THE CHARISMATIC RELATIONSHIP: A …uwtv.org/files/2013/01/gardneravolio1998.pdfleaders' self-systems...

® Academy of Management Review1998, Vol. 23, No. 1, 32-58.

THE CHARISMATIC RELATIONSHIP:A DRAMATURGICAL PERSPECTIVE

WILLIAM L. GARDNERUniversity of Mississippi

BRUCE I. AVOLIOBinghamton University

In this article we present a model of the processes whereby social actors use impres-sion management behaviors to create and maintain identities as charismatic leaders.Using a dramaturgical and interactive perspective, we examine the roles that theenvironment, actor (leader), and audience (followers) play in defining the situationand in jointly constructing a "charismatic relationship." We assert that charismaticleaders' self-systems and situational assessments guide their efforts to managefollower impressions of them, their vision, and their organization. Framing, scripting,staging, and performing constitute the basic phases in this dramaturgical process.Exemplification and promotion are identified as the primary strategies invoked byleaders during the performing phase to construct a charismatic image; facework isemployed to protect this image when it is threatened. We also consider how and whyfollowers come to attribute charisma to, identify strongly with, and direct high levelsof positive affect toward the leader. We advance research propositions along withmethodological recommendations for testing them, and we conclude by consideringthe model's practical implications for developing charismatic relationships that em-power followers and facilitate the attainment of socially beneficial goals.

Leadership scholars often have discussed theimportance of impression management (IM) pro-cesses to charismatic leadership, frequently re-ferring to this process as "image building."House (1977), for example, includes "personalimage building" in his 1976 theory of charis-matic leadership. Bass suggests that "charis-matic leaders engage in impression manage-ment techniques to bolster their image ofcompetence, increasing subordinate compli-ance and faith in them" (1985: 40). Conger andKanungo repdrt that charismatic leaders can bedistinguished from other leaders, in part, bytheir "use of articulation and impression man-agement practices to inspire followers in pursuitof the vision" (1987: 29).

Although image building appears to play acentral role in perceptions of charismatic lead-ership, scholars have little explored the strate-gies leaders use to nurture and validate theircharisma and thereby forge and solidify a char-ismatic relationship with followers. Moreover,scholars have not yet addressed how the IM

We are deeply indebted to Boas Shamir for his assistancein guiding this manuscript toward publication.

strategies used by charismatic leaders differfrom those of leaders who are not charismaticbut still create a desirable image with followers.Finally, researchers have not adequately ex-plored the role that followers play in helping theleader to construct a charismatic image. Thus,the overriding questions guiding the develop-ment of the model presented in this article areas follows: How do leaders use IM strategies toshape their image, causing it to be seen as char-ismatic in the eyes of followers? What role dofollowers play in constructing the leader's char-ismatic image and in establishing a charismaticrelationship?

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT AND THEDRAMATURGICAL PERSPECTIVE

The scope of IM constitutes a continuingsource of debate (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992).Some authors view IM as restricted to selectedcircumstances, people, and roles (Jones & Pitt-man, 1982; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Snyder, 1987).Those with such restrictive views typically as-sociate IM with a narrow set of motives (e.g.,personal gain or approval) and often imply that

32

1998 Gardner and Avoiio 33

IM involves pretense or deceit. Scholars havinga broader view examine IM as a ubiquitous el-ement of social behavior (Schlenker, 1980, 1985)and see nothing inherently superficial or deceit-ful about IM—it simply involves the packagingof information in order to lead target audiencesto desired conclusions. This broader view drawsheavily upon the writings of Erving Goffmanand other sociologists, who see "reality" as so-cially constructed (Brissett & Edgley, 1990). InGoffman's (1959) classic work. The Presentationoi Seli in Everyday Liie, he advances a drama-turgical perspective where "actors" engage in"performances" in various "settings" for partic-ular "audiences" in order to shape their "defini-tion of the situation." The basic premise of dram-aturgy is that "the meaning oi people's doings isto be iound in the manner in which they expressthemselves in interaction with similarly expres-sive others" (Brissett & Edgley, 1990: 2-3; italicsin original). Hence, "meaning" is both the prod-uct of human interaction, and the defining qual-ity of the "social act." Dramaturgists also assertthat "human behavior both constitutes and isconstituted by rhetoric; individuals are persua-sive and influential in mobilizing the behaviorof other people" (Brissett & Edgley, 1990: 4). Thus,how people express themselves to, and in con-junction with, others to create meaning and in-fluence is the central focus of dramaturgy.

Charismatic leaders are exceptionally ex-pressive persons, who employ rhetoric to per-suade, influence, and mobilize others (Bass,1985, 1988). These leaders are the epitome ofdrama. They thrive on the creation of meaningthat inspires others to pursue their vision. In-deed, Friedman, Riggio, and Casella define per-sonal charisma "as a dramatic flair involvingthe desire and ability to communicate emotionsand thereby inspire others" (1988: 204). Further-more, based on interviews and observations ofcharismatic and noncharismatic leaders withfollowers. Conger concludes that

charismatic leaders are meaning makers. Theypick and choose from the rough materials of re-ality to construct pictures of great possibilities.Their persuasion then is of the subtlest kind, forthey interpret reality to offer us images of thefuture that are irresistible. (1989:92; italics in orig-inal)

From Conger's remarks, the relevance of drama-turgy to charismatic leadership is clear. We con-tend that by using dramaturgical theory to ex-

amine the charismatic relationship, we canachieve new insights. The model we advancehighlights some of these insights, while provid-ing a framework for exploring others.

Of central importance to our model is Schlen-ker's work on identification processes. Schlen-ker defines "identity" as "a theory (schema) ofan individual that describes, interrelates, andexplains his or her relevant features, character-istics, and experiences" (1985: 68). Our modelfocuses on both the leader's and followers' iden-tities. "Identification" involves "the process,means, or result of showing something to be aparticular type of person or thing, thereby spec-ifying its identity through definition, descrip-tion, evidence, inference, interpretation, anal-ogy, or treatment" (Schlenker, 1985: 65). "Self-identification" is the process of "fixing andexpressing one's own identity, privately throughreflection about oneself and publicly throughself-disclosures, self-presentations and otheractivities that serve to project one's identity toaudiences" (Schlenker, 1985: 66).

Because we are interested in the dramaturgi-cal processes whereby leaders and followersjointly construct their identities, we introducethe terms "leader identification" and "followeridentification" to refer to these interactive pro-cesses. Leader identification involves the pro-cess whereby an individual works with anaudience to construct an identity as a leader;follower identification is the process wherebypersons come to be identified—by themselvesand others—as followers of a leader. The netresult of these identification processes is theleader's or follower's "situated identity," whichSchlenker defines as "a theory of self that iswittingly or unwittingly constructed in a partic-ular social situation or relationship" (1985: 68).We can think of situated identities as the opera-tionalization of a person's identity at a givenpoint in time.

Schlenker (1985) describes "self-presentation"as the activity of regulating one's identity pri-marily for others. Note that self-presentation issubsumed under the self-identification processbut is limited to the actor's efforts to manageothers' impressions of the self. Although theterms "self-presentation" and "IM" are com-monly used interchangeably (Leary & Kowalski,1990), people can manipulate information aboutother persons, events, or objects that are onlyindirectly related to their identities, as is often

34 Academy of Management Review January

the case with public relations for an organiza-tion. Accordingly, IM denotes the goal-directedactivity of regulating information about someobject or event, including the self (subsumingthe concept of self-presentation), primarily forother persons (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992).Hence, when leaders regulate information abouttheir selves, vision, organization, or other enti-ties for selected audiences, the IM process isoperative.

OPERATIONALIZING CHARISMA

The Attributional Basis for Charisma

At the outset we assume that perceptions ofcharisma do not always stem directly fromleader behavior; instead, leadership may be at-tributed simply because an actor appears to beresponsible for success (Meindl, 1990). Charismamay arise from the leader's behavior, followerattributions, or some corabination of the two.Our analysis focuses on "behavioral charisma,"which House, Spangler, and Woycke define asbeing "based on the actual or presumed behav-ior of the leader" (1991: 366). We are interested incharisma that arises from "the actual behaviorand personal example of the leader or the attri-butions of behavior made to the leader by sub-ordinates" (House et al., 1991: 366; italics added).Thus, we explicitly recognize how the leader'sbehavior, as well as follower attributions of be-havior, contribute to the view of leadership ascharismatic. According to this definition, aleader is not charismatic unless described byfollowers as such (House et al., 1991). Impor-tantly, this approach is consistent with ourdramaturgical perspective, since it views boththe leader and the follower as key players in theconstruction of the charismatic relationship.

Relational Aspects of Charisma

Rather than viewing the actor and audienceroles as static, dramaturgists see these roles asfluid and dynamic, with individuals continu-ously moving back and forth between them(Goffman, 1959; Schlenker, 1980). Our focus is onthe IM behaviors people exhibit as actors tocreate a charismatic image. Although followersprimarily occupy the audience role, they are farmore than passive targets for leader IM. Instead,they are active players who work with the

leader to construct his or her charismatic iden-tity.

Viewed from this perspective, charisma canbe seen as residing "in the reiafionship betweena leader who has charismatic qualities andthose of his or her followers who are open tocharisma within a charisma-conducive environ-ment" (Klein & House, 1995: 183, italics in origi-nal). This implies a charismafic relationship,whereby followers attribute certain qualities tothe leader, who is then regarded with dedica-tion, reverence, and awe (Conger, 1989; House etal., 1991; Shamir, 1991; Weierter, 1997). Withinthis relationship, charismatic leaders are recog-nized as persons who "by the force of their per-sonal abilities are capable of having profoundand extraordinary effects on followers" (House &Baetz, 1979: 399). Further insight into this rela-tionship is provided by Shamir (1995), who de-scribes charismatics as embodying the core val-ues of the groups, organizations, or societiesthey represent, which promotes follower identi-fication.

A DRAMATURGICAL MODEL OF THECHARISMATIC RELATIONSHIP

We have utilized the dramaturgical perspec-tive advanced by Goffman (1959) and refined byother authors (e.g., Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997;Brissett & Edgley, 1990; Gardner, 1992; Gardner& Martinko, 1988b; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1989,1991; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Rosenfeld, Giaca-lone, & Riordan, 1995; Schlenker, 1980, 1985;Schlenker & Weigold, 1992) to develop the modelof the charismatic relationship depicted in Fig-ure 1. Consistent with this view, we assert thatthe actor (leader) and audience (followers) playkey roles in the charismatic performance. More-over, we contend that to understand how thecharismatic relationship is constructed, onemust examine the processes of leader andfollower identification whereby the leader andfollower(s) form their situated and collectiveidentities. The model also reflects the inferac-tionist approach advocated by leadership (Bass,1990; Klein & House, 1995) and IM (Bozeman& Kacmar, 1997; Gardner & Martinko, 1988b;Schlenker, 1985) theorists. Specifically, we modelthe dynamic relations between the environment,leader, follower, and the behavior of each partyas being reciprocal and iterative over time.

1998 Gardner and Avolio 35

FIGURE 1A Dramaturgical Model of the Charismatic Relationship"

EovlroiuiientEnvironmental turbulence Third-party audiences

Organizational context

Leader/actor

Self-system (PI)• Leader identity• High sell-esteem• High sell-monitoring

Motives and values (P2)• High need lor power• Activity inhibition

Idealized vision (P3-P4)

Desired identity images (P5)• Trustworthy and credible• Morally worthy• (nnovaliVe• Esteemed and powerlut

Leader impression management (PG-P?)

FramingScripUng

• Casting• Dialogue• Direction

StagingPerforming

• Exemplilication• Promotion• Facework

The charismatic relationship (P16)

Situated identities of leader and follower(s)Collective identity and efficacy beliefsShared vision and valuesTeam performancesElevated effort toward challenging goals

Organizational outcomes (PI7)

High internal cohesionHigh value congruenceHigh performance potential

Foilower/audience... n

Follower/audience 2

Follower/audience 1

Self-system (P&-P9)• Foltower idenlity• Elevated sell-esteem

and sell-etlicacy

Motives and values (PiO)• /nlernalizalion ol

leader values• Service to (he collective

Attributions of charisma (PI 1-PI3)• Romance ol leadership• Secondary impressions

PosiUve affect for leader (Pi4)

Socialcontagionprocesses(P15)

" Note: The model is intended to depict the dynamic, reciprocal, and iterative nature of the charismatic relationship; thepropositions corresponding to the particular components of the model are indicated by the notation PI to PI7.

