma as measured by the Bass (1985) Multifaceted Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and independent ratings of leader effectiveness demonstrated a mean corrected correlation of .35. A second meta-analysis by these authors, based on 15 correlations between charisma and subordinates' ratings of their superiors' effectiveness, demonstrated a corrected correlation of .81. Corrected correlations between criterion variables and charisma were higher than corrected correlations between criterion variables and measures of (leader) intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, and management by exception. The effect sizes are usually at the lower ends of these ranges in studies that did not control for environmental effects (Lowe et al., 1996), and at the upper ends of these ranges under conditions of environmental threat, crisis, or uncertainty (House et al., 1991; Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam, 1999).

Such findings have been demonstrated at several levels of analysis, including dyads (Howell and Frost, 1989), small informal groups (Howell and Higgins, 1990; Pillai and Meindl, 1991), formal work units (Curphy, 1992; Hater and Bass, 1988), major sub-units of large complex organizations (Howell and Avolio, 1993; Koene, Pennings and Schreuder, 1993), overall performance of complex organizations (Koh, Terborg and Steers, 1991; Roberts, 1985; Trice and Beyer, 1986; Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam, 1999), and U.S. presidential administrations (House et al, 1991; Simonton, 1987).

The evidence supporting this genre of theory is also derived from a wide variety of samples, including informal leaders of task groups (Howell and Higgins, 1990), military officers (Bass, 1985), educational administrators (Koh, Terborg and Steers, 1991), supervisors (Hater and Bass, 1988), middle managers (Howell and Avolio, 1993), subjects in laboratory experiments (Howell and Frost, 1989), U.S. presidents (House et al., 1991), chief executive officers of Fortune 500 firms (Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam, 1999), high-level executives of large Canadian firms (Javidan and Carl, 1997), Canadian government agencies (Javidan and Carl, 1997), and Egyptian firms (Messallam and House, 1997).

The evidence shows that the effects of charismatic leader behaviors are rather widely generalizable in the United States and that they may well generalize across cultures. For instance, studies based on the MLQ charisma scale (Bass and Avolio, 1989) have demonstrated similar findings in India (Pereira, 1987), Singapore (Koh, Terborg and Steers, 1991), The Netherlands (Koene et al., 1993), China and Japan (Bass, 1997), Germany (Geyer and Steyrer, 1994), and Canada (Javidan and Carl, 1997). Finally, a recent cross-cultural study has shown that the leader behaviors of the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm are universally included as prototypical behaviors of highly effective organizational leaders, having ratings consistently above six on a seven-point scale of attributed effectiveness for all 60 countries studied (House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla et al, 1998).

It should also be added that the methods employed in several of the studies reviewed by Fiol et al. (1999) are different from the methods most frequently used by sociologists in the study of charisma. Many of the more recent studies are based on quantitative data and include longitudinal survey field research (Hater and Bass 1988; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Koene, Pennings, and Schreuder, 1991; Curphy, 1992; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Keller, 1992), controlled laboratory experimentation (Howell and Frost, 1989; Pillai and Meindl, 1991; Kirkpatrick, 1992). While quantitative analysis is the more common among the recent studies there have also been studies based on more traditional sociological methods such as case study (Roberts, 1985; Roberts and Bradley, 1988), participant observation (Roberts, 1985; Trice and Beyer, 1986; Roberts and Bradley, 1988), and archival analyses (House et al., 1991).

In contrast to sociological treatments of charisma, the psychological literature places increased emphasis on the generic behaviors and personality characteristics of charismatic leaders, and sources of stress experienced by followers (House, 1977; House et al., 1991). Despite the differences in focus and methodology, the sociological and psychological approaches do not contradict each other. Rather, they complement one another, being concerned with different aspects of charismatic phenomena. Weber, and those who followed his lead, generally agree that charismatic leaders have distinctive personalities and exhibit characteristic types of behavior. Psychologically oriented students of leadership and organizational behavior would hardly deny that the emergence and rise of charismatic leaders, and the impact they have on their followers and member commitment, also have significant consequences for organizational performance, structure and change. In fact, it is the postulated impact of charismatic leaders on organizational performance that aroused the current interest in charisma as an element of transformational leadership in complex formal organizations (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; 1997).A BRIEF SUMMARY OF NEOCHARISMATIC THEORY

In this section we briefly review that major assertions of the theories of the Neocharismatic Paradigm.

Social Conditions.

Weber (l947) and Camic (1980) argue that charismatic leaders emerge in times of social crisis, when potential followers are under severe stress from perceived threat, oppression, or adverse economic or social conditions. As pointed out by Camic (1980), under such conditions followers experience a significant need deprivation, a loss of subjective meaning in their lives, which they believe they cannot satisfy by themselves. According to neocharismatic theory (House and Shamir, 1993), charismatic leaders offer relief from this need deprivation by interpreting the situation in terms of followers' needs and subjective values, and infusing movements, organizations, or work with meaningfulness and moral purpose for those involved. There is substantial evidence for this theoretical assertion. Studies by Halpin (1954), Mulder and Stemerding (1963), Mulder, Ritsema van Eck, and de Jong (1970); and Sales (1972), House et al. (1991), Roberts (1985), and Pillai and Meindl (1991) have consistently shown that under conditions of threat and stress followers seek and respond positively to individuals who are bold, confident, and appear to have clear solutions to existing social problems. The latter three studies cited deal specifically with the interaction of social stress and charismatic behavior as a predictor of emergence, acceptance, and effectiveness of charismatic leaders.

Shamir, et al. (1993) have extended the theory by more precisely defining the social conditions under which charismatic leaders are likely to emerge and be effective. They are situations in which the conventional calculus of transactional leadership (either bureaucratic or patriarchal) does not apply because they have one or more of the following four characteristics: (i) The situation is perceived to threaten important moral values, (ii) there is an unclear and ambiguous performance-goal accomplishment relationship, (iii) the situation is unstable, and (iv) requires exceptional effort.

Consistent with the second and third conditions specified by Shamir et al. (1993), Waldman et al. (1999) have shown that the effect of charismatic leadership on organizational performance is contingent on whether or not the environment of the organization is perceived as uncertain and unstable. Specifically, they found that in a sample of 48 large Fortune 500 organizations, charismatic leadership measured in 1989 was only weakly predictive of the financial performance of these firms through 1993. However, when the firms were divided into those perceived by the top executives to be in either uncertain or certain environments, it was found that charisma predicted performance only for the firms facing perceived environmental uncertainty.

Generic Charismatic Leader Behaviors.

The theories of the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm have specified a set of leader behaviors thought to be generic to charismatic leadership. The specific leader behaviors consist of articulation of an ideological goal and an implied set of moral values, communication of high performance expectations of followers, demonstration of a high degree of confidence in followers, positive presentation of self to important constituents, engaging in persuasive communication by the use of frame alignment, emphasizing value and collective identification, taking extraordinary risks, and making substantial personal sacrifices in the interest of the charismatic mission (House and Shamir, 1993).

