Social identity and charismatic leadership attribution : why do they think he's fabulous when we know he's not?

Abstract

If charisma is a personal force, or a set of specific behaviours, used by the leader to recruit and influence followers, why have all the great charismatic leaders been embraced by some and reviled by others? Weber (1947; 1961) conceived the charismatic leader as one perceived to possess transcendent powers which set him or her apart from others. New leadership theories (e.g., Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) have sought to catalogue these qualities and their effects on followers. However, neither of these schools of thought have clearly explained why polarised responses to charismatic leaders occur. An initial study explored the similarities and differences in the way two renown charismatic leaders--{lne adored, the other reviled-were perceived. Taking a follower perspective, this thesis used a social identity analysis (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1987) to focus on the variation in the attribution of charismatic leader behaviours to the same target leader. Over four studies this variance was repeatedly shown to be associated with the level of a perceived shared social identity. Indeed, varying the content of the social identity varied the level of charismatic attribution; while reducing information about the leader's social identity reduced that association. Three other major effects of the social identification process on the charismatic attribution process were explored. First, follower outcomes commonly theorised to be the result of charismatic leadership behaviours, were shown to be strongly associated with social identity. Second, social liking for the leader was shown to fully or partially mediate the effects of social identity on the attribution of charismatic leadership and on follower outcomes. Third, attributions about supporters and detractors of the charismatic leader were investigated. It was found that those who shared a social identity with the leader viewed support for that leader as normal and positive, whereas they pathologised the responses of those who rejected the leader. Conversely, those who did not share a social identity with the leader viewed rejection of that leader as normal and positive, while pathologising follower support. It was concluded that, rather than being a mysterious personal process, charisma is firmly rooted in normal social identification processes because leadership and followership operate largely within a social context. Social identity affects the way we perceive the leader and evaluate his or her leadership behaviours. Rather than recognising the powerful influence of social identity on us or others, we tend to make the fundamental error of attributing our responses to "charismatic" leadership.