Charisma is an attribute that relies on many different aspects, making it difficult to simply give the word one definition. In reading Riggio’s theory of charisma, it stuck out to me that charisma heavily relies on the relationship between a leader and their followers. He says, “it is in the relationship between the leader’s qualities and the followers’ devotion to the leader and the belief in the leader’s cause that charisma lies”(2). By saying this, Riggio asserts that it is not solely having good charisma which creates a good leader, it is also neccessary to have a strong follower base who is dedicated to their cause. Not having the “follower base” component, it shows that the leader lacks the emotional intelligence and persuasion required to be a good leader.
This definition that Riggio adopted from Weber also follows the psychoanalytic theory of charisma, which similarly states that strong identification to the leader strengthens the loyalty that followers have for their leader. This further confirms that charisma is mainly demonstrated by how well groups of people attach themselves to the leader and identify with their cause.
Another point of interest in Riggio’s paper was Richard Arvey’s research that leadership is about 2/3 “made” and 1/3 “born”. Prior to the research, it has been a common argument as to whether leaders are born or made. Reading this article affirmed my beliefs that leaders are taught and groomed to developed their skills. Although some individuals may have certain traits in their genes, it is only manifested through acknowledging that skill and practicing it. Without practice, a person can possess certain skills yet not have the ability to be a good leader. I would even go further to deny that an individual can be born with leadership skills. The most common skills of good leaders are communication, charisma, and intelligence. There are a few others which also play a role, but most of these skills are simply not inherent. In order to be successful with any of these skills they must be taught, whether that is by parents or schooling.
I liked how you talked about how charisma is about identifying and attaching to a leader, rather than the leader directing or commanding their followers. However, I partially disagree with you when you stated that an individual cannot be born with leadership skills. There is science to show that people are born as extroverted or introverted, and many more leaders will identify as extroverts than introverts. Extroverts are more likely to go out, meet people, and identify with them compared to introverts. However, simply because someone is an extrovert doesn’t mean they are eloquently spoken or able to arouse an audience.
I definitely understand what you were saying when you talked about how in the reading charisma is a result of having a base of followers. But, I do not completely agree with this idea. I think that charisma is what gets the leader’s their base of followers, not a result of having devoted followers. Without charisma why would anyone follow them? But having that devoted base of followers can increase their confidence in themselves and their ideas, thus increasing their charisma.