There is substantial evidence that the above theoretical leader behaviors have strong positive effects on followers, organizations, and organizational subunits. These behaviors have been shown to be predictive of follower performance and satisfaction in two laboratory experiments (Howell and Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick, 1992), and in organizational performance in five longitudinal field studies (Keller, 1992; Koene, Pennings, and Schreuder, 1991; Curphy, 1992; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Waldman et al., 1998).

The theoretical charismatic leader behaviors have been shown to be concurrently correlated with various measures of follower satisfaction and trust (Podsakoff et al, 1990; House et. al., 1991; Koh, Terborg and Steers, 1991; Smith, 1992), organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff, et al, 1990), judgements of CEO effectiveness (Klemp and McCllelland, 1986; House et al., 1991; House, Delbecq and Taris, 1998), effectiveness of military combat and noncombat infantry squadrons Yukl and Van Fleet (1982), attributions of U.S. presidential greatness by present day political scientists (House, Woycke, and Fodor, 1988), and objective measures of U.S. presidential effectiveness (House et al., 1991).

Personality Characteristics

Recent psychologically oriented theory specifies a set of personality characteristics that differentiate charismatic leaders from other leaders. According to current psychological theory (House and Shamir, 1993), charismatic leaders are distinguished from others by possessing an unusual capacity to experience passion, extraordinary self confidence, persistence, determination, and optimism. These personality characteristics are theoretically required of charismatic leaders because the visions which they articulate call for significant, if not radical, change in the status quo. Elite members of the established social order possess substantial power to suppress and punish those who challenge the status quo. Thus the above leader personality characteristics are necessary to sustain charismatic leadership in the face of opposition, and possible persecution and severe hardship. Studies by Smith (1982), House et al. (1991), Howell and Higgins (1990) support this theoretical position.Motives

Of particular interest is McClelland's Leader Motive Profile Theory (McClelland, 1985). The combination of high unconscious needs for power (social influence), low need for affiliation, and high concern for the moral use of power (impulse control) is referred to by McClelland as the Leader Motive Profile (LMP). LMP theory asserts that this profile differentiates highly effective leaders from others. Following is the underlying rationale for this assertion. The first of these motives, high need for social influence is theoretically required for outstanding leadership because such leadership requires that the leader be willing to exercise influence and persistence in the face of opposition, and because outstanding leaders usually take upon themselves personal responsibility for accomplishment of difficult objectives. Satisfaction derived from the assertion of social influence theoretically reinforces and therefore sustains leaders in the face of obstacles, hardship, and opposition.

The second motive specified by LMP theory, a low need for affiliation, theoretically allows leaders to remain socially distant and emotionally unattached to their followers. Having a high need for affiliation motivates individuals to form intimate relationships with subordinates and thus results in less monitoring of behavior, hesitancy to use discipline when necessary, and delegation of authority and administration of rewards on the basis of favoritism rather than objective performance. The dysfunctions of highly affiliative relationships between leader and followers is illustrated in President Harding's statement "It's not my enemies who cause me problems it's my goddam friends (whom he placed in high office) I can't control." The third motive of the leader motive profile, a strong concern for the moral use of power, is theoretically a substantial asset to leaders because this concern is reflected in altruist behavior, personally disciplined self control, and a strong collective, as opposed to self aggrandizing, orientation (McClelland, 1985).

There is a small body of empirical literature relevant to LMP Theory. In a longitudinal study of naval officers Winter (1978) found the leader motive profile was predictive of long term success in administrative, nontechnical positions. McClelland and Boyatzis (1982) replicated Winter's findings with predictions of success of managers sixteen years after entry level manager motives were measured.. McClelland and Burnham (1976) found that managers of sales units in a large firm who had leader motive profiles had significantly more satisfied employees. Further, their employees reported that their organizational units had more supportive, risk oriented, and motivational climates than units managed by managers who did not have the leader motive profile.

While the leaders studied by these investigators were not all operationally defined as charismatic, they clearly have some claim to unusual effectiveness, thus suggesting that the personality characteristics that differentiate them from others may also differentiate charismatic from noncharismatic leaders. This is precisely what was found by House et al. (1991) and Spangler and House (1991). The former investigators found that the leader motive profiles of chief executives were associated with CEO charismatic behaviors and followers satisfaction, motivation, organizational commitment, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness. The latter investigators found that the leader motive profiles of chief executives, measured at the time of inaugeration, were predictive of U.S. presidential charisma and objective measure of presidential effectiveness throughout their first term. Second terms were not studied.

Leader Effects

The effects of charismatic leaders can be parsimoniously classified into three categories. First, Camic (1980) argued that charismatic leaders relieve followers from subjective experiences of stress and alienation. Second, Bass (1985), Bennis and Nanus (1985), Tichy and Devana (1986), and Sashkin (1988) assert that such leaders have a positive transforming effect on the organizations that they lead as well as on their followers. More specifically, charismatic leaders are claimed to transform the strategies, the structural form, the practices, and the culture of organizations to fit the demands of their environments and to better achieve organizational goals. Third, House (1977), Burns (1978), and Bass (1985) proposed that such leaders motivate followers to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the team, the organization or the larger collectivity. Fourth, Burns (1978) claimed that such leaders raise followers to higher levels of morality, to "more principled levels of judgement" (p. 455).

There is substantial evidence that charismatic leaders do indeed have the first three effects. Longitudinal research by Bass and his associates demonstrate that charismatic leader behavior is predictive of subsequent economic performance of supermarkets (Koene, Pennings, and Schreuder, 1991), autonomous work units in an insurance company (Howell and Avolio, 1993), cost and schedule performance of research and development departments (Keller, 1992), and measures of military squadron performance and military cadet academic performance (Curphy, 1992).

Various measures of charismatic leader behaviors are also concurrently associated with positive ratings of school climate and aggregate academic performance of students (Koh, Steers, and Terborg, 1991), team performance (Bass, Avolio, Waldman and Einstein, 1988), and high levels of effort, effectiveness, and satisfaction of followers (Curphy, 1992), political scientists ratings of U.S. presidential greatness and charisma (House, Woycke, and Fodor, 1988), and objective measures of U.S. presidential performance (House et al., 1991). Thus the first three postulated effects of charismatic leaders are rather well established. Whether such leaders raise followers to higher levels of morality, and to "more principled levels of judgement" remains to be investigated.

Motivational Processes

Extant theories of charismatic leadership are either silent with respect to the motivational processes by which leaders affect follower motivation, or they rest on individualistic and hedonistic theories of motivation. Therefore they cannot account for self-sacrificial and collectively oriented follower behavior. In this section we describe motivational processes which we believe address these deficiencies in current theory (Shamirs, House and Arrthur, 1993).