In the following sections we develop 17 prop-ositions specifying how the components de-picted in Figure 1, when understood in terms ofa dramaturgical framework, demonstrate thecentrality of identification processes to attri-butions of charismatic leadership. We beginby considering the role that the environmentplays in setting the stage for the charismaticrelationship. We then discuss how the quali-ties of the leader depicted on the left side ofthe figure contribute to the leader's situatedidentity and IM behaviors in developing Prop-ositions 1 to 5 (P1-P5). Next, we apply ourdramaturgical framework to delineate thelinkage between leader IM and follower pro-cesses (P6-P16). Finally, we show how thecharismatic relationship resulting from the in-teraction of leader and follower processesaffects organizational outcomes (PI7).

THE ENVIRONMENT

From a dramaturgical perspective, the envi-ronment, as depicted by the shaded region ofFigure 1, serves as the backdrop, setting, orstage for leaders and followers to construct the

charismatic relationship. Because of space con-straints, we do not examine in detail the role theenvironment plays in fostering attributions ofcharisma, since comprehensive discussions ofthese effects are available in other sources(Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass &Avolio, 1994; Boal & Bryson, 1988; Cell, 1974;Klein & House, 1995; Pawar & Eastman, 1997;Weber, 1924/1947; Willner, 1984). Instead, we sim-ply note that current charismatic leadershipmodels indicate that leader and follower per-ceptions of environmental turbulence (e.g., cri-ses emanating from inside and/or outside theorganization) and the organizational context, in-cluding the organization's design (organic ver-sus mechanistic; Pawar & Eastman, 1997) andculture (e.g., transformational versus transac-tional; Bass & Avolio, 1994), all contribute to de-termining whether or not a charismatic relation-ship emerges, as well as the nature of thatrelationship. We also assert that third-party au-diences (e.g., customers, regulators, and inves-tors) likewise supply important cues that shapethe situated identities and behaviors of charis-matic leaders and their followers. Although pro-spective and actual followers are the primary


audience for leader IM, once a charismatic rela-tionship is formed, followers join with the leaderin making coordinated presentations or "teamperformances" (Goffman, 1959). Charismaticteam performances are most likely to be di-rected toward third parties that control key re-sources (Gardner & Martinko, 1988a,b; Pfeffer &Salancik, 1978; Schlenker, 1980) for the purposeof facilitating vision attainment (Conger, 1989).

Based on earlier work and this brief review ofrelevant environmental cues, we believe we candiscern some insight into the boundary condi-tions (Bacharach, 1989) under which the drama-turgical model applies. Specifically, we suggestthat a charismatic relationship is most likely toemerge where the environment is seen as turbu-lent and the organizational context is supportiveof change (e.g., an organic design with a trans-formational culture). Conversely, when the envi-ronment is perceived as sstable and the organi-zation resistant to change (e.g., a mechanisticdesign with a transactional culture), we believea charismatic relationship is less likely toemerge. We hope that future work on the modelpresented below will help to further clarify anddelineate the environmental conditions underwhich the dramaturgical model of charismadoes and does not apply.

THE LEADER AS SOCIAL ACTOR

Recall that leader identification is the processwhereby certain actors come to be identified asleaders. We examine below the effects that theleader's self-system, motives, values, and visionexert on this process.

Self-System of the Leader

The term "self-system" refers to a multifacetedconception of the self and the processeswhereby self-relevant information is interpreted(Markus & Wurf, 1987). At least three facets of theself-system are critical to leader identification:(1) leader identity, (2) high self-esteem, and (3)high self-monitoring.

Leader identity. Initially, it may seem tauto-logical to argue that a major factor influencingthe leader identification process is the leader'sidentity. Recall, however, that Schlenker (1985)makes a distinction between one's identity andone's situated identity. The former is sociallyconstructed and refined through years of social

relations to become a relatively stable part ofone's self-system. In contrast, the latter is con-structed in a specific situation—with a particu-lar audience—at a given point in time. Ofcourse, one's situated identity is influenced byone's identity, and vice versa. Indeed, one's sit-uated identity is the operationalization of one'sidentity in situ, whereas one's identity is thelong-term aggregation of core facets of one'ssituated identities. Here, we note the parallelsbetween Schlenker's identity theory andMarkus's work on the dynamic self-construct. Aswith identity, Markus views the self-concept asa multifaceted system of self-schemas derivedfrom past experiences. Moreover, his notionof the "working self-concept" is conceptuallyequivalent to that of the situated identity; bothrefer to aspects of the self that are made salientby the context. To Markus a schema is both astructure and a process; this enables it "to rep-resent the self as that which is both known andknower" (Markus & Wurf, 1987: 301). Thus, eachperspective conceives of the actor's identity orself-concept as a "theory of self" that governsthe structure and processing of self-relevantinformation.

As a theory of self, identity possesses twobasic properties corresponding to the distinctionbetween the "self-as-knower" and "self-as-known" (Schlenker, 1985). First, it specifies thecontents of our attributes, experiences, roles,and so forth in ways that are understandableand, at least, potentially agreeable to others.These contents include many interrelated im-ages (schemata) that encompass pertinent self-constructs (e.g., leader, politician) and establishour standing on certain dimensions (e.g., inno-vative, powerful). Facts about the self are thensubsumed and interrelated with these images(e.g., bilingual, software firm founder). Second,identity guides and reguiafes experiences byshaping our thoughts, affect, actions, and out-comes. It permits self-regulation as people ob-serve, assess, and react to their own conduct.The self-regulation role is critical since it deter-mines how actors present themselves for partic-ular audiences and situations (Markus & Wurf,1987).

In our analysis the term "leader identity" hasa dual meaning. First, it refers to the overallidentity of the leader, as defined above. Second,it refers to an actor's identity as a leader—thatis, a person "whose acts affect other people


more than other people's acts affect them" (Bass,1990: 19-20). Thus, we view leaders, includingcharismatic leaders, as persons for whom theidentity image (self-schemata) of leader is acen frai and importanf part of their theory of self.Image centrality is determined by the extent towhich it subsumes other images or experiences;importance is a function of the degree to whichthe image is associated with the satisfaction ofsignificant needs (Schlenker, 1985). As a centralidentity image, the self-construct of leader sub-sumes other more specific and interrelated im-ages (e.g., entrepreneur, innovative, trustwor-thy). It is also important to the extent that beinga leader serves one's social, achievement, andextrinsic needs.

It is useful to consider how the identity imageof leader becomes part of the actor's larger iden-tity. Bass (1985) speculates that many charis-matic leaders were talented children who expe-rienced early family traumas, such as the loss ofa father, and compensated for these losses bydeveloping self-reliance and a sense of missionin life. He argues that such leaders receivedmuch encouragement from their parents, orother key role models, to experiment and exerttheir independence. Support for this view is pro-vided by evidence that charismatic leaders typ-ically were (1) expected and encouraged to excelin many areas of life at an early age, (2) fromfamilies that faced difficult situations but hadsufficient resources to cope with these difficul-ties, and (3) involved in more leadership rolesearly in life (Avolio, 1994; Avolio & Gibbons,1988).

We assert that the high expectations, encour-agement, success in meeting life challenges,and leadership roles that many charismatics ex-perience early on foster a strong identity as aleader. Moreover, reflected appraisals by keyaudiences (e.g., parents or role models), whoattribute leadership qualities to them, appear tobe crucial. This implies that, during initial iter-ations of the leader identification process, theaudience may attribute leadership traits to ac-tors that are not yet part of their identity. How-ever, after repeated iterations, such attributionsbecome internalized. The research we reviewedabove suggests that, for charismatic leaders, theformation of an identity as a leader occurs at anearly age (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988). We suspectthat, based on reflected appraisals, most ofthese leaders likewise incorporate charisma as

a central part of their identity. Because charis-matic identity images tend to be consistent withtheir preexisting self-constructs (e.g., eloquentspeech, persuasiveness, and firm beliefs andvalues), such images are more readily inte-grated into their identity.

As central and important components of char-ismatic leaders' identities (i.e., core self-sche-ma), the identity images of leader and charismaplay a dominant role in shaping these leaders'perceptions of situations and audiences—in-cluding prospective and actual followers—andin regulating and guiding how they presentthemselves to such audiences (Markus & Wurf,1987; Schlenker, 1985). Indeed, the mere presenceof persons possessing attributes that the leaderassociates with followers is likely to make theseidentity images salient as part of the leader'ssituated identity. In other cases they may becued by the behavior of followers, who implicitlycommunicate to the leader a need for inspira-tion: "We are down and out, look at our faces,inspire us NOW!" From this discussion it is clearthat studies of the contents, structure, and pro-cessing of charismatic leaders' core identity im-ages could provide tremendous insights intotheir presentations to, and relations with, fol-lowers.

High self-esteem. Charismatic leaders havebeen shown to possess especially high levels ofself-esteem (Bass, 1988). Even when discouragedor confronted by repeated failures, these leaderssteadfastly portray a confident image in public.Such confidence in themselves and in their fol-lowers empowers the followers and elevatestheir self-esteem (Shamir, 1991; Shamir, House,& Arthur, 1993). For example, by displaying self-confidence, high trust, and challenging perfor-mance expectations, Mary Kay Ash raised theself-esteem and efficacy beliefs of thousands ofwomen who lacked confidence in their ownbusiness acumen (Conger, 1989, 1991).

High self-monitoring. Snyder (1987) defines"self-monitoring ability" as one's capacity tomonitor and control expressive behaviors. Re-search indicates that many traits associatedwith leadership, and charisma in particular(e.g., self-confidence, extreme emotional expres-siveness, social sensitivity, and eloquence ofspeech), are also related to self-monitoring(Anderson, 1990; Snyder, 1987). Indeed, the abil-ity of high self-monitors to adjust their behaviorto meet audience and/or situational demands is


consistent with descriptions of charismaticleadership (Bass, 1988; House & Howell, 1992).High self-monitors and charismatics are alsoboth seen as proficient actors (Bass, 1988;Snyder, 1987), which implies that leader self-monitoring facilitates the construction of a char-ismatic image, although scholars have yet toempirically test this assertion.

For leaders, self-monitoring represents theability to pick up cues from followers regardingtheir needs and aspirations, which can then beused as input for the leaders' message and themessage's delivery (Anderson, 1990). Indeed,self-monitoring skills help charismatics to de-termine how effective their arguments are atconvincing jbofh supporters and adversariesthat their message is "correct." These skills alsoprovide leaders with pertinent information cuesthat enable them to continually refine their mes-sage to win over any remaining doubters.

Research indicates that high self-monitorsperform best in dynamic leadership positions(Anderson, 1990). We suspect that a keen sensi-tivity to changes in context enables high self-monitoring charismatics to align their presenta-tions with followers' needs while carefullyconsidering the situation. Being able to adjustthe message to changes in situational chal-lenges, while at the same time retaining andreinforcing core values, also improves theseleaders' chances of being successful andthereby lending even further credibility to theirmessage.

Proposition 1: Actors with high seli-esteem and high seli-monitoring abil-ities, and ior whom the identity imageoi leader is central and important, arepredisposed to constructing a charis-matic image.

Motives and Values

In House's (1977) theory of charismatic leader-ship, he proposed a relationship between needfor power, as defined by McClelland (1985), andbehavioral charisma. McClelland conceives ofthis need as a nonconscious motive that variesfrom person to person, and that varies instrength within a given person, as arousing cuesin the environment fluctuate across time. Per-sons with a high need for power tend to take anactivist role at work and therefore attempt to

shape important decisions. Note that need forpower as defined here suggests a desire to lead.House argues that an exceptionally high needfor power explains why charismatic leaders de-velop the persuasive skills to influence othersand to gain satisfaction from leading. Consis-tent with this reasoning, researchers have iden-tified an unusually high need for power as adistinguishing trait of charismatic leaders(House & Howell, 1992). Indeed, in House et al.'s(1991) study of U.S. Presidents, need for powerwas positively related to behavioral charisma.Thus, a strong desire to influence others andalter the status quo appears to be a core motivedriving charismatic leaders' behaviors.

Another variable examined by House et al. isMcClelland's (1985) construct of "activity inhibi-tion," which they define as "the extent to whichan individual uses available power to achieveinstitutional or social goals rather than purelypersonal goals" (1991: 367). The authors foundthat activity inhibition was positively related tothe behavioral charisma of U.S. Presidents.Moreover, need for power, activity inhibition,and behavioral charisma were directly relatedto presidential performance. Overall, these re-sults suggest that presidents with a high needfor power and a high level of activity inhibitionbehave more charismatically and perform athigher levels. More generally, they imply thatleaders with a high need for power who usetheir power to benefit the collective, rather thanfor personal gain, are most likely to be judged asexemplary charismatics. This is because theyare also seen as trustworthy, morally worthy,and self-sacrificing leaders who have followers'best interests at heart.

