One of the dominant models of leadership proposed over the years may be found in charismatic theory (Shamir, House, and Arthur, 1993; Yukl, 1999). Charismatic theory, like transformational theory, was intended to account for incidents of exceptional leader performance – incidents of effective performance that could not be accounted for by more traditional constructs such as consideration, initializing structure, participation, and change management (Yukl, 2002). Although many attributes influence people’s perception of charisma, for example attractiveness, communications skills, and prior performance (Rowold and Heintz, 2007), the basis for charismatic leadership has been held to lie in the leader’s formulation and articulation of a viable vision or image of the future (House, 1977; Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Recent work has begun to examine both how people formulate viable visions (Strange and Mumford, 2005) and different styles by which viable visions might be formulated (Hunter, Cushenbery, Thorough good, Johnson, and Ligon, 2011). These styles of vision formation are commonly described (Mumford, 2006) as charismatic (future orientation), ideological (past oriented) and pragmatic (present oriented).Not only do multiple styles of charismatic, or outstanding, leadership appear to exist, it is also clear that when people are confronted with crises they seek out charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic visions (Hunt, Boal, and Dodge, 1999).
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your Elgar Online account