According to Shamir et al. (1993) and House and Shamir (1993) the leader behaviors specified above, when performed consistently and authentically by leaders, theoretically activate seven core motivational processes on the part of followers: (I) Instilling faith in a better future which is assumed to be a motivational and satisfying condition by articulating a highly valued vision of the future and expressing confidence in the attainment of the vision, (ii) Increasing the intrinsic valence (attraction) of effort by emphasizing the symbolic and expressive aspects of the effort. (iii) increasing effort-accomplishment expectancies by enhancing followers specific task related self efficacy and collective efficacy perceptions. This is accomplished by expressing high performance expectations of followers and confidence in their ability to meet such expectations. (iv) increasing followors more general sense of self esteem and self worth. by emphasizing linkages between efforts and important values held by followers, ( (v) increasing the intrinsic valence of goal accomplishment by linking goals to an ideological vision which appeal to followers, (vi) creating internalized personal commitment by causing followers to identify with the vision and the collective. This is accomplished by articulation of a value laden vision, and by setting personal examples of the values inherent in the vision. In so doing charismatic leaders increase the salience of the values and the collective, and thus encourage internalization of the values and identification with, and commitment to, the collective, (vii) arousing motives relevant to the persuit of the vision. Under conditions of motive arousal individuals pursue goals more vigorously, increasingly employ self regulatory behavior such as goal setting, calculation of risks, and use of feedback and self corrective behavior (Atkinson and McClelland, 1948). Such behavior has been shown to facilitate goal accomplishment (Bandura, 1986).

In summary, neocharismatic perspective specifies the social conditions under which charismatic leaders emerge and are effective, the personality characteristics and behaviors of charismatic leaders, the kind of effects charismatic leaders have on others, and the motivational processes by which charismatic leader behavior affects individual and collective behavior. Thus, as we show below, the neocharismatic perspective provides essential theoretical linkages implicated in the charismatic process that were previously lacking.

CONCLUSION: EXTANT THEORY AND EVIDENCE

The available empirical evidence supports earlier arguments that charismatic leaders can and do emerge in organizational settings as well as in more macro settings such as religious and political movements. Available evidence also supports the Weberian argument that charismatic leadership emergence and its effectiveness is facilitated by crises and threat experienced by potential followers. Finally, the empirical evidence provides support for the more recently developed neocharismatic theories relevant to leadership of complex formal organizations.

Clearly, however, neither approach covers the phenomenon in its entirety, and the situation calls for a conceptual integration. The time seems ripe to work toward the development of one comprehensive theory to explicate not only the dynamics whereby a charismatic leader arouses people and inspires them to special efforts and sacrifices, but also the feedback processes between charismatic leader behavior, follower reactions, and the surrounding social structure. By integrating macro-sociological scholarship with micro-psychological research findings we should be able to explain the entire phenomenon more satisfactorily than heretofore. The following section presents our attempt at such an integration.

THE RISE AND DECLINE OF CHARISMATIC LEADERS: THE GENRIC PROCESS

In this section we advance a theory that specifies the generic processes by which charismatic leaders and movements emerge, become institutionalized and thereby stabilized, or decline. A summary of the theoretical argument, as we have teased it out of the literature, is shown graphically in Figure 1.

(Figure 1 about here)

Weber (1968:1111) made the point that a charismatic leader is likely to appear when social conditions are out of the ordinary. As described above, more recently, Shamir et al. (1993) have specified more precisely the conditions that are conducive to the emergence of charismatic leadership. Although Shamir et al. do not say so explicitly, we may take it that the more of these characteristics that are present in a situation, the more conducive will that situation be to charismatic leadership.

The presence of these situational characteristics, however, is no guarantee that a charismatic leader will appear. Many social situations seem to cry out for a charismatic leader (Bendix, 1985), but of course such leaders do not appear on demand. Conversely, it is possible that charismatic leaders may emerge in situations which show few or none of these characteristics. Such leaders typically articulate moral, ideological, or other value implications of a situation for a particular constituency, thereby making the socially constructed reality of that constituency conducive to their charisma. Thus, while the objective characteristics of situational conduciveness may make the emergence of charismatic leadership more likely, it is also possible that charismatic leaders create conditions conducive to their emergence by articulating a vision and values which appeal to the subjective meaning of potential followers, and making deficiencies in the current situation salient to followers. It therefore remains an empirical question as to whether or not objectively stressful social conditions are a necessary condition for the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leaders.

A charismatic personality, on the other hand, is of course a necessary condition. The studies reviewed above show that the typical personality profile of charismatic leaders has high scores on self-confidence and power motivation, and low scores on affiliation motivation, with affiliation motivation scores lower than power motivation scores (McClelland and Burnham, 1976; McClelland and Boyatzis, 1982; McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1991; House et al. 1991).

When these situational, personality and behavioral conditions coincide (by the nature of things, a contingency with low probability), it marks the beginning of that social interaction process between leader, followers and the social structure, which we call charismatic leadership. We envisage this process as having six phases. In broad outline, it follows a pattern not unlike Smelser's (1963) process of collective behavior, which is not surprising, since collective behavior and social movements frequently follow charismatic leaders. The following theory is illustrated in Figure 1.

Phase I. Identification. A person with charismatic motivational dispositions, self-confidence and communication skills perceives a situation as conducive to radical change, i.e., value-laden, ambiguous, unstable and requiring extraordinary efforts. Ascent to leadership begins by articulating a vision of change and by displaying strong self-confidence, confidence in the attainment of the vision, confidence in followers, and selfless commitment. These behaviors arouse the motives and engage the self concepts of members of a constituency thus causing them to want to be involved in realizing that change. The vision articulated by the potential leader is one of a better future, to which followers have a moral right. The fact that the vision is cast in terms of a moral right of followers makes in an ideological, as opposed to an instrumental or pragmatic vision. Such a vision, when publicly articulated usually entails considerable personal risk to the leader, and therefore communicates, non-verbally, willingness to sacrifice self interests in the interest of the collectivity to whom the leader appeals.

If there are others who perceive the situation as requiring radical change, the leader's task is made easier. In this case the subjective meaning of the situation is shared by the emergent leader and the prospective followers. If others do not perceive the situation as requiring radical change the leader begins by stressing the ideological or moral implications of the situation and the envisioned change, and by persuading prospective followers that they have a moral right to the attainment of the values articulated by the leader.

In either case, the vision embodies important basic values which the leader shares with a constituency of potential followers. These shared values lead members of the constituency to identify with the vision and recognize this person as leader. By this process, people who may have accepted the prior situation in powerless resignation, are transformed into followers who identify with a leader and the vision. Moreover, these early identifiers will eventually have a contagion effect (Meindl, 1990) on others who still accept the old situation. This creates positive feedback, so that, over time, there is an exponential growth of followers who become aware of the situation and its alternative, identify with the leader and the vision of change. At this stage, however, the followers merely recognize the leader and subscribe to the vision, while remaining largely passive.

Phase II. Activity Arousal. Many insightful and articulate leaders may make people aware of a need or an opportunity for change. A charismatic leader does not stop there, but challenges the hitherto passive followers to bring about the change by their own exertions, and expresses strong and unusual confidence in their ability to do so (House, 1977; Bass, 1985). Expressions of high performance expectations coupled with strong confidence in followers' ability and willingness to meet such expectations induces a self fulfilling prophecy which motivates followers to meet challenges and attain objectives which they never believed they could achieve. Thus followers are aroused from mere identification with a vision of change to its active pursuit. Again, there is positive feedback because, as increasing numbers of followers are aroused to activity, the leader will be reinforced to urge them on. The rate of arousal, however, is not likely to be as fast or as intensive as the rate of identification, because there are always some people who will prefer to remain on the sidelines and not become actively involved. Consequently, the positive feedback loop connecting the self fulfilling prophecy and the actual attainment of objectives will be lagged.

