Before doing this week’s readings, the term “charisma” is something I had heard many times, but I had never thought about how to define it. According to Riggio, charisma is “the special quality some people possess that allows them to relate to and inspire others at a deep emotional level.” Charismatic people tend to be emotionally expressive, enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self-confident, and responsive to others. I thought it was interesting that the word was originally used in a religious context to describe figures such as Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammed, who were widely considered to have divine characteristics that allowed them to influence and inspire their followers. This idea sounds almost identical to the Great Man Theory, which is that some people are born with certain characteristics that inherently make them better leaders.
Something else that I found interesting in this reading was German sociologist Max Weber’s theory that the key to charismatic leadership is the relationship between the leader’s qualities and followers’ belief in both the leader and the leader’s cause. Weber also believed that leadership context was very important and charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge during chaotic times. This is something that we talked about in my Leadership 102 class last semester. Given the qualities that many charismatic leaders possess, Weber’s idea makes sense because people might be more likely to seek out a leader with these qualities in times of uncertainty.
One of the questions that Riggio is asked in the Psychology Today interview is whether he thinks leaders are born or made, and his answer is that “this isn’t something that requires my opinion, but this question has been well researched. Twin studies by Richard Arvey and his colleagues have estimated that leadership is about ⅔ made and ⅓ born.” This stuck out to me because in class on Thursday, we discussed the same question and there was a wide range of opinions, so it was interesting to learn that people have done studies and come up with a numerical formula to explain where leadership traits come from.
Eliza,
I completely agree with you in that reading the Psychology Today interview felt more concrete than our class discussion. In my section, we discussed the wide variety of opinions on the “born vs. made” debate, leaving me totally unsure if I thought leaders were born or made. Seeing the research that “leadership is about 2/3 made and 1/3 born” solidifies the idea that there is no concrete answer as to whether leaders are born or made– because they are BOTH. However, it is important to consider the context and sample sizes of Richard Arvey’s studies; I’d be interested to read more into these twin studies.
Anna Marston
I agree with you that it’s very interesting how they created a numerical formula and had studies to explain these leadership traits, coming up with the estimation of “2/3 made and 1/3 born”. I don’t think that a leader can be made with only one or the other but a combination of both. There are many uncontrollable aspects that shape a leader like how they were raised or their personality but, there are also skills that can be learned like how to become an effective communicator.
I liked that you highlighted the three components of charismatic leadership because that was something that stuck with me as well. Until doing this reading, I did not have the mental distinction between charisma and charismatic leadership. I think this also relates to formula of 1/3 born + 2/3 made because a person can have all the necessary qualities, but if they don’t have a responsive group of followers and the proper situational conditions, they won’t achieve that “legendary leader” status.