Proposition 2; A high need ior powerserves as the underlying motive iorcharismatic leaders' IM behaviors: ahigh level oi activity inhibition willencourage such leaders to use theirpower in exemplary, seli-sacriiicing,and socially beneiicial ways.

Bass (1988) has identified a strong convictionto personal values as a fundamental attribute ofcharismatic leaders. "Values" reflect the worththat one assigns to certain activities or out-comes, as well as one's sense of right or wrongor what "ought" or "oUght not" to be done(Rokeach, 1973). Leaders' values impact the con-tent of their vision (e.g., desired goals and activ-


ities) and the methods they choose to promotevision attainment (Shamir et al., 1993; Weierter,1997). The influence of the leader's vision is par-ticularly potent when it is highly congruent withfollowers' needs, values, and aspirations(Shamir, 1994, 1995). Weierter (1997) speculatesthat, in recognizing this, charismatic leadersemploy a strategy of speech convergence duringthe initial stages of the charismatic relation-ship, whereby they tailor their speech style tocomplement followers' perceived values andcharacteristics. Doing so serves to increasethese leaders' attractiveness to followers andpromotes identification. Together, this literatureimplies the following:

Proposition 3; Charismatic leaders'values, coupled with their assess-ments oi ioUowers' needs, values, andaspirations, serve as core determi-nants oi their idealized vision.

Idealized Vision

A "vision" can be defined as a mental imagethe leader conjures up to portray a highly de-sirable future end state for an organization(Conger, 1989). Charisma depends upon theleader's ability to articulate a vision that chal-lenges the status quo and aligns followers' val-ues and aspirations (Conger & Kanungo, 1987).Charismatic leaders recognize that they are de-pendent on followers' acceptance of their visionfor its attainment and, therefore, are highly mo-tivated to manage followers' impressions. Fol-lowers, in turn, may be drawn to such leadersbecause they cannot foreseei, articulate, orachieve a more desirable future on their own.Charismatics are able to sense what followersare unable to articulate and to express the vi-sion in a way they all identify with and aremotivated to achieve. This builds on the leader'sability to judge not only whether these peoplewill follow but also the type of vision focus thatwill mobilize them to action (Shamir, 1995).

From his exploratory study comparing the be-haviors of charismatic versus noncharismaticleaders. Conger (1989) concluded that theamount of charisma attributed to the leadergrows as his or her strategic vision becomesmore idealized and Utopian (as long as it is stillbelievable). This is because more idealisticgoals make followers' work more meaningiul

and provide them with a deeper sense of pur-pose. An idealized vision activates followers'higher order needs by appealing to their desireto contribute to the collective good (Bass, 1985;Shamir, 1995). Such visions present the goal as adifficult but worthy challenge that can beachieved only through followers' steadfast com-mitment and dedication (Shamir et al., 1993).

Based on the work of Wofford and Goodwin(1994), we assert that charismatic leaders de-velop a network of vision/goal schemata thatincludes their idealized vision as the superordi-nate memory structure. As such, their visionsubsumes a hierarchy of progressively morespecific goals that are applicable to various fol-lowers. By linking these goals to the superordi-nate vision, followers' identification with theleader and the vision are enhanced. In contrast,noncharismatic leaders typically lack a compel-ling, overarching vision, and they omit any ref-erence to a larger contribution. They set strate-gic goals but fail to present a "big picture" thatfollowers can align their efforts around (Conger,1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Wofford & Good-win, 1994). Thus, we expect that their ability tosense what followers would identify with, and todevelop a plan for articulating their thoughts asan inspirational vision, is not as keen as that ofcharismatic leaders.

Proposition 4: The superordinate mem-ory construct in the goal structure oicharismatic leaders is an idealized vi-sion; ior noncharismatics, it is a prac-tical plan, a broad goal, or an uncleargoal.

Desired Identity Images

"Desired identity images" reflect "the kind ofperson the actor aspires to be, and believes heor she can be, at least at his or her 'best' "(Schlenker, 1985: 74). Importantly, such imagesshould be both personally beneiicial and believ-able. For leaders the desirability of an identityimage depends, in part, on what is valued bythose they target to be followers. For example, aschool principal may derive charisma from actsof kindness toward troubled kids, whereas cour-age in combat may be a more desirable imagefor a military leader. This suggests a high de-gree of disparity in the images desired by char-ismatic leaders with differing personalities, or-

40 Academy 0/ Management Review January

ganizational contexts, and followers. Still, thereare some images that we .suspect are valued byall charismatic leaders. Specifically, we believethe identity images of trustworthy, credible,morally worthy, innovative, esteemed, and pow-erful are especially valued. Although these im-ages are important as well to other leaders, weassert that charismatics place a far greater em-phasis on securing them as an interrelated set.One reason for this is that they and others com-monly associate this entire constellation of im-ages with persons deemed to be charismatic. Assuch, these images represent core self-schemathat serve to guide the leaders' presentations toothers (Markus & Wurf, 1987). Consistent withthis view. House and Shamir (1993) argue thatimage building contributes to a leader beingseen as competent, credible, trustworthy, andmotivated to serve follov/ers' moral interests;these images, in turn, provide a basis for thecharismatic relationship (Klein & House, 1995).We expound upon why these images are so im-portant to charismatic leaders in the followingparagraph.

Trustworthy and credible. Nearly all leadersvalue a trustworthy image, but this image iscritical for charismatics (Conger, 1989); if char-ismatics are not trusted by followers, it matterslittle how compelling their vision is or how wellthey articulate it. Persons who distrust theleader may feel exploited or question the lead-er's motives and, hence, be unwilling to makethemselves vulnerable—a key component oftrust (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996). Withoutsuch vulnerability they are unlikely to fullyidentify with the message, for they will be reluc-tant to give the leader the benefit of the doubtwhen the path to the vision is unclear.

Charismatics must also appear credible—thatis, their words must match their deeds. Whereastrust is based on an audience's attribution thatan actor's message is honest and nonexploit-ative, credibility depends on whether the actor'swords are subsequently confirmed or discon-firmed (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985). To achieveand retain credibility, leaders must showthrough tangible results, or the appearance ofsuch, that they can deliver on their promises(Bass, 1985, 1988). Indeed, in one case study aleader's charisma was shown to wane as herperceived effectiveness declined (Roberts &Bradley, 1988).

Most charismatic leaders value followers'trust and treat it as a sacred resource. Some,however, see trust as a commodity or a "meansto an end." Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) argue thatsuch leaders operate at a lower level of moraldevelopment, and their motives often are gearedtoward building an image to maintain controland maximize self-gain. These leaders are inca-pable of sincere concern for others and oftenabuse followers' trust. Trust for them is viewedas a form of dependence: "If you trust me, youwill depend on me to do the right thing and notquestion my actions." This apparent depen-dency may explain why selfish acts by suchleaders, although transparent to outsiders, arenever questioned by followers (Willner, 1984).

Morally worthy. Many charismatic leaderspresent themselves as morally worthy personswho espouse visions intended to better an organ-ization or society. For example, at the 1988 Dem-ocratic National Convention, Jesse Jackson jus-tified tackling unpopular issues by arguing, "Ifan issue is morally right, it will eventually be-come political" (Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994).Of course, some charismatics want to appearmorally righteous, not because they are, but be-cause this image enhances their influence(Howell, 1988).

Innovative. Charismatic leaders place a pre-mium on being seen as innovative, entrepre-neurial, adaptive, and unconventional personswho have a vision for radical and frame-break-ing change. Moreover, in pursuing innovativeideas and in initiating change, they are willingto take substantial and often personal risks.Such creative, unconventional, and risky behav-ior sets them apart from their audience; it alsocontributes to their appeal, since the originalityof their ideas and their willingness to take riskson followers' behalf strengthen followers' confi-dence that valued outcomes can be achieved(Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988).

Esteemed and powerful. The term "esteem"refers to an audience's perception that an actorhas special abilities or competencies (Tedeschi& Norman, 1985). Clearly, esteem is inherent forcharismatics, since the term "charisma" is de-rived from an ancient Greek word meaning"gift" (Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988) and, byWeber's (1924/1947) original definition, charis-matics are extraordinarily gifted people. Excep-tional abilities also serve as a source of pow-er—an identity image that is highly valued by

1998 Gardner and Avoiio 41

charismatic leaders (House, 1977; House et al.,1991)—as indicated earlier. In most instances,the leader's special talents are genuine. Still,many charismatics, along with their followers,exaggerate their true talents until they appearextraordinary (Bass, 1988). Regardless of theirorigin, esteem and power are critical for charis-matic leaders, who must appear to possesssome special expertise or skill, as well as acapacity to use it to achieve influence, in orderto convince followers that they can attain theirlofty goals and thereby secure their trust andcommitment (Conger, 1989). Bryman (1992) as-serts that it is precisely these perceptions (i.e.,they are in the presence of greatness) that drawfollowers toward charismatic leaders. Overall,the above discussion suggests the following:

Proposition 5; Charismatic leaders, toa greater extent than noncharismaticleaders, value and pursue an interre-lated constellation oi identity im-ages—trustworthy, credible, morallyworthy, innovative, esteemed, andpoweriul; constructing and maintain-ing these identity images in the mindsoi ioUowers is essential ior the lead-er's charismatic image.

LEADER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

Having examined the desired identity imagesof charismatic leaders, we now shift our focus tothe IM behaviors they employ to secure and re-tain these images. From a dramaturgical per-spective, the IM efforts of charismatic leaderscan be grouped into four basic phases: (1) fram-ing, (2) scripting, (3) staging, and (4) performing.

Framing

A "frame" is defined as "a quality of commu-nication that causes others to accept one mean-ing over another" (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996: xi).Hence, framing involves communications thatshape the general perspective upon which infor-mation is presented and interpreted. Notice theconsistency of these definitions with the drama-turgical perspective; this is not a coincidence. Inkeeping with Goffman's (1974) frame analysis,Fairhurst and Sarr (1996) argue that framing isan art whereby leaders manage meaning andsocially construct reality for themselves and fol-

lowers. Similarly, Conger (1991) asserts thatleaders use framing techniques to present theorganization's purpose in a fashion that ener-gizes followers. For example, Steven Jobs de-fined the mission of his new computer company,NEXT, as "revolutionizing the higher educa-tional system," as opposed to "building comput-ers for university applications." Hence, for fol-lowers, the vision "enlarges the frame of theircontribution and the worthiness of what they aredoing" (Conger, 1989: 39-40).

In framing their vision, charismatics choosetheir words to amplify audience values, stressits importance and efficacy, and, if necessary,denigrate those who oppose it. In a subtle wayApple's "computers for everyone else" mottodenigrates competitors for relying on too muchtechnical jargon. Doing so made Jobs' visionmore enticing and encouraged its internaliza-tion by followers, who believed a simpler sys-tem would have wider market appeal (Conger,1991). Fairhurst and Sarr describe vision-basedframing as the process of "enabling people tosee the world that you see" (1996: 50). Here again,the role that framing plays in defining themeaning of the vision for followers is apparent(Boal & Bryson, 1988; Shamir et al., 1993).

Scripting

In a dramaturgical study of social movements,Benford and Hunt used the term "scripting" torefer "to the development of a set of directionsthat define the scene, identify actors and outlineexpected behavior" (1992: 38). They define"scripts" as emergent guides for collective con-sciousness and interactions that are sufficientlycircumspect to provide cues for behavior whenunexpected events occur, and yet flexibleenough to permit improvisation. While the bulkof scripting is done prior to a performance, somemay be improvised as part of an ongoing ex-change. Scripts are built upon the frames thatsupply the collective definition of the situation.Thus, scripting is an extension of the framingprocess. However, it differs in that scripts areintended to coordinate and integrate activities.Whereas framing provides general ideas, script-ing moves such ideas a step closer toward en-actment by casting roles, composing dialogue,and directing action.

Casting. To Benford and Hunt the first step inthe scripting process involves identifying "the


cast of characters," including "antagonists, vic-tims, protagonists, supporting cast membersand audiences" (1992: 39). Charismatic leadersengage in casting activities by defining roles forthemselves and others. Of primary importanceis the casting of prospective followers as alliesin pursuit of their vision. In addition to articu-lating a vision, charismatics explain the essen-tial role that targeted followers can and mustplay to make the vision a reality (Conger, 1989,1991; Willner, 1984). Charismatics also are quickto identify the antagonist(s). For Steven Jobs theantagonist was IBM, which controlled a domi-nant share of the personal computer market but,in his view, was unresponsive to the computingneeds of most consumers. Thus, the "victim" inhis script was the unserved consumer (Conger,1989,1991). Clearly, the protagonist or "savior" insuch a script is the leader, whose vision is pre-sented as a path for righting the wrongs com-mitted against the victims (Willner, 1984). Fi-nally, third-party audiences (e.g., prospectiveinvestors, regulators, and suppliers) may alsobe identified for whom the leader and followersmust jointly perform to solicit desired resourcesand support.