Phase III. Commitment. While some other leaders can arouse people to activity and participation, charismatic leaders take the further step of personal role-modeling by making public demonstrations of dedication to the cause. As the demonstrations of dedication typically involve significant personal sacrifice, the leader is seen as courageously representing the rightful interests of the collectivity. By such demonstration of dedication, which we refer to as role modeling, followers become spurred on to commit themselves as well. Thus the leader's role modeling, together with articulation of a vision, high performance expectations, and confidence motivates followers to transcend their self-interests, and to derive intrinsic satisfaction and autonomous reinforcement in their commitment to the common cause. This commitment results in strong identification with the leader's vision and the collective, and transforms active followers into a dedicated elite whose performance rises beyond expectations from normal transactional rewards.

At this point in time charismatic leadership has reached its peak. There is a sizable body of followers who identify with the articulated vision; some of these followers have been aroused to active participation, and a select elite finds self-fulfillment in dedicated commitment to both leader and cause. The leader's vision and exemplary behavior, together with the joint activities of the newly committed followers form a collective identity, which reduces the instability and ambiguity that characterized the situation before the charismatic leader appeared. What happens subsequently depends again on the two factors on which the emergence of charismatic leadership is predicated: the leader's personality and the social situation.

Taking the personality factor first, the manner in which the leader employs his/her charisma depends on whether leader's power motivation is primarily socialized or personalized (McClelland, 1975;1985). Personalized leaders have strong tendencies to be authoritarian, exploitive of others, oriented toward win-lose problem solving and conflict resolution, and highly self aggrandizing. If the leader's power motivation is dominantly personalized, his or her behavior is channeled towards self-aggrandizement and personal glory (McClelland, 1976; 1985). In contrast, socialized leaders have strong tendencies to be egalitarian, nonexploitive, oriented toward win-win problem solving and conflict resolution, and altruistic. If the leaders motivation is primarily socialized her or his behavior is focused not on the self aggrandizement but on the vision of change and the interests of the collective (Durkheim, 1925).1

The personalized-socialized dimension of the leader's motivation and

behavior affects the chances for routinization. As the followers' collective identity takes shape, as organizational performance and morale improve due to their autonomous reinforcement, and as the change becomes more widely accepted, the very success has a "metamorphic effect" (Kipnis, 1976:168ff.) on the behavior of personalized charismatic leaders, causing them to have illusions of grandeur and to view followers as less competent and worthy. A personalized charismatic leader will strive to keep most of the power and credit for the change vested in his/her own person. Such leaders will "waste" no more time and effort in acts of dedication and self-sacrifice, but rather devote their efforts to image-building, public appearances, giving orders, and making decisions for the collectivity. Being preoccupied with self aggrandizement the leader will invest little time in the development of a potential successor and will share little power with immediate followers. Consequently the leadership functions of the movement will remain centralized and dependent on the presence of the leader. This leadership style reduces the likelihood of successful routinization of the charismatic vision and its values (Trice and Beyer, 1986), making the appearance of the leader and the vision a transitory episode. In addition, the decline in committed role-modeling is bound to be observed by the followers, - passive, active and committed, so that some of them will become disillusioned and defect. Thus the situation will descend from the enthusiastic heights of commitment and dedication that marked the charismatic leader's appearance and rise to power and return to its earlier level of performance. As a result, personalized charismatic leaders are likely to resort to coercive means to maintain follower compliance.

A leader with socialized power motivation, on the other hand, though also susceptible to the metamorphic effect of having power (Kipnis, 1976), will from the outset share power and responsibility with others. The leader organizes the followers and prepares for the perpetuation of the movement as the number of committed followers increases. By establishing rituals, ceremonies, and symbols of the vision and mission, and even possibly a cadre of potential successors, the leader paves the way for routinization of the charismatic vision. Consequently, any decrease in role modeling behavior will have less serious consequences for the cause. Some of the dedicated elite may also possess charismatic leadership attributes, but with charisma or without it, they will assume leadership positions and concern themselves with routinizing the change.

Whether or not the efforts at routinization will make the change part of the legitimate social structure depends on the social situation. More specifically, the effects of routinization efforts will depend on the consonance of the vision's content with the existing power structure (Glassman, 1985; Mintzberg, 1983). If the envisioned change clashes with the values of existing power structure, current power holders will hardly sit by and permit the vision to become reality. These power holders may be overcome, co-opted (Selznick, 1949), or neutralized by one means or another, provided there is sufficient popular support for the change. In that case the change becomes routinized by social coercion, as it were. If popular support cannot match the entrenched power structure, the leader may have to become resigned to seeing the vision thwarted. On the other hand, if the resultant popular support is stronger than the existing power structure, it is likely to be accepted, mutatis mutandis, by current power holders and become routinized as part of the existing social structure.

Phase IV. Disenchantment. If the vision is reasonably consonant with current power structures, the improved performance due to intrinsically motivated autonomous reinforcement and a dedicated management will bring a measure of regularity to the change. Even without improved performance or support from the current power structures, if the leader mobilizes sufficient support to overcome, co-opt, or eliminate current power holders, the new order can be established. In either case, the transformation is routinized. With routinization, the charisma is transferred from the leader's person to an office, in the form of formal policy, rules and procedures and symbols, rituals and ceremonies. This may be quite intentional, as charismatic leaders know that even they are not immortal. But those of the committed followers who have not become leaders themselves will be affected as well, because routinization will reduce them from a select corps d'elite to mere participants in routine activities (Selznick, 1949). In this phase, therefore, some of the dedicated followers can be expected to become disenchanted and either curtail their activity or defect altogether. Such an effect, though probably not intended, is the unavoidable price of routinization.

Phase V. Depersonalization. Since fewer followers are now autonomously reinforced, the leadership can no longer rely solely on this kind of reward to motivate performance. To assure adequate performance nonetheless, the leader or the immediate followers begin to formally define and control followers' tasks and their contingent rewards. In a word, there is a gradual process of bureaucratization, with all the impersonality and job standardization that such a process entails. Some of the active participants are likely to resent such regimentation, and as a result cease to be active participants, contenting themselves with passive identification with the cause. This process we shall call, after Merton (1957), the depersonalization of the cause.

Phase VI. Alienation. With bureaucratization, at least part of the effort that had been previously invested in advancing the cause must now be spent on maintaining the organization as a going concern. Thus role incumbents increasingly devote their time to immediate organizational needs, for example the development of an administrative infrastructure, the procurement and allocation of resources, supervision, control, issuing directives and writing reports (Merton, 1957). For those who had identified with the original vision of change, such preoccupations, necessary though they are, are bound to result in a perceived displacement of the original goals as they had been set forth in the leader's vision. Followers begin to doubt whether the organization is still pursuing these goals and whether, indeed, there is still justification for its existence (Jacobs, 1987). Thus the ambiguity and instability which characterized the situation initially will re-surface in a different guise. This will bring about alienation of followers from the organization, if not indeed from the vision itself (Fromm, 1968), so that they will come to accept the new situation much as they had accepted the old one: not because they endorse it enthusiastically, but because they have lost hope of seeing the vision realized as they had once imagined it would be. Thus the process has run full circle: the number of followers has declined, the enthusiasm diminishes, and the charisma of the leader and the mission falters.

