Filed in archive
Ethics
by leon on October 29, 2007

Beware of charismatic leaders - they're much more susceptible to disastrous ethical lapses.
That's the warning from Marianne Jennings, professor of legal and ethical studies in the Department of Management at the W. P. Carey School of Business. The problem, she says, is that charismatic leaders surround themselves with sycophantic people so there's no reality check. Once that's in place, it's all downhill.
Jennings cites examples including Tyco International chairman and CEO Dennis Kozlowski who reportedly pocketed more than $150 million in unauthorized bonuses, and Razorfish co-founder Jeff Dachis who fell victim to his own hype.
Jennings has a point but I have to take it further. Her argument is fine but the fact remains that charismatic types also make great leaders because they have a vision and an ability to attract people.
In other words, they can take a group to dizzying heights or send it to hell. As Sigmund Freud wrote in his 1932 book Libidinal Types: "People belonging to this group impress others as being personalities. they are especially suited to act as support for others, to take on the role of leaders and to give a fresh stimulus to cultural development or to damage the established state of affairs."
Freud identified three types of personalities. First are the erotic types. These people are not so much focused on sex as they are on love and being loved. Think teachers, social and welfare workers, nurses, counsellors, occupational and speech therapists. Freud's second category were the obsessionals. Self-reliant, conservative and conscientious, they do everything by the book. Think accountants, middle managers and people who buy self-help books. Finally, there are the narcissists. Independent and not easily intimidated, they are aggressive can-do people who think for themselves and who are determined to blaze their own trails.
They also make the best leaders. Erotic types need too much approval, obsessives are better but they tend to be cautious. Narcissists, on the other hand, come closest to our collective image of great leaders because they can have a gripping vision of the company and they have the ability to attract followers.
The problem with narcissists is that things go off the rails when dissent and diversity of thinking are not tolerated. So there's no quick fix, apart from having a board of directors that keeps a watchful eye on the boss.
Permalink: The downside of charismatic leaders
Tags:
Marianne
Jennings
WP
Carey
School
of
Business
charismatic
leadership
leaders
charismatic+leaders
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/99021
Mr Wong
Vote for The downside of charismatic leaders:
|
Rating: 8.42 out of 12 vote(s) cast.
|
Response from:
Jim Stroup
(10/30/07 3:02am)
Response from:
Jeff dachis
(10/31/07 1:14am)
leon, i really like your additional color to leadership. its unfortunate that Jennings failed to fact check her book, and someone discussing ethics, decided to utilize a unsubstantiated set of hyperbole to write a book. im not sure if self "expression" equates to "expertism" and to what extent she may be falling victim to her own hype.
Response from:
Edward Brown
(12/01/08 8:30am)
I have consistently commented that charisma gets a bad rap. As a student of the discipline, I've often tried to uncover the reasons individuals are sour on charisma and its impact. More specifically, why charisma isn't regarded as a viable leadership model? I understand that some historic figures have tainted the model, but haven't every leadership model, in some way or the other, been tainted by an individual? I've come to the conclusion that many opponents of charisma find it unfavorable, not so much for its traits, but the exclusivity of its characteristics. If leadership is about influencing and persuading in conjunction with empowering, what better model than the charismatic one? Eminent sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) is credited with secularizing "charisma," which was thought to be a purely religious concept. Weber postulated that charisma was the most challenging leadership model, largely because it relied on sheer force of personality. Its power derived from the personal ambition, vision and high energy of the individual. Canvassing the world stage, we rarely see effective leadership at its core and even more rarely see charismatic leadership in its pristine form. Yes, we are apt to apply a subjective label on an individual who interests us, but charisma has specific traits that supersede a smile, eye contact and the gift of oratory. In fact, it's a combination of personality proclivity and socialization. The charismatic leader causes schisms inherent within his personality as well as followers. It's a reality that he has to live with division as part of its DNA. Such a level of scrutiny and factionalism has to cause discontentment. It's often this discontent that pundits comment most about. The passion behind the concept pushes people off the fence of indecision and neutrality. You either love the charismatic or despise him. In the end, whether you hate or love the concept behind charisma, it is a growing reality in a media-centric world. In fact, charisma is in-step with the aspirations of the populous. So much so that those lacking charisma are at a severe disadvantage.
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
www.core-edge.com
Edward Brown
Core Edge Image & Charisma Institute
www.core-edge.com
Response from:
tower defense
(05/05/09 7:55pm)
I agree that they have characteristics that cause them to act like what we think of as leaders, as you say, and even, due to their stubborn, torpedoes-be-damned manner of plunging ahead, to attract followers. I'm not as sure, though, that they are best at forming a vision for the organization - but rather only for themselves. Narcissists are, after all, first and foremost narcissists.
Response from:
Non-charisma
(11/19/09 5:10am)
Edward,
Your post, and your underlying philosophies, are just a rationalization of your fear that you'll revert back to that shy little boy you once were.
Your post, and your underlying philosophies, are just a rationalization of your fear that you'll revert back to that shy little boy you once were.
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS | See all blog subscribe options |
|
What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |
















Thanks for a great post and the citation of Professor Jennings's article.
I enjoyed your rectitation of Freud's personality types and how they might translate to career paths.
I do have a concern about the suggestion that narcissists make great leaders. I agree that they have characteristics that cause them to act like what we think of as leaders, as you say, and even, due to their stubborn, torpedoes-be-damned manner of plunging ahead, to attract followers. I'm not as sure, though, that they are best at forming a vision for the organization - but rather only for themselves. Narcissists are, after all, first and foremost narcissists. It is something they are in the grip of, not in control of.
It is this shortcoming that, I think, Professor Jennings refers to.