Dialogue. Charismatic leaders play a signifi-cant role in scripting the dialogue with follow-ers, which, in turn, shapes the charismatic rela-tionship. In doing so, these leaders draw uponvarious forms of rhetorical crafting, includingmetaphors, analogies, and stories (Conger, 1989,1991). Mary Kay Ash often uses a metaphor of abumble bee to describe the women who work forher (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Like the bumble bee,who flies even though its body is too heavy forits wings, they "find their wings—and then flyvery well indeed" (Tunley, 1978). This metaphoris symbolic of the hurdles and rewards that existfor women who struggle tc reenter the workforceafter having a family. By repeatedly invokingthis metaphor. Ash seeks to instill in women avocabulary of efficacy that empowers them bychanging how they think about themselves.

Other rhetorical methods that charismaticleaders incorporate into the script includerhythm, repetition, balance, and alliteration(Conger, 1991). The power of rhythm and repeti-tion is illustrated by Martin Luther King's usageof the phrase "Let freedom ring" in his famous "IHave a Dream" speech. The rhythmic repetitionof this phrase in ever louder tones mesmerizedand ignited the emotional commitment of his

audiences. This strategy also increased recall ofKing's central message. Charismatic speakersare skilled at using rhetoric to drive home theirmessage, to evoke positive affect, and to forgean emotional bond with listeners.

Four experiments provide evidence of the ca-pacity of a leader's scripts to elicit attributionsof charisma. In the first, by Howell and Frost(1989), confederates were trained to behave ver-bally and nonverbally as charismatic, structur-ing, or considerate ledders. The language of thecharismatic leader included "attention to artic-ulating an overarching goal, communicatinghigh performance expectations, and exhibitingconfidence in subordinates' ability to meet theseexpectations", (p. 251). As predicted, subjectsworking with charismatic versus noncharis-matic leaders exhibited higher task perfor-mance and satisfaction and less role conflict. Inlater studies by Sidani (1993), Holladay andCoombs (1994), and Awamleh and Gardner(1997), subjects were exposed to visionary versusnonvisionary speeches presented by confeder-ate leaders. The content of the speeches washeld constant, but more dynamic language andphrasing appeared in the visionary speeches. Ineach case higher levels of charisma were attrib-uted to leaders delivering visionary speeches.

Direction. Scripting also involves the provi-sion of directions for the performances of thefocal actor and other cast members, includingnonverbal and emotional displays (Benford &Hunt, 1992). In advancing his dramaturgical per-spective, Goffman notes that "the expressive-ness of the individual (and therefore his capac-ity to give impressions) appears to involve tworadically different kinds of sign activity: the ex-pression that he gives, and the expression thathe gives oii" (1959: 2; italics in original). The firstprimarily involves verbalizations used to createdesired impressions; the second involves non-verbal displays that are less subject to the ac-tor's control. Given the presumed difficulty thatactors encounter in managing nonverbal pre-sentations, audiences pay close attention tosuch behaviors and assign them more weightwhen forming impressions. However, Goffmanrecognizes that this enables a skilled actor "toexploit this very possibility, guiding the impres-sion he makes through behavior felt to be reli-ably informing" (1959: 7-8). Hence, the scriptingof nonverbal displays can be an especially po-


tent means of managing impressions (DePaulo,1992).

Charismatic leaders appear to be very awareof the importance of nonverbal behaviors totheir image. Thus, they use their superior actingabilities to orchestrate nonverbal and expres-sive behaviors that followers see as highly fluid,outwardly directed, and animated (Bass, 1985,1988; Weierter, 1997). Whereas many such be-haviors involve spontaneous displays of genu-ine emotion, others are scripted in advance orthrough improvisation to maximize their impact.Their inspirational effects are readily apparentfrom audience reactions. For instance, peopledescribe the voices of charismatics as captivat-ing and their eyes as magnetic and hypnotic(Bryman, 1992; Willner, 1984). Charismatics alsoproject a powerful, confident, and dynamic pres-ence through their body posture, speaking rate,gestures, smiles, eye contact, and touch (Bass,1985, 1988).

Of course, such nonverbal displays, as well asverbal cues and props, also may be used todirect the audience to exhibit appropriate re-sponses; in such instances, the audience be-comes part of the performance (Benford & Hunt,1992; Weierter, 1997). For example, audiencemembers who witnessed firsthand Jesse Jack-son's inspirational speech at the 1988 Demo-cratic Presidential Convention vocalized theirenthusiasm for his message throughout his ad-dress (Shamir et al., 1994). Many of these vocal-izations were evoked in response to verbal andnonverbal cues provided by the Reverend Jack-son. This illustrates how leaders can subtly di-rect members of the cast and audience as theycarry out their roles in the performance.

Howell and Frost, in their 1989 study, illustratewell the extent to which nonverbal behaviorscan be scripted to achieve desired effects. Actorsin the charismatic treatment were trained to ex-hibit extended eye contact, vocal variety, a re-laxed posture, and animated facial expressions.Those actors portraying structuring and consid-erate leadership were coached to be less dy-namic. As we noted previously, greater task per-formance and satisfaction and less role conflictoccurred in the charismatic treatments. How-ever, because both verbal and nonverbal behav-iors were varied under each treatment, their rel-ative effects remained unclear.

Fortunately, Holladay and Coombs (1993, 1994)tested for these effects independently. In their

initial study, subjects viewed videos of leaderspeeches with the content held constant. In thestrong delivery treatment the actor was directedto exhibit high vocal fluency, natural body ges-tures, and extensive eye contact; the weak de-livery involved lower levels of these behaviors.As expected, the strong delivery elicited fargreater attributions of charisma. In the fol-low-up study both verbal content (visionary ver-sus nonvisionary speech) and delivery were var-ied. Although both had significant main effectson attributed charisma, delivery explained morevariance. Perceived charisma was greatest un-der the visionary speech and strong deliverytreatment. In a more recent extension of thisstudy, Awamleh and Gardner (1997) were able toreplicate these findings. As a group, these re-sults provide strong evidence of the importanceof nonverbal presentations in the formation of acharismatic relationship. Indeed, in creating acharismatic image, how leaders say what theysay may sometimes be just as important, or evenmore important, than what they say.

Staging

"The great leaders," as Charles de Gaulle pro-phetically wrote long before attaining office asFrance's President, "have always carefullystage-managed their effects" (Schoenbrun,1966). "Staging," here, "refers to appropriating,managing, and directing materials, audiencesand performing regions" (Benford & Hunt, 1992:43). Although staging, at one level, entailspurely logistical matters, a dramaturgical ap-proach requires attention to the developmentand manipulation of symbols, including physi-cal appearances, settings, props, and othertypes of artifactual displays (Gardner & Mar-tinko, 1988b; Mayo, 1978; Schneider, 1981).

As Goffman (1959) observed, one's physicalappearance, including one's wardrobe, groom-ing, and so forth, constitutes an extension ofone's personality. Indeed, appearance is one ofthe most conspicuous and yet intimate forms ofself-presentation. In recognition of these facts,charismatic leaders often manipulate their ap-pearance for symbolic purposes. For instance,the medals and pearl-handled revolvers thatadorned General George Patton's uniform weresymbols of his esteemed, powerful, and uncon-ventional image.


In staging a performance, charismatics mustselect symbols that are consistent with thescript. To do so, many charismatic leaders workclosely with key advisors to select venues,props, and audiences for their speeches (Cohen,1987; Conger, 1989; Hart, 1987; Mayo, 1978; Will-ner, 1984). For instance, Benford and Hunt (1992)describe how inspirational leaders of a peacemovement coalition attempted to prevent mem-bers of the Revolutionary Communist Party fromdisplaying the symbols of guns, clenched fists,and burning American flags at a rally. Suchprops were deemed to be antithetical to themovement's nonviolent script.

A leader may also manipulate radio, televi-sion, newspapers, and other mass media instaging a performance (Bass, 1985; Cohen, 1987).The Reagan administration's orchestration ofthe television networks, through public relationsevents and "sound bites" designed to transmitdesired images, demonstrates the utility of suchefforts (Hart, 1987). Similarly, several charis-matic business leaders have taken to appearingpersonally in television advertisements to pro-mote favorable corporate images (Bryman, 1992;Conger, 1989). Given the mass media's potencyas a channel for image management, it meritsmore attention in future research on "high pro-file" charisma (Hart, 1987). Overall, the preced-ing discussion suggests the following:

Proposition 6; Charismatic leaders or-chestrate their presentations to targetaudiences through verbal, nonverbal,artiiactual, and mass media to irame,script, and stage the charismatic per-iormance.

Performing

In our dramaturgical framework "performing"refers to the actual enactment of scripted behav-iors and relationships. Here, it is useful to con-sider specific presentational strategies thatleaders use to construct the charismatic rela-tionship.. Jones and Pittman (1982) have identi-fied five assertive IM strategies that actors useto solicit desired attributions: exemplification,self-promotion, ingratiation, intimidation, andsupplication. Of these strategies, the first twoappear to be the primary means whereby lead-ers create charismatic images. Indeed, the attri-butions elicited by exemplification correspond

to the desired identity images of trustworthyand morally worthy, whereas self-promotion canbe used to appear credible, innovative, es-teemed, and powerful. We generalize the self-promotion strategy to include other forms of pro-motion, since some charismatics promote theirvision and organization, at least as much as,and in some instances even more than, them-selves.

Although other assertive IM strategies maycontribute to charisma, the available literaturesuggests they are neither essential nor distinc-tive. Indeed, a charismatic identity can be cre-ated without them; noncharismatics may usethese other strategies with equal or greater fre-quency. Thus, we are not arguing that charis-matic leaders never use other assertive IM strat-egies—only that they are not essential to fostera charismatic image.

Exemplification. The strategy most closelylinked to charisma is exemplification. Oualita-tive evidence that exemplifiers are often charis-matic, and vice versa, is provided by the factthat both Jones and Pittman (1982) and Bass(1985) offer Martin Luther King and MahatmaGandhi as prototypical examples of each. Be-cause integrity and moral worthiness representnearly universal ideals, exemplifiers, includingcharismatic leaders, typically portray them-selves as exceptionally trustworthy and morallyresponsible individuals. They may also stresstheir similarity to followers with regard to theirbackground and experiences in order to estab-lish themselves as trusted representatives oftheir followers' interests (Shamir et al., 1994).However, as Conger and Kanungo note, they arenot just representative others who are generallyadmired and liked, "but similar others who arealso distinct because of their idealized vision"(1988: 86).

As exemplifiers, charismatics engage in self-sacrificing and personally risky behaviors thatdramatically illustrate their commitment to thecause; doing so helps to secure follower trust,while indicating the need to make personal sac-rifices for the collective good (Shamir et al.,1993). Charismatics also act in unconventionaland counternormative ways to model new be-haviors that deviate from the status quo. Inmany cases such exemplary behavior may con-tribute to the leader's charismatic image whileeliciting follower emulation (Jones & Pittman,1982). Still, to be effective in fostering a charis-

1998 Gfardner and Avolio 45

matic image, counternormative leader behaviormust also satisfy followers' needs and values(Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1988).

Gardner and Cleavenger (1996) present somepreliminary empirical evidence of the impor-tance of exemplification to perceptions of cha-risma; they completed a psychohistorical studydesigned to assess the IM strategies employedby charismatic/transformational leaders. Afterreading a biography on a world-class leaderand preparing a detailed analysis of his or herbehavior and influence tactics, students in theirstudy completed the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1990) and aLeader Impression Management Ouestionnaire(LIMO) developed by the authors to measureJones and Pittman's (1982) IM strategies. As pre-dicted, exemplification was positively related tothe transformational leadership factors of attrib-uted charisma, behavioral charisma, inspira-tional motivation, intellectual stimulation, andindividualized consideration, as well as per-ceived effectiveness and follower satisfaction. Itwas also the most frequently used IM strategy ofleaders who were identified as charismatic.

Gilbert and Jones (1986) provide insight intothe dangers that await charismatic leaders whoemploy exemplification but also behave in afashion at odds with their espoused values. Sub-jects in their study first viewed a taped inter-view with an actor who either claimed to behonest (exemplifier) or morally adaptable (prag-matist). Next, the subjects were told that theactor either had or had not cheated. The cheat-ing exemplifier was seen as more hypocriticaland self-deluding, but less exploitative, than thecheating pragmatist. This implies that charis-matics who fail to live up to their espousedideals risk being discredited, as televangelistsJimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker discovered(Leary, 1989). Followers allowed these leadersenormous discretion to take advantage of theirtrust. Misappropriation of finances and otherabuses were tolerated for long periods of time.Yet, when each violated a core church value—"thou shall not commit adultery"—he wasthrown out of his congregation.