This process, like any other, takes place over time. The phases which we have outlined indicate the sequence of events within the process. But the length of the various phases as well as the total duration are governed by the dynamics created by multiple feedback loops that can accelerate the process at various points, and retard it at others. In each particular case of charismatic leadership, the initial situation as well as the intensity and type of the leader's charisma will determine how long it takes for the process to evolve, and whether indeed the charismatic vision ever becomes routinized.

CONCLUSION: THE RISE-DECLINE THEORY

The intellectual process that characterized the development of charismatic leadership theory has come full circle. Weber introduced the notion of charisma into modern sociology in order to explain how radical social innovations can become legitimized. Neither traditional nor rational-legal bases of authority can legitimize radical changes because, by definition, both depend on established precedent. The legitimacy attributed to a charismatic leader filled that gap in Weber's theoretical scheme (Bendix, 1960:273-293). However, recognizing that charismatic leadership, emanating as it does from a specific mortal person, must be inherently unstable, Weber reasoned that it must become routinized in either a traditional or a bureaucratic social order to endow the change with stability and longevity.

Much of the sociological literature on charisma since Weber has documented and analyzed the routinization of radical changes brought about by charismatic. Then, particularly in the last two decades, students of organizational behavior and management began to look at charisma as an element of transformational leadership, realizing that formal organizations in the modern world must be able to introduce and legitimize social innovations in order to survive. This led investigators to search for characteristic traits and behaviors of charismatic leaders, and the effects of such leadership. It was found that such effects frequently included rather powerful effects on follower affective states as well as improved organizational performance, "beyond expectations" from regular transactional leadership. A charismatic leader, thus it was argued, will endeavor to incorporate this potential for superior performance into the organization's management procedures, in a word, routinize the charisma. In this manner the legitimacy of desired radical organizational changes would no longer need to depend on the unpredictable qualities of individual charismatic leaders, but rather on legal-rational precedent.

The argument has thus returned to the point at which Weber introduced the concept. However, the psychological literature on charisma is incomplete in two vital respects. It deals neither with the structural conditions that affect the chances of routinization, nor with the effects of routinization, if it occurs, on the organization's subsequent functioning. The sociological literature is also incomplete, having attended little to the specific and critical personality characteristics, behaviors, and motivational effects of charismatic leaders.

The theory advancedabove is intended to fill these gaps. It explains not only the rise and decline of charismatic leaders, but also the conditions that result in the routinization of the charismatic movement. Further, the theory is consistent with the considerable empirical evidence that has been produced by scholars of both persuasions, and helps to organize this literature in an integrated and coherent whole. Finally, the theoretical assertions presented here are sufficiently specific that they can be tested by either longitudinal participation observation as illustrated by the work of Trice and Beyer (1986), longitudinal survey research as illustrated by Koene et al. (1991) and Curphy (1992), Howell and Avolio (1993), controlled experimentation as evidenced by the work of Howell and Frost (1989) and Pillai and Meindl (1991), or by analysis of archival data as illustrated by House et. al. (1991), Alternatively, as we demonstrate in the following section, the theory can be tested by comparison of empirical data with predictions derived from a simulation model of the theory. We offer te above theoretical synthesis of the two literatures as a conceptual bridge, making for a more comprehensive and dynamic theory of charismatic leadership. In the following section we present the simulation model and report tests of the theory based on sixteen data sets.

A SIMULATION MODEL

We have applied the research strategy proposed by Jacobsen, Bronson, and Vekstein (1990) to test this theory. By that strategy, we construct a computer model to simulate the theorized process over time. The variables in the model are defined to match the theory's concepts, and the mathematical functions which link the variables are specified to reproduce the theoretical argument. These functions are then adjusted until the model produces outcomes postulated by the theory. In other words, the functions are constructed so as to make the model congruent with the theory, both in its structure as well as in its behavior. Thus the model is not a test, but only a mathematical representation of the theory. Like any other model, so this one too simplifies a complex reality, the "reality" in this case being the theoretical argument that seeks to account for the rise and decline of charismatic leadership.

Once it is constructed, however, the model can be used to test the theory by comparing empirical time series relevant to specific charismatic leaders with the simulated output. If the model can replicate the empirical data trends from its internal dynamics, it is evidence that the theory provides an adequate explanation of the process. The more time series and the more of the data variance that the model can reproduce, the greater will be our confidence in the theory's empirical adequacy. Conversely, if the model fails to reproduce the data, then the theory either needs revision or must rejected altogether.

The modeling technique we use is known as System Dynamics, originally developed by Forrester (1961) to analyze complex organizations and provide a basis for better policy decisions. Having been designed especially for modeling continuous processes in social systems, it is particularly suited to our purpose. We have already used it successfully to model and test another social theory, that of patterned deviance (Jacobsen and Bronson 1995), so that we are confident of being able to test the theory of charismatic leadership by the same strategy.

It is worth noting that, in a systems approach such as this, every variable is simultaneously independent, dependent and intervening. The only really independent variables are the ones exogenous to the system (underlined). A complete overview of all variables and functional relationships is shown in Figure 2.

(Figure 2 about here)

In this section we present 16 data sets relevant to six leaders we have investigated so far: John F. Kennedy, Theodor Herzl, Orde Wingate, Lee Iaccoca, Adolf Hitler and Mary Baker Eddy.

As a preliminary step, we draw a "causal loop" diagram (see Figure 1 on p.21) to describe the feedbacks between the concepts which, according to the theory, account for the trends over time. There are two major feedback loops. The first loop presented on the right side of Figure 1 starts with the social structure's conduciveness to a charismatic change and the leader's articulation of a vision. This leads to increase in follower identification with the vision, and from there to arousal of active followers and commitment of an elite. The followers reinforce the leader's behavior by secondary positive feedbacks, and together they develop a collective identity which reduces the conduciveness of the situation. These are what may be called short-term effects.

In the second feedback loop presented on the left side of Figure 1, the aroused followers and committed elite derive autonomous reinforcement from their activities for the cause, and thereby improve the collectivity's performance beyond expectations. The improved performance, provided it is consonant with the current power structure, will lead to routinization. Routinization will lead to alienation and disenchantment of some of the committed elite. Improved performance also has a metamorphic effect on leaders (Kipnis 1981), influencing them to devaluate the followers' efforts. As a result identification and commitment will decline and reduce the committed elite even further. The disenchantment of some followers leads to bureaucratization and depersonalization of active followers, giving rise eventually to perceptions of goal displacement and alienation even by those who had only passively identified with the vision and the leader.

The outcome of charismatic leadership, then, depends on the balance of these two feedback loops and their respective speeds. These, in turn, depend (a) on the consonance of the change with existing power structures, and (b) on the leader's susceptibility to the metamorphic effect (Howell 1988), and (c) the length of time the leader's influence is sustained, i.e., the span of the leader's charismatic thrall.

