From Charisma to Consensus: Are You a Good Leader?

At the turn of the last century and on the heels of the vacillating leadership of Emperor Wilhelm II, the political and social theorist Max Weber forecast that if a “charismatic leader” didn’t emerge in his industrialized Germany “not summer’s bloom [would] lie ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness.” Well, he got more than he bargained for. From the chaos of War World I, emerged one of history’s most charismatic leaders: Adolf Hitler (watch what you wish for!). Before Hitler’s dictatorship, the Germans—indeed, the world—yearned for strong leadership; after Hitler they dreaded it. Scholars have long considered charisma, intelligence and a dominating character to be the key to effective leadership. Academics postulated that good leaders used their inborn talents to influence their followers by injecting them with enthusiasm and willpower, otherwise lacking; that a good leader had sufficient character and will to triumph over whatever reality they confronted by exercising their authority over others.

Stephen D. Reicher, Alexander Halsam and Michael J. Platow, in an article in Scientific American: Mind (Aug/Sept, 2007), discuss an emerging notion of leadership, one not of charisma but of consensus. In the new model, a good leader works to understand the values and opinions of his/her followers, rather than assuming absolute authority. In this model, good leadership depends on constituent cooperation and support. In fact, say Reicher et al., “it suggests that to gain credibility among followers, leaders must try to position themselves among the group rather than above it.” Therefore, no fixed set of personality traits can assure good leadership because the most desirable traits depend on the nature of the group being led, say Reicher et al. Bernard Bass of Binghamton University showed that leaders are most effective when they can induce followers to see themselves as group members and to see the group’s interest as their own interest.

According to historian Tim Blanning of the University of Cambridge, the quality of leadership evolved naturally with how the general populace saw themselves positioned in society. As a national identity emerged, European monarchs, who ruled as autocrats (using power to control people; the last Emperor Wilhelm II being a prime example) were forced to rule as patriots embodying a shared national identity. Monarchs who misunderstood or ignored the shift were ousted from rule (Wilhelm II of Germany) or beheaded outright by an angry mob (e.g., Louix XVI of France).

“Leaders are most effective when they can induce followers to see the group’s interest as their own interest,” say Reicher et al. The best leaders are prototypical of the group; that is, they not only seem to belong to a group, but they also exemplify what makes that group distinctive and superior to rival groups. This counters the notion that leadership requires a particular set of personality traits or that leaders need to behave in a fixed way, continue Reicher et al. “The most desirable traits and actions have to fit with the culture of the group being led and thus vary from group to group.” Anything that sets a leader apart from his/her group can compromise his/her effectiveness. A credible and ultimately influential leader uses the same language, respects their followers and listens to them; say Reicher et al., “leaders and followers bound by a shared identity and by the quest to use that identity as a blueprint for action.”

So, who do you think is a good leader?

Nina Munteanu is an ecologist and internationally published author of novels, short stories and essays. She coaches writers and teaches writing at George Brown College and the University of Toronto. For more about Nina’s coaching & workshops visit www.ninamunteanu.me. Visit www.ninamunteanu.ca for more about her writing.