Promotion. The term "promotion" is derivedfrom a Latin word meaning "to move forward," aconnotation that is certainly consistent with ef-fective leadership. Its meaning has narrowedover the years to refer to "communication under-taken to persuade others to accept ideas, con-

cepts, or things" (Engel, Warshaw, & Kinnear,1994: 5). Other theorists emphasize that promo-tion involves the communication of favorableand persuasive information (Dommermuth,1989). We use this term to refer to leaders' effortsto communicate favorable and persuasive infor-mation about their selves, vision, and/or organi-zation.

Seli-promotion. An actor's efforts to secure at-tributions of expertise, esteem, power, and effec-tiveness are termed "self-promotion" (Jones &Pittman, 1982). We noted earlier that these im-ages are central to a charismatic leader's de-sired identity. Thus, charismatics sometimes en-gage in self-promotion to bolster their images ofcompetence and power and thereby heightentheir esteem with followers (Bass, 1988, 1990;Conger, 1989; Leary, 1989). In doing so theyproject themselves as skilled, innovative, influ-ential, and effective leaders whose exploitsgreatly benefit followers. Indeed, to retain influ-ence,

the charismatic must continue to demonstrate ef-fectiveness as a leader; that is, that the actionswhich can be attributed to him are continuing tobenefit the community of followers. The effective-ness must be real or imagined. Often, the charis-matic survives with more attention given to theapparent than the real. (Bass, 1985: 40)

Because audiences recognize that actorssometimes exaggerate their capabilities, theytend to discount transparent self-promotions.This creates a "self-promoter's paradox": as ac-tors increase claims of competence, audiencesjustifiably become more skeptical, since compe-tent people often downplay their successes(Jones & Pittman, 1982). Indeed, the psychohis-torical study by Gardner and Cleavenger (1996)reveals that blatant attempts at self-promotion,when recognized as such, detract from leadercharisma. This finding suggests that more sub-tle forms of self-promotion, as well as promo-tions of the vision and organization, are re-quired of leaders to foster images of esteem andcharisma. These may include (1) taking on chal-lenges they are confident they can achieve, (2)perpetuating myths about their deeds, and (3)not disclosing details that may have facilitatedtheir performance (Bass, 1985,1988; Conger, 1989;House, 1977).

Vision promotion. The term "vision promotion"is used to describe efforts to communicate theinnovative and idealized content of the leader's


vision and to persuade followers to embrace it.Charismatic leaders' extreme self-confidenceand strong beliefs in their goals drive them topromote their own causes. In articulating theirvision, they essentially try to "sell" their audi-ence on its merits and their capacity to make thevision come true (Conger, 1989). Charismaticleaders tirelessly devote time and energy to pro-moting their vision and enlisting followers. Todo so. Conger and Kanungo argue:

[Clharismatic leaders must effectively articulatefor followers the following scenarios represent-ing the context: the nature of the status quo andits shortcomings, their future vision, how, ̂ vhenrealized, the future vision will remove existingdeficiencies and provide fulfillment of the hopesof followers, and their plans of action for realizingtheir vision. (1988: 86)

Note that the process of vision promotion isentirely consistent with the notion of promotionas used by marketers and reflects many of thesame methods (Dommermuth, 1989; Engel et al.,1994). Specifically, the vision—like a product orservice—is favorably contrasted to differentiateit from a less desirable alternative (e.g., the sta-tus quo), which is typically portrayed in a highlynegative fashion. Indeed, charismatics oftenpresent the status quo as intolerable, while de-scribing the vision in Utopian, but clear andspecific terms as the most attractive and feasi-ble option. Through these processes, the leaderattempts to create, among followers, disen-chantment with the status quo, strong identifi-cation with the idealized future, and a compel-ling desire to be led toward the vision, despitethe sizable obstacles that must be surmounted(Conger, 1989). Note also that the leader's capac-ity to deliver satisfaction for followers is empha-sized, demonstrating the interrelationship be-tween the charismatic leader's efforts at visionpromotion and self-promotion.

Of course, as with any salesperson, the lead-er's promotional efforts may be overdone. Forexample, a content analysis of the businesspress's portrayal of the rise and fall of PeopleExpress and its founder, Donald Burr, revealedthat he was most commonly described as a"preacher"; this term "conveys exactly the rightsense of sweat-in-a-hot-tent, evangelical fervorthat makes the pulse race," which characterizedBurr's leadership (Chen & Meindl, 1991: 550). Burrtirelessly promoted the firm's noble cause—in-expensive air transportation for the public—

while exhorting employees to ever higher levelsof effort and commitment. Although Burr's evan-gelical style was credited with contributing toPeople's phenomenal initial success by thepress, these same publications later described itas "overzealous" and "fanatical" when the firmfoundered. His promotions, apparently, were"overdone"; they constituted too much of a goodthing. Chen and Meindl (1991) suggest that suchdescriptions represent efforts by the press toreconstruct Burr's image in a manner that isconsistent with prior portrayals, and yet reflec-tive of People's performance failures (customercomplaints, bankruptcy, and so on). We agreethat this explanation is viable, but we also be-lieve that, as is the case with self-promotions,there may be a point at which efforts to promotea vision and elicit higher levels of follower effortlose their effectiveness. Indeed, at some pointfollowers may have nothing left to give; whenthis occurs, the message will appear unrealistic.If the leader's credibility is damaged further byperformance deficits, his or her charisma mayfade quickly (Bass, 1985).

Organizational promotion. As spokespersonsfor their organizations, leaders in general, andcharismatic leaders in particular, use "organi-zational promotions" to emphasize their positivefeatures and achievements and to portray themas making steady progress toward a shared vi-sion (Conger, 1989; Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996; Will-ner, 1984). Indeed, to forge a collective identityamong followers, charismatics make referencesto the collective and use inclusive terms, such as"we," "us," and "our," in describing goals andachievements (Shamir et al., 1994; Shamir et al.,1993). Moreover, these leaders may deflectpraise for success by indicating that their fol-lowers deserve "all of the credit." Of course,given the leader's visibility in guiding the organ-ization, followers and outsiders alike are un-likely to take efforts to deflect credit seriously.Instead, they typically assign primary responsi-bility for success to the leader (Lord & Maher,1993), while making a secondary attribution thathe or she is modest (Schlenker, 1980). Thus, or-ganizational promotions during which charis-matics give credit to followers may also serve asa subtle form of self-promotion, which boostssuch leaders' esteem, while further endearingthem to followers.

Facework. Goffman (1967) uses the term "face-work" to describe presentations intended to


counteract threats to the face of oneself or oth-ers. "Face" refers to "the conception of self thateach person displays in particular interactionswith others" (Cupach & Metts, 1994: 3). Otherauthors refer to facework as defensive or protec-tive IM (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997; Schlenker,1980; Tedeschi & Norman, 1985). Charismaticleaders use facework when they encounter a"predicament"—that is, a situation "in whichevents have undesirable implications for theidentity-relevant images actors have claimed ordesire to claim in front of real or imagined au-diences" (Schlenker, 1980: 125). Note that leaderscannot use facework to build a charismatic im-age; they can, however, use facework to helpprotect or repair their image or that of theirvision or organization.

Defensive IM tactics include accounts, apolo-gies, disclaimers, self-handicapping, restitu-tion, and prosocial behaviors (Tedeschi & Nor-man, 1985). Space limits here prohibit us fromconsidering the potential utility of each of thesetactics for charismatic leaders. Still, for illustra-tive purposes, we discuss how one key means offacework—accounts—could be used by charis-matics to protect or restore desired identity im-ages.

An "account" is an explanation of a predica-ment that seeks to minimize its apparent sever-ity. There are three basic types of accounts. (1)Deienses oi innocence attempt to deflect respon-sibility by denying a damaging event occurredor the actor was involved. (2) Excuses involveefforts to limit the actor's responsibility for anundesirable event, although the actor admitsbeing involved. (3) Justiiications occur when theactor admits responsibility for the event buttries to minimize its undesirability (Higgins &Snyder, 1989; Schlenker, 1980; Scott & Lyman,1968; Snyder, Higgins, & Stucky, 1983).

During the Iran-Contra scandal, RonaldReagan appeared to use accounting tacticswhen he (1) flatly denied an arms-for-hostagesdeal was made (defense of innocence), (2)claimed he was not informed of the diversion offunds (excuse), and (3) implied that the ends (i.e.,release of the hostages) warranted extrememeans (justification). Even after he took "fullresponsibility" following a damaging report onthe incident, he blamed others for "activitiesundertaken without my knowledge." The tone ofthe next day's headlines (e.g., "President TakesBlame," "Makes No Excuses") suggests that

Reagan gauged his public correctly in usingthese accounts (Higgins & Snyder, 1989). Indeed,critics dubbed Reagan the "Teflon" Presidentbecause of his ability to deflect threats to hisimage and to preserve his appeal. Of course, theglare of the public spotlight can just as easilymagnify damage to a leader's image (Bass, 1985,1988). Donald Burr witnessed the adverse effectsof media coverage firsthand when People Ex-press went bankrupt (Chen & Meindl, 1991). Inthis instance, the predicament was so severethat he simply could not adequately account forit.

As with any form of IM, facework loses itseffectiveness if it is overused (Cupach & Metts,1994; Schlenker, 1980). We anticipate that, al-though charismatic leaders utilize faceworkwhen necessary, their high self-monitoringskills enable them to recognize when faceworkwould be excessive or ineffective. Therefore, wespeculate that charismatics tend to employ face-work more judiciously and skillfully than non-charismatic leaders, who may lack the self-mon-itoring skills required to sense when it would becounterproductive.

Proposition 7a: Charismatic leaders, toa greater extent than noncharismaticleaders, use the assertive IM strate-gies oi exempliiication and promotionto secure and maintain desired iden-tity images oi their selves, vision, andorganization.

Proposition 7b: Charismatic leadersuse iacework or defensive IM to pro-tect and repair desired seli, vision,and organizational images more judi-ciously and skilliuUy than do non-charismatic leaders.

FOLLOWER IDENTIFICATION

Self-System of the Follower

In the follower identification process, follow-ers come to identify with, attribute charisma to,and experience positive affect for their leader.Followers' self-systems, and the influence of theleader's behavior upon them, play major roles ineliciting these effects. Shamir et al. (1993) pro-vide insight into the transformational effects ofcharismatic leadership on followers' self-con-cepts and motivation. We consider below sev-


eral implications of their self-concept-basedtheory for our dramaturgical model. Specifi-cally, we focus on the effects of the leader'scharismatic performance on followers' identity,self-esteem, and self-efficacy.

Follower identity. As in the case of leaderidentity, the term "follower identity" has a dualmeaning: (1) the cumulative and generalizedidentity oi the follower and (2) the audience'sidentity as a follower. The former is applicablethroughout the identification process, since theidentities prospective followers bring to initialand subsequent interactions provide the basisfor their situated identities. The latter becomesoperative after they identify with the leader andsee themselves as followers. Once an identity asa follower is formed, the leader's mere presencemay be sufficient to cue this schema into theaudience's situated identity (Schlenker, 1985).

Consistent with the dramaturgical model,Shamir et al. (1993) argue that the key means bywhich leaders impact followers' identities arerole modeling (exemplification) and framealignment. As an influential role model, theleader personifies in one concentrated imagethe ways in which members of the collectivegive meaning and direction to their lives. "Thus,the leader provides an ideal, a point of referenceand focus for followers' emulation and vicariouslearning" (Shamir et al., 1993: 585). Further,through frame alignment, charismatic leadersshape followers' interpretation of past andpresent events to produce a shared vision. Weexpand Shamir et al.'s (1993) assertions by argu-ing that the leader's scripting, staging, andpromotional efforts likewise facilitate framealignment so that the interests and values offollowers and the goals, activities, and ideologyof the leader become congruent. As followerscome to share the leader's situational definitionand vision, and as they model his or her behav-iors, their identification with the leader growsuntil their identities become integrally inter-twined with the leader's and the collective he orshe represents (Shamir, 1995).

Proposition 8: Through the IM pro-cesses oi iraming, scripting, staging,and periorming, the identity oi iol-lower is constructed ior, and assumedby, certain audiences; as the ioUoweridentification process progresses, suchaudiences come to increasingly iden-

tify with the leader until their identi-ties become intertwined with that oithe leader and the collective he or sherepresents.