With low consonance, there is less chance for the change to become routinized so that conduciveness will remain fairly high. High consonance, on the other hand, will improve the chances for routinization and thereby reduce conduciveness. In the long run, however, routinization increases alienation which makes the situation conducive again.

Concurrently with this, however, the metamorphic effect of improved performance reduces the leader's continued charismatic behaviors which we refer to as role modeling (to a greater or lesser extent depending on the leader's personality) and thus reduces commitment and eventually affects the chances for routinization and all that follows from it.

The duration of the effects of both feedback loops is limited by the gradual fading of every leader's charisma. The thrall of the leader's charisma may be shortlived or it may extend even beyond the leader's physical death, but in the end it too must fade away and remain a memory.

The Formal Model. To formulate these processes mathematically as a model, each theoretical concept was quantified as a variable with a realistic metric. For example, "bureaucratization" was quantified as the percent of the active and committed followers whose activities are being regulated by formal rules. The theoretical concept is thus transformed into a numerical variable with a finite range, corresponding to a measurable entity in the real world (Jacobsen and Bronson 1987). All the other theoretical concepts were quantified in a similar manner. (For the complete and documented code, see Appendix 2.)

Once all the concepts had been quantified as variables, the postulated change in each variable was defined as a mathematical function of the variable(s) immediately preceding it in the causal chain. To return to our example, the theory posits that bureaucratization (BUREAU) will vary directly with the effect of routinization (ROUTINE) on the active followers. Therefore the equation defining bureaucratization is:

BUREAU = ((ACTIVE + ELITE) * ROUTINE) + STAFF (1) where ACTIVE = percent aroused followers;

ELITE = percent committed elite;

ROUTINE = percent activities that are routine;

and STAFF = the initial pct. of salaried staff (constant).

To start the simulation, the model has to be supplied with parameters which reflect the initial situation for each test case. Obviously, the social situation which faced J. F. Kennedy in 1961 differed from the one that faced Adolf Hitler in 1919. Ideally, the values of these parameters should be empirical data, but usually at least some of them have to be estimates. Such estimates must be based on at least documentary evidence, and they must be logically consistent and reasonable (Jacobsen and Bronson 1995). The initial parameters for each case (see: Appendix 1, Table 1 (all tables are presented in this appendix)) were independently estimated by the authors on the basis of the literature (see below), with a mean divergence of 5.33 percentage points. The estimates we actually used were the ones that gave the better trend reproduction.2 Once the model had been initialized, for each case, all subsequent values during the simulated runs are results from the permanently fixed internal dynamics of the model.

The simulation model is tested by assessing the degre to which the model can reproduce the empirical data. Prior to testing the model it is also necessary to further refine it based on a limited set of empirical data. This step is similar to the use of a developmental sample by psychologists to establish test score cutoff points. The cutoff scores are then used to predict behavior based on the test scores of subjects. In the case of a simulation model, once it is refined with a limited set of empirical data no further changes are made to it. The refinement is analogous to the extablishment of cutoff scores based on the psychologists developmental sample. The model is then fit to the empirical data to determine the amount of variance reproduced by the model. This constitutes the empirical tests of the model, and by inference, an assessment of the validity of the theory on which it is based. In the present research we used three sets of data relevant to John F. Kennedy to refine the simulation model. Subsequently the refined model was used without change to reporduce trends in thirteen data sets relevent to five additional charismatic leaders.

Since the theory is about the emergence, rise, and eventual decline of charismatic leaders, and not about whether a given leader has charisma or not, the tests deal only with leaders whose personality and behavior fitted our definition of charisma. In every case, the biographers either specifically attributed charisma to those persons, or described them as leaders who

rather consistently had engaged in the charismatic behaviors specified above, irrespective of the effectiveness or success of their mission. Thus we tested the model on leaders who were clearly charismatic, besides being individuals for whom adequate data are available.

JOHN F. KENNEDY AND THE PEACE CORPS

Senator Kennedy probably had some vision of change for the United States long before he made his presidential campaign pledge to "get this country moving again." But the enthusiastic response he received from 10,000 students in Ann Arbor on the night of October 14, 1961 (just a month before voting day) identified a specific constituency for the vision of the Peace Corps: young, middle class college students, hungry for a practical challenge to match their radical ideological values. This felt hunger made them receptive to Kennedy's message, so eloquently stated in the inaugural address: "... ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." The Peace Corps, in fact, was "the part of the aid effort which best expressed the spirit of the New Frontier" (Schlesinger 1965, p.557).

The first contingent of Peace Corps volunteers, trained and ready to leave for overseas, met with JFK at the White House eight months later. They clearly regarded him not merely as their elected President, but personally identified with him and his vision (Wofford 1980, p.249 ff.). Clear also was Kennedy's awareness of their commitment when he told them that they were "the most palpable response that the country has seen to the whole spirit which I tried to suggest in my inaugural (Rice 1985, p.303)." In terms of our theory, therefore, JFK was a charismatic leader (for a dissenting view, see: Willner 1984, p.39). He had articulated a vision of change that had brought a constituency to identify itself as his followers; he had aroused many of them to want to participate actively in realizing this vision; and he had inspired an elite of Peace Corps Voluteers to personal commitment.

JFK's subsequent actions and pronouncements showed that his charisma was not of the personalized kind. It enthused the first Peace Corps director, Sargent Shriver, no less than the rank and file. To him he delegated extensive powers, authorizing the budding organization's independence from the entrenched Washington bureaucracy. As for routinization of the change, Rice (1985, p.ix) calls the Peace Corps JFK's "most affirmative and enduring legacy," and the evidence supports such an assessment. In 1986, the 25th anniversary of the Peace Corps was celebrated in Washington with over 6000 former and current volunteers attending (U.S. General Accounting Office 1989). On the other hand, there is also some evidence that disenchantment, depersonalization, goal displacement and even alienation were felt by at least some of the volunteers (Cowan 1970). We feel justified, therefore, in taking the Peace Corps as an example of JFK's charismatic leadership, in its effects on individuals as well as on the structure of the organization.

Data and Simulations. Data relevant to J.F.Kennedy are presented in Table 2 and Figure 3. The Annual Reports of the Peace Corps give the number of applications received each year from 1961 through 1987. On the basis of U.S. Census figures, we converted these into yearly percentages of the relevant population, namely college graduates of that year. This series (JFK1 in Table 2) corresponds to the model variable AROUSE. The same source also gives the annual number of volunteers and trainees who were accepted, trained and sent overseas. These, similarly converted into yearly population percentages (JFK2), represent the rate of commitment to the cause (COMMIT).

The U.S. Annual Budget for the years 1963-1988 shows the number of permanent employees currently in the Peace Corps. The ratio of this staff to the number of volunteers (JFK3) gives a reasonable indicator of bureaucratization (BUREAU). Finally, the Peace Corps also publishes the annual number of volunteers who terminated their commitment before the end of the normal two-year tour of duty. This series (JFK4) gives an indirect indication of disenchantment for this period (DISENCH).

