Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects

Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects
Author(s): Jay A. Conger, Rabindra N. Kanungo and Sanjay T. Menon

Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, No. 7 (Nov., 2000), pp. 747-767
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100311
Accessed: 01-03-2016 03:58 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100311?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Organizational Behavior.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 176.31.0.28 on Tue, 01 Mar 2016 03:58:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Charismatic leadership and follower effects
JAY A. CONGER1*, RABINDRA N. KANUNGO2
AND SANJAY T. MENON2
'Center for Effective Organizations, Marshall School of Business, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
2Faculty of Organizational Studies, School of Business, Clarkson University, New York, U.S.A.
Summary On the basis of the current theories of charismatic leadership, several possible follower
effects were identified. It is hypothesized that followers of charismatic leaders could be
distinguished by their greater reverence, trust, and satisfaction with their leader and by a
heightened sense of collective identity, perceived group task performance, and feelings of
empowerment. Using the Conger-Kanungo charismatic leadership scale and measures
of the hypothesized follower effects, an empirical study was conducted on a sample of
252 managers using structural equation modelling. The results show a strong relation-
ship between follower reverence and charismatic leadership. Follower trust and satisfac-
tion, however, are mediated through leader reverence. Followers' sense of collective
identity and perceived group task performance are affected by charismatic leadership.
Feelings of empowerment are mediated through the followers' sense of collective identity
and perceived group task performance. Copyright ( 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Prior to the 1980's, charismatic leadership was a relatively obscure research topic within the field
of organizational behavior. Only a handful of references are to be found from this period, and
these consist of speculative, formative theories (Berlew, 1974; House, 1977; Katz and Kahn, 1978;
Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975). Since the late 1980's, however, interest in the topic has grown
significantly. More comprehensive theories have been developed (Bass 1985; Bass and Avolio,
1993; Conger and Kanungo, 1987, 1998; Conger, 1989; Shamir et al., 1993) which in turn have
encouraged empirical studies (e.g., Agle and Sonnenfeld, 1994; Bass and Yammarino, 1988;
Conger and Kanungo, 1992, 1994; Conger et al., 1997; House et al., 1991; Howell and Frost,
1989; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Puffer, 1990; Shamir, 1992; Shamir et al., 1998). While theoretical
work has tended to focus principally upon the behavioral dimensions of charismatic leaders, the
existing theories do predict certain follower effects. For example, it has been hypothesized that
charismatic leadership produces higher performance levels among followers as well as more
motivated and satisfied followers (Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1988). In a review of
empirical investigations of charismatic and transformational leadership, Shamir et al. (1993)
found that charismatic leadership was indeed positively correlated with followers' performance
and satisfaction. As Shamir et al. (1993) noted, the effect size of these studies of the behavior of
* Correspondence to: J. A. Conger, Center for Effective Organizations, Marshall School of Business, University of
Southern California, Bridge Hall 308D, Los Angeles, CA 90089, U.S.A.
Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 17 July 1998
Accepted 17 June 1999
748 J. A. CONGER, R. N. KANUNGO AND S. T. MENON
charismatic leaders on follower performance and satisfaction is higher than prior field study
findings of other forms of leader behavior, with correlations of 0.50 or better and well below
0.01 probability of error due to chance.
Three important issues, however, remain to be addressed regarding follower effects. First, there
is a need for further validation studies given the limited research attention that the subject has
received (e.g., Bass, 1985; Howell and Frost, 1989; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Shamir et al., 1998).
Second, there is a need to investigate causal links between individual leader behaviors and
follower effects. As Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) note, there has been a serious lack of research
which unequivocally demonstrates causal relationships between specific charismatic leadership
components and follower effects. This is despite the fact that charismatic leadership is a
multidimensional phenomenon (Conger and Kanungo, 1994) where individual components or
combinations of components may have differing effects. Moreover, two of the three studies which
examined causal relations between follower effects and components of charismatic leadership
were laboratory studies conducted on student samples (Howell and Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick and
Locke, 1996). As such, there is a need for research involving managerial samples. As importantly,
these studies were experiments built around short time-frames which may not have adequately
fostered the intense leader-follower bonds that typically evolve under charismatic leadership
(Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Locke et al., 1991). As a result, neither study may have
allowed for certain relational and performance effects to emerge which affect outcome variables.