Elevated self-esteem and self-efficacy. Re-search indicates that charisma may depend asmuch on the "magnetizability" of the follower asit does on leader magnetism (Bass, 1988, 1990;Klein & House, 1995; Madsen & Snow, 1983). In-deed, low self-esteem and emotionally dis-tressed persons are prone to join religious cultsrun by leaders they see as charismatic(Galanter, 1982). Followers with low self-esteemmay have it raised by the leader's extreme de-termination, whereby he or she offers themsomeone they can count on and believe in(Shamir et al., 1993; Weierter, 1997). Over time,such followers develop high levels of affection,admiration, and devotion to the leader. Theblind faith displayed by ardent followers of Rev-erend Moon (the "Moonies") illustrates such ex-treme levels of trust and obedience (Bass, 1985).Such followers often talk about feeling betterabout themselves and their capabilities be-cause of their affiliation with the leader.

Yet, not all followers of charismatics lack self-confidence, as is apparent from the followers ofpersons whom Bass (1985, 1988) describes as"transformational" charismatic leaders—that is,charismatic leaders who transform followers topursue higher level needs and goals. On thecontrary, some followers become effective lead-ers in their own right and display the self-con-fidence to challenge their leaders, when neces-sary. Whether such self-confident individualsoccupy a follower role relative to their leaders ordraw upon their identification with the leader tobecome effective leaders in their own right de-pends upon their situated identities. In somesituations a working self-concept of followermay be cued, serving to regulate and guide theirbehavior as followers; in others a situated iden-tity of leader may be made salient and thereforeelicit leadership behavior.

Consistent with our assertion that many char-ismatics attract highly confident followers,Sidani (1993) has found that high rather than lowself-esteem subjects attribute more charisma tobusiness leaders giving charismatic speeches.He speculates that, although chronically lowself-esteem and emotionally distressed personsmay be drawn to charismatic cult leaders (Ga-


lanter, 1982), they would have a hard time secur-ing positions and surviving as followers of char-ismatic political or business leaders. Instead,highly confident persons tend to be drawn tothese leaders. We suspect, however, that fol-lower self-esteem has less to do with the contextthan the form of charismatic leadership. Specif-ically, charismatics who are low in activity in-hibition may be more likely to attract low self-esteem followers who direct adulation towardthem than those who are high in activity inhibi-tion and seek to empower others. Low self-es-teem persons may be especially drawn to suchleaders, as they bask in their reflected glory andemulate their behavior (Weierter, 1997).

Regardless of followers' initial self-esteem,we concur with House et al. (1991) and Shamir(1991, 1995) that the extreme confidence charis-matic leaders project, through exemplary be-haviors, promotion, and inspirational presenta-tions, elevates follower self-esteem to higherlevels. Moreover, by repeatedly expressing highexpectations of followers and confidence intheir abilities to meet them, charismatic leadersalso elevate followers' self-efficacy expecta-tions regarding task performance (Bandura,1997). This implies:

Proposition 9; The extreme confidencethat charismatic leaders express intheir own and ioUowers' abilities,through exemplary behaviors, promo-tional eiiorts, and inspirational pre-sentations, serves to elevate ioUowers'seli-esteem and seli-eiiicacy expecta-tions.

Follower Motives and Values

Through the appeal of their vision and values,exemplary behaviors, promotions, and inspira-tional presentations, charismatics transform thevalues, needs, and motives of followers tohigher levels (Bass, 1985, 1988). Indeed, House etal. (1991) argue that such leaders motivate fol-lowers to make personal sacrifices by shiftingtheir motives from their personal self-intereststo those of the collective. That is, they inspirefollowers to pursue service to the collective, in-stead of purely individualistic goals (Bass, 1988;Shamir et al., 1993). Mary Macarthur, for exam-ple, persuaded female workers in Great Britainto form labor unions to pursue their collective

interests, despite the great personal risks (e.g.,possible loss of employment) and sacrifices(e.g., loss of income during strikes) required(Hamilton, 1976).

The extent to which followers' values are con-gruent with those espoused by the leader willalso influence how much they identify with theleader (Shamir, 1994, 1995; Shamir et al., 1993).Indeed, the degree of value congruence mayhelp to explain why charismatic leaders are de-scribed as "loved" by some persons and "hated"by others (Bass, 1985, 1988). The more convincedindividuals become that a leader has a visionand the capacity to achieve personally valuedgoals, the more likely they are to commit to andeven love the leader (Weierter, 1997). Con-versely, when observers see leaders as pursuinginitiatives that are considered incongruent withaudience values, those leaders may be hated.Of course, the leader's persuasive abilities oftenwill influence audience values, causing them tomove closer to those he or she promotes (Conger& Kanungo, 1987). Indeed, persons who are ini-tially indifferent or even opposed to the leader'svalues may, nevertheless, become followerswho eventually internalize these values. Thus,the available literature implies the following:

Proposition 10: Through the appeal oitheir vision and values, exemplary be-haviors, promotions, and inspirationalpresentations, charismatic leadersshiit ioUowers' motives away iromtheir seli-interests and toward serviceto the collective; ioUowers' values,likewise, are realigned until they arecongruent with the leader's vision andvalues, which they eventually inter-nalize.

Attributions of Charisma

Lord and Maher's (1993) research on leader-ship and social information processing providesinsight into the processes whereby audiencesattribute charisma to an actor. Their work im-plies that, upon first encountering actors whoproject charismatic identity images and IM be-haviors, audiences tend to invoke controlled in-formation processing to interpret the leader'sactions. This is because a charismatic leader'sbehavior is, by definition, novel and may bedifficult to classify using existing cognitive cat-egories. After repeated exposure, however, a


subtype can be added to the audience's proto-typical leadership schema to differentiate lead-ers they deem to be charismatic from those whothey deem are not. Although the contents of thissubtype have yet to be identified empirically,we suspect that they include the identity imagesspecified earlier as desired in charismatic lead-ers: trustworthy, credible, morally worthy, inno-vative, esteemed, and powerful. Once it is for-mulated, the audience invokes this subtypeautomatically to categorize as charismatic per-sons who project the representative identity im-ages and behaviors. Subsequent behavior thatis consistent with this subtype is processed au-tomatically and reinforces the leader's charis-matic image. Still, if the leader creates inconsis-tent images, the audience may again invokecontrolled processing to reassess the attributionof charisma.

Proposition lla: Initial exposures toactors who exhibit charismatic behav-iors require controlled informationprocessing as the audience seeks tointerpret the observed behavior; re-peated exposures produce charis-matic leader prototypes that specifyrepresentative identity images.

Proposition lib: When a sufficientnumber oi actor identity images andbehaviors match up with those in-cluded in the audience's (e.g., iollow-er's) charismatic leader prototype, au-tomatic processing is invoked, and theactor is categorized as a charismaticleader; otherwise, actors are assignedto another social category or, in thecase oi actors previously categorizedas charismatic, a reassessment oi thisattribution may occur through con-trolled information processing.

Romance of leadership. Of special relevanceto the impact of charismatic leader prototypeson attributed charisma is a dispositional ten-dency to attribute organizational outcomes toleadership effects across situations (Meindl,1990, 1995; Shamir, 1992). For some individualsleader prototypes are highly prominent withintheir implicit organizational theories (Lord &Maher, 1993). Meindl (1990) describes such per-sons as predisposed to "romanticize" leader-ship. To operationalize this construct, Meindl

and Erlich (1987) created the Romance of Lead-ership Scale (RLS). In validating this scale, theyconfirmed that persons with high versus lowscores tend to attribute greater responsibility toleaders for organizational outcomes.

A bias toward romanticizing leadershipshould likewise result in a pronounced tendencyto attribute charisma to leaders, since followersoften see charismatic leaders as "larger thanlife" and as exerting great influence over organ-izational, if not societal, events (Bass, 1988;House, 1977; Meindl, 1990,1995). In a direct test ofthis prediction, Shamir (1992) confirmed thathigh RLS subjects were most likely to view lead-ers as charismatic and influential. This findingprovides some preliminary support for the no-tion that attributions of charisma may dependas much on follower "magnetizability" as theydo leader behavior. Further, the finding sug-gests that the romance of leadership dispositionis a key individual difference variable that mayhelp to explain why some followers view aleader as charismatic while others do not.

Proposifion 12: Persons who are pre-disposed to romanticize leadershipare especially likely to make attribu-tions oi charisma and to become iol-lowers oi charismatic leaders.

Secondary impressions. Along with a primaryimpression of charisma, a number of "secondaryimpressions" (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997; Schnei-der, 1981) may arise as unintended by-productsof a leader's presentation (Leary, 1989). In mostcases these secondary impressions are positive(e.g., sociability or generosity), as the glow thatsurrounds charisma creates a halo effect, whichspills over to other areas (Lord & Maher, 1993). Insome cases, however, they may be less desir-able. For instance, some followers who attributecharisma may nevertheless experience reserva-tions if they consider the leader to be manipu-lative and opportunistic. This is most likely to betrue when IM strategies are overused and/orleaders possess low levels of activity inhibition;followers may admire the leader's charm butmay hold doubts about his or her motives.

In a study of primary and secondary impres-sions, Gurevitch (1984) found that while self-pro-motion can foster an image of competence, itmay also produce an unwanted secondary im-pression that the actor is manipulative. This isespecially true when members of the audience

1998 Gfardner and Avolio 51

see the actor as being similar to themselves.These results may explain why some would-becharismatics are esteemed, whereas othersseem manipulative and untrustworthy, and theymay also help explain the "love-hate" paradoxassociated with charismatic leaders. Finally,these results imply that leaders who aspire toappear charismatic must exercise great care inexposing themselves to followers when theirmotives are transparent or of the lower-ordervariety.

Proposifion 13: Positive secondaryimpressions (e.g., attractiveness orsociability) tend to accompany attri-butions oi charisma; however, whenleaders' IM behaviors are excessiveand/or they possess low levels oi ac-tivity inhibition, unwanted second-ary impressions (e.g., manipulative,untrustworthy, overzealous, or con-ceited) may arise, detracting irom theircharisma.

Positive Affect for the Leader

The dynamic nature of charismatic presenta-tions serves to arouse and energize audiences.Indeed, affective arousal and attachment by fol-lowers constitute defining qualities of charis-matic leadership (Bass, 1988). Further, many au-thors assert that the basis for a charismaticrelationship is more affective than cognitive(Schweitzer, 1984; Weber, 1924/1947). Willner, forexample, argues that "the emotions aroused arenot only more intense in degree, but they are ofa somewhat different order. Followers respondto their leader with devotion, awe, reverence,and blind faith, in short, with emotions close toreligious worship" (1984: 7). One reason whycharismatic leaders elicit such strong affectivereactions is suggested by Banaji and Prentice(1994), who note a positive linkage between self-enhancement motives and strong affective re-sponses. The implication is that self-enhancingidentification with a leader and/or his or hercollective vision serves as an especially power-ful source of emotional arousal. This may ex-plain why positive affect is accentuated whenfollowers' self-esteem and self-efficacy are ele-vated by the confidence the leader places inthem. Their sense of empowerment elicits manypositive feelings about themselves and the

leader and enhances their identification withthe leader/collective (Shamir et al., 1994; Shamiret al., 1993). This reasoning implies:

Proposifion 14: Charismatic presenta-tions to ioUowers that produce seli-enhancing identification with theleader and/or his or her collective vi-sion elicit high levels oi emotionalarousal among ioUowers and positiveaiiect ior the leader; such positive ai-iect is accentuated iurther when iol-lowers' seli-esteem and seli-eiiicacyare elevated by leader expressions oiconiidence in the ioUowers.

Social Contagion Processes

As a radical alternative to "leader-driven"perspectives of charisma, Meindl (1990, 1995) hasadvanced a "follower-centered" social conta-gion model that omits leader variables. Accord-ing to this view, charismatic leadership is asocially constructed phenomenon that is createdby and resides solely in followers and observ-ers. Specifically, he asserts that the charismaticeffects (e.g., willingness to exert extra effort,emotional involvement, heightened self-esteem,and strong identification with a leader's beliefsand values) originally proposed by House (1977)reflect symptoms of a "charismatic syndrome."Because of pent-up needs, arousal, inhibitions,and so forth, prospective followers may behighly influenced by current followers, who at-tribute charisma and model the effects reflectedin the charismatic syndrome. In other words, theattributions of charisma and expressive "symp-toms" that are modeled by the initiators spreadlike a contagious disease to other followers.