The model was initialized to reflect JFK's charismatic personality and behavior in the social situation of 1961, the year he took office. Some of these constants are empirical data or computed measures from such data (e.g., for STAFF). For the rest we had to make reasonable estimates, based on the evidence found in the literature. Thus the estimate of 75% for VISION is based on the response JFK got from college students at Ann Arbor. Very few of them, however, realized at the time the difficulties of their chosen mission, which justifies the low estimate (20%) of initial conduciveness (INCOND). (The variable in Figure 2 and also in the simulated period is CONDUCE (conduciveness). INCOND is the initial value of CONDUCE). The first column of Table 1 summarizes the initial values we used.

The fit between the model variables and data is shown in the plotted graphs (Fig.3). It is also measured by the heuristic Trend Index (TI), which is the percentage of data variance reproduced by the corresponding model variable (see: Theil 1966, p.59). JFK1, the annual population percentage of applicants to the Peace Corps, had a TI of 86.5% with the variable AROUSE. For JFK2, the annual population percentage of trainees sent abroad, TI was 85.7% with the model variable COMMIT. JFK3, the annual percentage of salaried employees in the Peace Corps, gave a TI of only 62.3% with BUREAU but, considering that there are two inflections in the data curve, the plotted graphs (see Figure 3d) show a quite good fit. JFK4, the annual percentage of early terminations, had a TI of 81.9% with the variable DISENCH. In all, the model output shows consistent fit with the four data sets.

(Figure 3, JFK, about here)

THEODOR HERZL AND THE WORLD ZIONIST ORGANIZATION

Ever since the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the subsequent dispersion of the Jewish people, Jews have prayed for a return to Zion. Many individuals have actually done so over the years, but only toward the end of the 19th century did the idea of political organization for a mass return take hold. The founder of this organization was Theodor Herzl, a foreign correspondent for the Viennese daily Neue Freie Presse, stationed in Paris. In 1897 he called the World Zionist Organization into being by convening the first Zionist Congress in Basle with 196 delegates from the world over. Ever since then the Zionist Congress has met regularly, at first each year, and then bi-annually except for the periods of the two World Wars.

There had been others who had thought and written on similar lines before him, but Herzl is generally regarded as the creator of organized political Zionism and as the prophet who forsaw the foundation of the State of Israel. Coming from an assimilated upper middle class Viennese family, his Jewish identity was awakened in 1896 by the virulent anti-semitism evident in the Dreyfuss affair. Writing under the spell of that trauma he articulated his vision in a tract Der Judenstaat, a Jewish State that was to be legally guaranteed by international treaties. Not all Jews agreed with Herzl at the time, and in some circles he was held as little more than yet another crackpot or worse. But his vision and fire did rekindle the hopes of many, especially in the small impoverished shtetls of eastern Europe, who saw in him the long-awaited Messiah. Eyewitnesses and biographers have testified to the extraordinary personal charisma of the man (Elon 1975, p.242). He is reported to have "often induced an almost religious awe" in his hearers (Elon 1975, p.9), and is quoted as having "felt their souls emitting sparks whenever I strike them" (Elon 1975, p.158, from Herzl's Diary).

In the following years Herzl tirelessly and without remuneration led the Zionist Organization, in fact spending much of his own money to finance his extensive travels for the Zionist cause. In 1904 he died of heart failure aged fourty-four, having literally worked himself to death trying to realize his vision. Thirteen years later, the Balfour Declaration by the British government was the first acknowledgement of the Zionist movement by a major power, and a direct product of the organization Herzl had called into being. International recognition of Zionism culminated in 1947 when the United Nations voted for the establishment of the State of Israel.

Data and Simulations. The data relevant to the Zionist Organization are presented in Table 3 and Figure 4. One of the early actions of the first Zionist Congress was the initiation of the "Shekel", an annual membership fee of one French franc (or its equivalent), in order to provide an accurate record of the size of the Zionist Organization, and a basis for allocating delegates to the congresses at the rate of one delegate for each 100 Shekel payers. Detailed accounts of the Shekels, year by year and country by country, have been preserved in the Zionist Archives. (Zionisten Kongress 1905; 8, 9 , 13, 35) In terms of the theory of charismatic leadership, purchase of the Shekel meant that the person not only identified with Herzl's vision, but participated actively in the Zionist Organization. The percentage of the estimated adult Jewish population each year who bought a Shekel (HERZL1) gives a good indication of the growth of the Zionist Organization. The model variable corresponding to HERZL1 is ACTIVE, i.e., the population percentage who are sufficiently aroused by the leader to participate in bringing about the vision of change.

The first record of Shekel payers is for 1899, showing a total of 114,370 Shekels for the three years up to and including 1899. At the first congress in 1897 there had been 196 delegates (corresponding to 19,600 Shekels), while the second congress in 1898 had 360 delegates (corresponding to 36,000 Shekels). In 1899 alone, therefore, there were already 78,370 Shekel payers. In 1917 the British government issued the Balfour Declaration, which triggered a significant increase in membership and a clear break in the series. We therefore ended the simulation with the year 1918. Also, since there were regular cyclical surges of Shekel payers in "congress years", causing considerable fluctuations in the data, we smoothed the series by exponential smoothing (alpha=0.6, see: Huntsberger et al. 1980).

A second set of data comes from the archives of the Jewish National Fund (Juedischer Nationalfonds 1909), which had been created by the 5th Zionist Congress in 1901 for land purchases and settlement in Palestine. The Fund's income came entirely from voluntary contributions, large and small. The ratio of JNF income to its overhead expenses for fund raising (again, smoothing the more extreme fluctuations in the series), gave the second time series (HERZL2). The variable corresponding to HERZL2 is PERFORM, that is, the ratio of the organization's output (JNF income, in this case) to its input (JNF overheads).

Our estimates of the initialization values for Herzl's charisma (both data sets!) are shown in column 2 of Table 1. Some of these initializations deserve comment. VISION may seem rather low, but in 1896, most Jews still considered his vision utopian and unrealistic. PERSON, the percent of the change which the leader claims to his own credit must be almost zero in this case, as there was not a hint of self-aggrandizement in Herzl. On the contrary, he repeatedly stressed the insignificance of his own person when compared to the overwhelming importance of the Zionist cause (Elon 1975, pp. 144, 222). Because of the Jewish religious establishment's vociferous opposition to Zionism, we set CONSON rather low, but religious influence was already then declining fast in the post-emancipation era of central Europe, and posed no significant obstacle to the new organization. Finally, INCOND (initial conduciveness) was given a rather low value because, despite the severe plight of Jewry in Russia, in Central Europe and America, Jews were busy making the most of their newly-found emancipated status and did not perceive the situation as threatening to them.

Running the model against the data of HERZL1 gave a TI of 72.2% (Figure 4), and with the same initializations the model gave a TI value of 76.0% for HERZL2. Theodor Herzl, then, is the second case of a charismatic leader whose influence has been adequately accounted for by the model and thus explained by the theory.