Thus, to those who are exposed to the speeches ofpohticians, the preachings of religious leaders, orto the urgings of corporate CEOs, the experienceand attribution of charismatic leadership mayhave less to do with what is happening up at thepodium or pulpit, and more to do with what isbeing witnessed off-stage, in the audience,among individuals who are each others' wit-nesses. (Meindl, 1990: 197)

Although Meindl (1990) advanced his model toredress the imbalance in perspectives createdby the leader-driven models, we see no inherentdiscrepancy between his view and our own.Both views emphasize that charisma is sociallyconstructed and arises from followers' attribu-


tions. Moreover, rather than denying that leaderbehavior can play a role in the charismatic lead-ership process, Meindl simply argues that it isnot necessary to create charismatic effects. Inour opinion, both the leader-driven and Meindl's(1990, 1995) follower-centered approach add toour understanding of the charismatic relation-ship. Specifically, we assert that, through theirprojected identities and IM strategies, leaderscan and do produce charismatic effects upontargeted followers. However, social contagionprocesses may explain how attributions of cha-risma and their effects spread from followerswho directly interact with the leader to otherswho have little or no direct contact, as indicatedin Figure 1. Moreover, some charismatics maywork actively to orchestrate and facilitate socialcontagion processes in order to spread theirmessage and recruit new followers (Weierter,1997). Thus, the social contagion construct ex-plains how a charismatic relationship betweena leader and a limited set of followers can blos-som to impact more and more followers, until itbecomes identified as a movement.

Proposifion 15: As ioUowers who at-tribute charisma and direct positiveaiiect toward a leader share their im-pressions and ieelings with prospectiveioUowers and model charismatic ei-iects, attributions oi charisma spreadthroughout the collective via social con-tagion processes.

THE CHARISMATIC RELATIONSHIP

Through the processes described above, thesituated identities of charismatic leaders andtheir followers are constructed. Followers cometo view certain actors as charismatic leadersand themselves as part of a larger collectivethat has chosen to follow the leader. As theiridentification with the leader deepens, followersdisplay stronger commitment, as evidenced byhigher levels of trust, loyalty, affection, and adesire to emulate the leader (Bass & Avolio,1994; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al.,1994; Shamir et al., 1993).

The collective identity and eiiicacy belieis offollowers are enhanced through interactionswith the leader and with one another. By empha-sizing the common interests of followers, emo-tionally involving followers as a group, and

stressing the synergy they can achieve throughtheir combined efforts, charismatic leadersbuild and reinforce a collective identity and con-vince followers of the collective efficacy of theirefforts. Followers come to believe that, collec-tively, they can achieve feats they heretoforelacked the confidence or will to pursue (Shamiret al. 1994; Shamir et al., 1993). Eventually, manyfollowers go beyond identification to internalizethe shared vision and values of the leader/col-lective as core elements of their own beliefsystem.

Once a collective identity is established, fol-lowers join with the leader in directing teamperformances toward third-party audiences.Much of the dialogue for such performances islearned through modeling. By witnessing theleader's articulation of the shared vision andvalues, followers learn the appropriate "lines"(Conger, 1989; Shamir, 1991). Moreover, throughfacial and verbal cues, as well as with propsdesigned to evoke particular emotions, leaderscan prompt followers for desired affective reac-tions (Benford & Hunt, 1992). As the leader's val-ues spread through the organizational culture,socialization processes may evolve whereby fol-lowers communicate these values and indoctri-nate new cast members (Trice & Beyer, 1993).

Other important effects of the charismatic re-lationship on followers include an elevated ef-fort to achieve challenging goals (Bass, 1985,1988; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir, 1991;Shamir et al., 1994) and improved task perfor-mance, provided arousal is appropriate for thetask demands (House, 1977) and the leader'sgoals are aligned with the organization's (Bass,1985). Howell and Frost (1989), in the study wedescribed earlier, provide some evidence of pos-itive effects on follower satisfaction and taskperformance. More research along these lines isneeded to clarify the impact of charisma on fol-lower motivation and performance, as well as toidentify the contributions made by IM tech-niques to the establishment of leader charisma.Still, there appears to be a sufficient theoreticaland empirical basis to advance the following:

Proposifion 16: As followers come toidentify with the leader and/or to in-ternalize his or her vision and values,a shared perspective, vision, andsense of collective identity and effi-cacy are established, which, in turn.


eiicif team performances and an ele-vated effort to achieve challenginggoals.

ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES

Researchers have found charismatic leader-ship to be positively related to numerous organ-izational outcomes. For example, Bass (1985) andConger and Kanungo (1987) have found that col-lective agreement with the leader's values andvision, arising in part from voluntary and invol-untary turnover by persons with incongruentvalues, creates heightened levels of internalcohesion and vaJue congruence. Moreover,extensive evidence has accumulated that indi-cates positive relationships between charismat-ic/transformational leadership and performance.For example, in two military contexts charismawas positively related to performance evaluationsand potential, in one instance 4 to 10 years aftercharisma was initially assessed (Yammarino,Spangler, & Bass, 1993). Similarly, Hater and Bass(1988) report a positive relationship between cha-risma and performance ratings at Federal Ex-press. Howell and Avolio (1993), likewise, havefound a positive relationship between leader cha-risma and business unit performance.

A recent meta-analysis by Lowe, Kroeck, andSivasubramaniam (1998) confirms the abovepattern of results. Specifically, Lowe et al. posi-tively correlated ratings of leader charisma withboth organizational measures of effectivenessand subordinate perceptions of effectiveness.These relationships emerged regardless ofwhether the leader was from higher or lowerlevel management. Importantly, they found sub-ordinate perceptions of effectiveness to corre-late positively with ratings of leader charismaat significantly higher levels than organiza-tional measures of effectiveness. These authorsidentify several probable sources of this differ-ence, including inflated correlations betweensubordinate ratings of effectiveness and cha-risma due to mono-method bias and a more nar-row perspective of performance for the organi-zational measures. Still, the fact that subjectiveratings of performance correlated with charismaat higher levels than more objective measuresunderscores the utility of examining how attri-butional and IM processes determine whether ornot a leader is viewed as charismatic and effec-tive.

Although charismatic leadership clearly canenhance organizational performance, there is noguarantee of this effect. Indeed, if the vision ismisguided or unrealistic, elevated efforts by fol-lowers may be wasted as they, and the organi-zation, are led astray (Conger, 1989, 1990). Sincecharisma, once attributed, can be used for eithergood or evil, it is crucial that we learn moreabout its development and its impact (Bass,1990; Conger, 1990; Howell, 1988). It is alreadyapparent, however, that the heightened commit-ment, goals, and effort exhibited by followers ofcharismatic leaders provide their organizationswith high performance potential.

Proposition 17: The establishment of ashared vision and collective identity,coupled with strong follower commit-ment to the leader and elevated effort,can produce high levels of internal co-hesion, value congruence, and perfor-mance potential.

NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ANDCONCLUSIONS

In this article we advance a dramaturgicalmodel to explain how a charismatic relationshipbetween leaders and followers develops. We de-pict this process as dynamic and iterative. In-deed, we chose the model's starting and endingpoints purely for descriptive purposes. Weshould reiterate, however, that each componentfeeds back to earlier stages, since the behaviorand effects of each party can alter their situa-tional definitions (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997).In reality, the charismatic relationship is farmore complex than depicted, since we have nottried to explain how various psychodynamicprocesses impact attributions of charisma(Schweitzer, 1984; Shamir, 1991). Despite theseoversimplifications, we believe our model pro-vides a useful and integrative framework forstudying how leaders foster charismatic imageswith followers.

From our discussion, many avenues for futurestudy become apparent. Our review suggestsresearch is needed to clarify the following:

• the self-systems of charismatic leaders, in-cluding the effects of their identity, self-es-teem, and self-monitoring on their IM be-haviors;


• the role that leader motives (e.g., the needfor power or activity inhibition) and valuesplay in driving charismatic IM behaviors;

• the effects that charismatic leaders' visionsand desired identity images exert on theirIM behaviors;

• the dramaturgical techniques (framing,scripting, and staging) and IM strategies(e.g., exemplification or promotion) favoredby charismatic leaders and the conditionsunder which they are most effective:

• the self-systems and attributes of personswho are predisposed to follow charismaticleaders (e.g., follower identity, self-esteem,and romance of leadership disposition): and

• the cognitive, motivational, affective, andsocial contagion processes that produce at-tributions of charisma and followershipamong certain audiences but not others.

The integration of these areas into a dramatur-gical model hopefully will stimulate researchinto the propositions advanced.

Researchers could employ a variety of meth-odologies to assess the dramaturgical modeland associated propositions. For example, theleader identity and desired identity image con-structs could be operationalized through struc-tured interviews in which persons identified ascharismatic and noncharismatic leaders areasked to describe the images they associatewith their identity, as well as those they aspireto achieve. By contrasting the identity imagesspecified by charismatic versus noncharismaticleaders, scholars could obtain greater insightsinto the distinctive images charismatic leaderspursue. To what extent do these correspond tothe identity images that we asserted in Proposi-tion 5 are universally desired by charismaticleaders? As a next step, a parallel stream ofresearch could focus on charismatic leader pro-totypes; of interest would be the extent to whichsuch prototypes match up with the identity im-ages that charismatics desire. Are the identityimages sought by some leaders more congruentwith charismatic leader prototypes than thosesought by other leaders? What impact does thelevel of congruence have on followers' attribu-tions of charisma? Is the degree of congruenceachieved greater for high as opposed to lowself-monitors? How about for leaders high inactivity inhibition?

Another stream of research could focus on theIM behaviors used by charismatic leaders toproject their desired images, articulate their vi-sion, and secure follower commitment. Here

again, a variety of methodologies are available.For example, laboratory experiments along thelines of those conducted by Howell and Frost(1989), Holladay and Coombs (1993, 1994), Sidani(1993), and Awamleh and Gardner (1997) couldbe designed in which subjects observe a leaderusing alternative IM strategies and then assessthe leader's charisma. In such studies the effectsof individual differences, such as self-esteemand the romance of leadership disposition, onratings of charisma likewise can be explored.Other approaches could include psychohistori-cal analyses that build upon the methodsadopted by Bass, Avolio, and Goodheim (1987);O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, and Con-nelly, (1995); and Gardner and Cleavenger (1996).In each of these studies, the researchers exam-ined biographical materials to gain insightsinto the behaviors and effects of charismaticleaders. Finally, ethnographic studies, such asthose conducted by Cell (1974), Willner (1984),and Weed (1993), can provide rich insights intothe dynamics and subtleties of charismatic re-lationships.

PRACTICAL RELEVANCE OF THE MODEL

There are several practical implications of theproposed dramaturgical model. Some point to-ward what we might consider in training lead-ers to be more effective in aligning followersaround an idealized goal worthy of their collec-tive efforts and how to build trust more quicklyand to retain it with followers. Others involvecaveats that one ought to consider when evalu-ating the messages conveyed by a particularleader. Here, the training of the follower be-comes as critical as the training of the leader.

In designing a training program, one couldcoach future leaders on the importance of gettingfollowers to identify with their values in order toincrease the chances of their message being em-braced. With a higher level of identification, fol-lowers are more likely to exert their best efforts toachieve the vision. Toward this end, coaching todevelop leaders' presentational skills, includingtheir efforts to frame, script, stage, and delivertheir message, could enhance the message's ap-peal. Moreover, the utility of exemplification as ameans of modeling desired follower behaviorwould be stressed. Finally, the importance of us-ing promotions to communicate their vision's mer-


its, as well as the performance potential of theorganization, would be emphasized.

The ability of leaders to develop a consensusamong followers regarding how the situation isdefined is also critical to their success. One aspectof training leaders requires that they understandsignals emanating from followers, as well as thecontext. For example, how receptive is the contextfor pursuing a new vision? To what extent is theorganization satisfied to monitor its efficienciesand controls versus creating new ventures? It isimportant not only to be aware of these signalsbut also how they impact the strategies a leaderselects to impact followers' goals, commitment,and effort. Many leadership development pro-grams devote much energy to developing leaders'sensitivities to what is going on around them, bothin terms of the context and the players who oper-ate within that context. We are arguing to extendthis emphasis, to include the charismatic IM pro-cess. Ideally, the model will provide some addi-tional insight into the areas where leaders can bemore sensitive to certain cues and use themto manage more productive impressions with fol-lowers.

If we take the position of the follower, we be-lieve there is much to be gained by understandinghow leaders use IM tactics to achieve influence ina constructive and/or manipulative sense. By ex-amining follower identification with a leader inthis article, we intended to put specific attentionon a component of the leadership process that istoo often neglected in both research and practice:the follower. Ultimately, we hope that inquiriesinto the model and propositions will clarify theprocesses whereby followers come to attributecharisma to a leader. Such insights will stripaway some of the mystique that surrounds theconcept of charisma and, thus, enable scholarsand practitioners alike to promote the moral us-age of this powerful means of influence. In theend, charisma will remain a potent force in ourorganizations and communities, whether wechoose to understand it or not. We hope to under-stand it, with the help of our colleagues.

REFERENCESAnderson, L. R. 1990. Toward a two-track model of leadership

training: Suggestions from self-monitoring theory. SmallGroup Research, 21: 147-167.