(Figure 4, HERZL, about here)

C. ORDE WINGATE AND THE SPECIAL NIGHT SQUADS

Captain Charles Orde Wingate came to Palestine in September 1936 as an intelligence officer of the British army. At the time the country was governed by a British administration acting under mandate of the League of Nations. 1936 saw beginning of an Arab uprising which lasted well into 1938. Wingate's sympathies, like those of most British Army officers, lay at first with the Arab population, but within a month of his arrival he had changed into an ardent Zionist. He contacted the clandestine Jewish defense organization (Haganah) and, after much hesitation and scrutiny they accepted him and called him "Hayedid" - The Friend. He offered his services to Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the Zionist Organization, to form a Jewish Palestine Defence Force under "suitable" British command (Sykes 1959, pp.130-1), but the letter was never answered. Undaunted, he wrote a paper for Weizmann, "consisting of recommendations for the organization of Jewish regular military forces" (Sykes 1959: 138).

By then, Arab unrest and sabotage had assumed major proportions. Particularly the Iraq-to-Haifa (IPC) oil pipeline was under constant attack by raiders, who uncovered the pipe, shot into it at different spots, and set fire to the gushing oil. In April of 1938 hardly a night passed without several such incidents (Military Intelligence Summaries 1938). In May 1938 General Wavell (G.o.C. Palestine) gave his consent to Wingate's plan of forming the Special Night Squads (S.N.S.), a small force of Jewish volunteers with British NCOs and under Wingate's command. Officially, the mission was to stop the Arab raiders and protect the pipeline, but Wingate trained his corps and led it into attack of any Arab threat to Jewish settlements. The Haganah soldiers chosen to serve in the S.N.S. saw themselves as a priviliged elite, and understandably so. Under Wingate's inspiring leadership they received invaluable training in night fighting, military tactics and personal endurance. Wingate had, in fact, transformed the basic character of Haganah from a defense organization into one capable of active iniative, attack and reprisal.

The S.N.S. were extremely effective in curbing the saboteurs and in staging reprisal raids on their points of concentration (Haining 1938, p.7). The British High Command in Palestine, however, would accept neither Wingate's unorthodox methods nor his Zionist leanings. The successes of the Jewish patrolmen in the S.N.S. under Wingate were officially underplayed, and a Divisional Conference of Intelligence Officers expressed itself on January 23rd, 1939, as "generally opposed to the dressing up of Jews as British soldiers" (Sykes 1959, p.195). Accordingly, once Arab sabotage of the pipe-line had been brought more or less under control, Wingate was sent home to England, the main S.N.S. camp was dispersed and Jews excluded from serving in the unit. This brief episode in Wingate's distinguished career provides the background and the empirical base for our test of the effects of his charismatic leadership. Wingate himself died five years later in an aircrash while serving as commander of the Chindits in Burma during World War II, but the charismatic figure of "The Friend" lives on and is revered in Israel to this day.

Wingate has been described by his biographers as an eccentric, a visionary, an enigma and a genius (Mosley 1955, p.47; Sykes 1959, pp.539,544; Tulloch 1972). Students of military strategy, however, as well as those under his command unhesitatingly call him charismatic (Bidwell 1973, p.112; Akavia 1992; 1993). His personality characteristics and behavior patterns certainly were those of a charismatic leader. He was keenly aware of his need for power, he was self-confident, innovative and energetic, and did not care whether he was liked or not. His charisma, moreover, had a "personalized" streak. One biographer reports him as "rude and dictatorial and insistent," and unable to delegate authority (Mosley 1955, pp.111,136).

Convinced that he was a man with a mission (Mosley 1955, p.25), he articulated the vision of leading a Jewish army in a situation that was highly conducive to charismatic leadership (Akavia 1968, p.57). Many of the Haganah rank-and-file at the time itched to leave the stockades of the settlements and take the offensive, but their commanders held them back for political reasons (Sykes 1959: 113). He inspired an enthusiastic following, aroused them to activity by expressing confidence in their fighting ability (Sykes 1959, p.147; Akavia 1968, p.44). By his own example (Akavia 1968, p.45; Rivlin 1964, p.284) he inspired this corps d'elite to extraordinary performance and sacrifice. On the other hand, the change he initiated was not consonant with the existing power structure, and therefore his vision failed to become routinized. These are some of the reasons behind the initialized values shown in Table 1, col.3.

Data and Simulations. The data relevant to the tests are presented in Table 4 and Figure 5. The period to be covered in our simulations spans from the first operation of the S.N.S. in the beginning of June 1938, to the time when Wingate was relieved of his command in October of that year. For these 21 weeks, we shall compare data about Wingate's charismatic leadership of the Special Night Squads with corresponding variables in our model, week by week.

The first data set, ORDE1 (Table 4), comes from Sefer Toledot Hahagana, the definitive history of the Hagana published by Ma'arahot, the publishing house of the Israel Defense Forces. Here we find the recruitment figures for the S.N.S., with the dates when the decisions to call upon volunteers were taken. The data form a series of step functions, which we have left exactly as reported (Table 4, cols. 2,3). The corresponding model variable, of course, is ELITE.

A second data set is of the number of S.N.S. actions, week by week. This was assembled from a variety of sources. Some specific actions were mentioned in the literature (Sykes 1959; Rivlin 1964, Akavia 1993; Elon 1975), but there is no assurance that these were all. To complete the list and check on the accuracy of the different reports, we conducted personal interviews with four S.N.S. veterans who had played leading roles in the squads (see footnote 3 to table 4). The number of actions per week ranged from zero to 5, the fluctuations arising out of the changing situation in the field, and the presence or absence of Wingate himself. We exponentially smoothed the raw data (alpha=.5), and then computed an index (ORDE2) taking the first week of June as base (Table 4, cols.4,5). Since there is little doubt that Wingate's physical presence directly affected the number of actions that were undertaken, ORDE2 is represented by the model variable FADE, that is, the gradually decreasing thrall of a leader's charisma over the activities of followers.

The plotted results are shown in Figure 5. The TI for ORDE1 is 90.3% and for ORDE2 it is 65.9%.

LIDO A. (LEE) IACOCCA AND THE CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Every one of the three leaders presented so far had founded and led a new organization. Much of the current interest in charismatic leadership, however, derives from a frequently expressed need for corporate leaders who can infuse existing organizations with a new vision. We had not yet studied a charismatic leader who attempted to change an existing organization, either successfully or not. It appears that Lee Iacocca of the Chrysler Corporation may be such a case with, moreover, enough reliable data to test our theory and model.

It has been said repeatedly of Lee Iacocca that he was a charismatic leader. One biographer described his qualities as "something greater than outstanding leadership in business," comparing him to men like FDR, JFK, Patton and MacArthur (Wyden 1987:20). The same author writes in another place: "The Iacocca presence stands out in any company short of De Gaulle or Churchill (ibid. p.137)."

Lido A. Iacocca started his career in 1946, first as student engineer and then as salesman for a Ford dealer in Pennsylvania. His successes there drawing the attention of headquarters, he was transferred in 1956 to Detroit and made national truck marketing manager. There he quickly rose through the ranks, ascending to the presidency of Ford in 1970. However, in July 1978 tensions between him and Henry Ford II led to his abrupt dismissal. He was immediately wooed by many different companies, but decided to accept Chrysler's offer, becoming president in 1979. He found the company in deep trouble, with a loss of $160 million in the third quarter. "All through the company," he writes in his autobiography, "people were scared and despondent" (Iacocca 1984:155). There was "bad morale, and security leaks were showing up on the balance sheets. Owner loyalty rates was do