Avolio, B. J. 1994. The "natural": Some antecedents to trans-formational leadership. International Journal of PublicAdministration, 17: 1559-1581.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. 1988. Transformational leadership,charisma and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P.Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leader-ship vistas: 29-49. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. 1988. Developing transforma-tional leaders: A life span approach. In J. A. Conger &R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elu-sive factor in organizational effectiveness: 276-308. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. 1997. Perceptions of leadercharisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision con-tent, vision delivery, and organizational performance.Proceedings of the Southern Management AssociationMeetings, Atlanta, GA, pp. 76-78.

Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteriafor evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14:496-515.

Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. 1994. The self in social con-texts. Annual Review of Psychology, 45: 297-332.

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NewYork: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expec-tations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. 1988. Evolving perspectives on charismatic lead-ership. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charis-matic leadership: The eiusive factor in organizafiona?effectiveness: 40-77. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership:Theory, research, & managerial applications (3rd ed.).New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M.. & Avolio, B. J. 1990. The multifactor leadershipmanual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). 1994. Improving organiza-tional effectiveness through transformational leader-ship. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Goodheim, L. 1987. Biography andthe assessment of transformational leadership at theworld-class level. Journal of Management, 13: 7-19.

Benford, R. D., & Hunt, S. A. 1992. Dramaturgy and socialmovements: The social construction and communicationof power. Sociological Inquiry, 62(1): 36-55.

Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. 1988. Charismatic leadership: Aphenomenological and structural approach. In J. G.Hunt. B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim(Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas: 11-28. Lexington, MA:Heath.

Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. 1997. A cybernetic model ofimpression management processes in organizations.Organizational fiehavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 69: 9-30.

Brissett, D., & Edgley. C. 1990. The dramaturgical perspec-tive. In D. Brissett & C. Edgley (Eds.), Life as theater: Adramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed.): 1-46. New York: Al-dine de Gruyter.

Bryman, A. 1992. Charisma and leadership in organizations.London: Sage.


Cell, C. P. 1974. Charismatic heads of state: The social con-text. Behavioral Science Research, 4: 255-304.

Chen, C. C, & Meindl, J. R. 1991. The construction of leader-ship images in the popular press: The case of DonaldBurr and People Express. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 36: 521-551.

Cohen, R. 1987. Theaier of power: The art of diplomatic sig-naling. London: Longman.

Conger, J. A. 1989. The charismatic leader. Behind the mys-tique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A. 1990. The dark side of leadership. Organiza-(ional Dynamics, 19(2): 44-55.

Conger, J. A. 1991. Inspiring others: The language of leader-ship. The Executive, 5(1): 31-45.

Conger, J. 'A., & Kanungo, R. N. 1987. Toward a behavioraltheory of charismatic leadership in organizational set-tings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637-647.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (Eds.). 1988. Charismaticleadership: The elusive factor in organizational effec-tiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. 1994. Faceworfe. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

DePaulo, B. M. 1992. Nonverbal behavior and self-presenta-tion. PsychoIogicaJ BulIeJin, 111: 203-243.

Dommermuth, W. P. 1989. Promotion: Analysis, creativity,and strategy (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing.

Engel, J. F., Warshaw, M. R., & Kinnear, T. C. 1994. Promo-tionai strategy: Managing the marketing communica-tions process. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. 1996. The art of framing: Man-aging the language of leadership. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Friedman. H. S., Riggio, R. E.. & Casella, D. F. 1988. Nonverbalskill, personal charisma, and initial attraction. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14: 203-211.

Galanter, M. 1982. Charismatic religious sects and psychia-try: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139:1539-1548.

Gardner, W. L. 1992. Lessons in organizational dramaturgy:The art of impression management. Organizafionai Dy-namics, 21(1): 33-46.

Gardner. W. L., & Cleavenger, D. 1996. Impression manage-ment behaviors of transformational leaders at theworld-class level: A psychohistorical assessment. Pro-ceedings of the Southern Management Association, NewOrleans, LA, pp. 143-146.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. 1988a. Impression manage-ment: An observational study linking audience charac-teristics with verbal self-presentations. Academy ofManagement Journal, 31: 42-65.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. 1988b. Impression manage-ment in organizations. Journal of Management, 14: 321-338.

Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds.). 1989. Impressionmanagement in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Giacalone. R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (Eds.). 1991. Applied impres-sion management: How image-making affects manage-rial decisions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. 1986. Exemplification: The self-presentation of moral character. Journal of Personality,54: 593-615.

Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life.Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.

Goffman, E. 1967. /nferaction rifuai; Essays on face-to-facebehavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organiza-tion of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Gurevitch, Z. D. 1984. Impression formation during tacticalself-presentation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47: 262-270.

Hamilton, M. A. 1976. Mary Macarthur: A biographical sketch.Westport. CT: Hyperion Press.

Hart, R. P. 1987. The sound of leadership: Presidential com-munication in fhe modern age. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Hater. J. J.. & Bass. B. M. 1988. Supervisors' evaluations andsubordinates' perceptions of transformational leader-ship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 695-702.

Higgins, R. L., & Snyder, C. R. 1989. The business of excuses.In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impressionmanagement in the organization: 73-85. Hillsdale. NJ:Erlbaum.

HoUaday. S. J.. & Coombs, W. T. 1993. Communicating vi-sions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the cre-ation of leader charisma. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 6: 405-427.

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. 1994. Speaking of visionsand visions being spoken: An exploration of the effectsof content and delivery on perceptions of leader cha-risma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8: 165-189.

House, R. J. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. InJ. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cuttingedge: 189-207. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Univer-sity Press.

House, R. J.. & Baetz, M. 1979. Leadership: Some empiricalgeneralizations and new research directions. In B. M.Staw (Ed.). Research in organizafionai behavior, vol. 1:341-423. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

House. R. J.. & Howell, J. M. 1992. Personality and charismaticleadership. Leadership QuarteWy, 3: 81-108.

House, R. J.. & Shamir, B. 1993. Toward the integration oftransformational, charismatic, and visionary theories.In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory andresearch: Perspectives and directions: 81-107. New York:Academic Press.

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. 1991. Personalityand charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A psychologicaltheory of leader effectiveness. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 36: 364-396.


Howell. J. M. 1988. Two faces of charisma: Socialized andpersonalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger& R. N. Kanungo (Eds.). Charismatic leadership: The elu-sive factor in organizational effectiveness: 213-236. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio. B. J. 1993. Transformational leader-ship, transactional leadership, locus of control, and sup-port for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-busi-ness-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,78: 891-902.

Howell, J. M.. & Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of char-ismatic leadership. Organizational fiehavior and Hu-man Decision Process, 43: 243-269.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. 1982. Toward a theory of strategicself-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspec-tives on the self: 231-262. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Klein. K. J., & House, R. J. 1995. On fire: Charismatic leader-ship and levels of analysis. leadership Quarterly, 6:183-198.

Kuhnert. K. W.. & Lewis. P. 1987. Transactional and transfor-mational leadership: A constructive/developmentalanalysis. Academy of Management Review, 12: 648-657.

Leary, M. R. 1989. Self-presentational processes in leader-ship. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impressionmanagement in (he organization: 363-374. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Leary. M. R.. & Kowalski. R. M. 1990. Impression manage-ment: A literature review and two-component model.PsychoJogica/ Bulletin, 107: 34-47.

Lord, R. G.. & Maher, K. J. 1993. Leadership and in/ormationprocessing; LinJring perceptions and performance. Lon-don: Routledge.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck. K. G., & Sivasubramaniam. N. 1996.Effectiveness correlates of transformational and trans-actional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLOliterature. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425.

Madsen, D.. & Snow, P. G. 1983. The dispersion of charisma.Comparative Political Studies, 16: 337-362.

Mayo, J. M.. Jr. 1978. Propaganda with design: Environmentaldramaturgy in the political rally. Journal of Architec-tural Education, 32(2): 24-27.

Markus, H.. & Wurf. E. 1987. The dynamic self-concept: Asocial psychological perspective. American Review ofPsychology, 38: 299-337.

McClelland, D. C. 1985. Human motivation. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman.

Meindl, J. R. 1990. On leadership: An alternative to the con-ventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior, vol. 12: 159-204.Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.

Meindl, J. R. 1995. The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. Lead-ership Quarterly, 6: 329-341.

Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. 1987. The romance of leadershipand the evaluation of organizational performance.Academy of Management Journal, 30: 91-109.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E.. & Kramer. R. M. 1996. Swift trustand temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory andresearch: 166-195. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O'Connor, J. O.. Mumford. M. D.. Clifton, T. C, Gessner, T. L.,& Connelly, M. S. 1995. Charismatic leaders and destruc-tiveness: A histriometric study. Leadership Quarterly, 6:529-555.

Pawar, B. S.. & Eastman, K. K. 1997. The nature and implica-tions of contextual influences on transformational lead-ership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 22: 80-109.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control oforganizations: A resource dependence perspective. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Roberts, N. C, & Bradley, R. T. 1988. Limits of charisma. InJ. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leader-ship: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness:253-275. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York:Free Press.

Rosenfeld, P.. Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. 1995. Impres-sion management in organizations: Theory, measure-ment, practice. London: Routledge.

Schlenker, B. R. 1980. Impression management: The self-con-cept, social identity, and interpersonal relations.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B. R. 1985. Identity and self-identification. In B. R.Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life: 65-99. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. 1992. Interpersonal processesinvolving impression regulation and management. An-nual Review of Psychology, 43: 133-168.

Schneider, D. J. 1981. Tactical self-presentations: Toward abroader conception. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impressionmanagement theory and social psychological research:23-40. New York: Academic Press.

Schoenbrun. D. 1966. The three lives of Charles de Gaulle.New York: Atheneum.

Schweitzer, A. 1984. The age of charisma. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. 1968. Accounts. American Socio-logical Review, 33: 46-62.

Shamir, B. 1991. The charismatic relationship: Alternativeexplanations and predictions. Leadership Quarterly, 2:81-104.

Shamir, B. 1992. Attribution of influence and charisma to theleader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 22: 386-407.

Shamir, B. 1994. Ideological position, leaders' charisma, andvoting preferences: Personal versus partisan elections. •Political Behavior, 16(2): 265-287.

Shamir, B. 1995. Social distance and charisma: Theoreticalnotes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6:19-47.

Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B.. & House. R. J. 1994. The rhetoric of


charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a casestudy, and implications for research. Leadership Quar-terly, 5: 25-42.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivationaleffects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept basedtheory. Organization Science, 4: 577-594.

Sidani, Y. 1993. Perceptions of charisma: The influence ofleader attributes, leader speech, and follower self-es-teem. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofMississippi, University, MS.

Snyder, C. R.. Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. 1983. Excuses:Masquerades in search of grace. New York: Wiley/Inter-science.

Snyder, M. 1987. Public appearances, private realities: Thepsychology of self-monitoring. New York: W. H. Freemanand Company.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. 1985. Social power, self-presen-tation, and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self andsocial life: 293-322. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trice, H. M.. & Beyer, J. M. 1993. The cultures of work organi-zations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tunley, R. 1978. Mary Kay's sweet smell of success. Reader'sDigest, November: 17-22.

Weber, M. 1924/1947. The theory of social and economic or-ganizations (T. Parsons, Translator). New York: FreePress.

Weed, F. J. 1993. The MADD queen: Charisma and thefounder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. LeadershipQuarterly, 4: 329-346.

Weierter, S. J. M. 1997. Who wants to play "follow the lead-er?" A theory of charismatic relationships based on rou-tinized charisma and follower characteristics. Leader-ship Quarterly, 8: 171-193.

Willner, A. R. 1984. The spellbinders: Charismatic politicalleadership. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wofford, J. C, & Goodwin, V. L. 1994. A cognitive interpreta-tion of transactional and transformational leadershiptheories. Leadership Quarterly, 5: 161-186.

Yammarino, F. J.. Spangler. W. D., & Bass. B. M. 1993. Trans-formational leadership and performance: A longitudinalinvestigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4: 81-102.

William L. Gardner is the Hearin-Hess Associate Professor of Management at theUniversity of Mississippi. He received his D.B.A. from Florida State University. Hiscurrent research interests include charismatic leadership, impression management,learned helplessness, managerial work, cognitive style, women in management, andcomputer self-efficacy.

Bruce J. Avolio is a professor in the School of Management and a fellow at the Centerfor Leadership Studies at Binghamton University. He received his Ph.D. from theUniversity of Akron. He is currently pursuing a line of research interests focusing onthe emergence and development of charismatic/transformational leadership at theindividual, team, and organizational levels.

Date post:	19-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangnga
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

THE CHARISMATIC RELATIONSHIP: A …uwtv.org/files/2013/01/gardneravolio1998.pdfleaders' self-systems...

Documents