The third study, while based on a field sample, was conducted in a military setting (Shamir et al.,
1998). For the above reasons, further study is warranted in assessing follower effects under
charismatic leadership.
The Conger-Kanungo model of
charismatic leadership
Recently, Conger and Kanungo (1987, 1998); Conger, (1989) developed a model of charismatic
leadership within organizational settings, and a measurement scale (Conger and Kanungo, 1994;
Conger et al., 1997). According to the model, charismatic leadership is an attribution based on
follower perceptions of their leader's behavior. The observed behavior of the leader is interpreted
by followers as expressions of charisma in the same sense as a leader's behaviors reflect that
individual's participative, people, and task orientations. Charismatic leaders differ from other
leaders by their ability to formulate and articulate an inspirational vision and by behaviors and
actions that foster an impression that they and their mission are extraordinary. As such, indi-
viduals choose to follow such leaders in management settings not simply because of the leader's
formal authority but out of perceptions of their leader's extraordinary character (Weber 1925/
1968). As such, any measurement of charismatic leadership must be based on followers' percep-
tions of the specific behavioral attributes of the leader that engender such effects. The Conger-
Kanungo model proposes several distinguishing behavioral components in three distinct stages of
the leadership process.
Specifically, in stage one (the environmental assessment stage), the Conger-Kanungo model
distinguishes the charismatic leadership of a manager from other leadership roles along two
dimensions. The first are the followers' perceptions of the manager's greater desire to change the
status quo. The second is a heightened sensitivity on the leader's part to environmental oppor-
tunities, constraints, and followers' needs. Managers who are seen as charismatic will therefore be
more likely to be perceived as both critics of the status quo and as reformers or agents of radical
Copyright ( 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER EFFECTS 749
reform. In stage two (the vision formulation stage), charismatic leadership is distinguished from
other forms by the followers' perceptions of the manager's formulation of a shared and idealized
future vision as well as his or her effective articulation of this vision in an inspirational manner. It
is the shared perspective of the vision and its potential to satisfy follower needs that form the
basis of attraction to the charismatic leader. It is the idealized aspect, however, that makes such
leaders admirable persons deserving of respect and worthy of identification and imitation by
followers. Finally, in stage three (the implementation stage), managers who are perceived as
charismatic are seen to be engaging in exemplary acts that subordinates interpret as involving
great personal risk and self-sacrifice. Through these actions, managers are able to empower
subordinates and build trust. Furthermore, in stage three, managers seen as charismatic will also
be perceived to be deploying innovative and unconventional means for achieving their visions.
Their ability to transcend the existing order through unconventional approaches heightens
follower perceptions of the leader's expertize and follower perceptions of control over events.
While research has been conducted on the Conger-Kanungo model (e.g., Conger and
Kanungo, 1992, 1994; Conger et al., 1997), there has been an absence of empirical investigations
examining hypothesized links between the model's individual behavioral dimensions and specific
follower effects. For example, Conger and Kanungo (1988) suggested that charismatic leadership
might produce high levels of a collectivist identity among followers, strong emotional attachment
to the leader, and high follower task performance. Similarly, other researchers have proposed
distinct follower effects under charismatic leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985; Shamir et al., 1993). The
purpose of this study is to address this shortcoming.
Hypothesized relationships between charismatic
leader behaviors andfollower effects
When subordinates perceive that their manager is exhibiting leadership behaviors (as specified in
the Conger-Kanungo model, 1987), they will not only attribute charisma to him or her (follower
attribution effect) but also change their attitudes, values, and behavior consistent with what the
manager wants from them. Such leadership influence of a manager on subordinates is referred to
as follower effects. These effects are noticed on two fronts. A manager's leadership behavior can
influence subordinates' reactions (a) towards the manager as a leader and (b) towards themselves
as subordinates and their task efforts. We call these leader focus variables and follower focus
variables.
This study sought to test three hypotheses relating to subordinate beliefs and attitudes toward
the manager as a leader, and three hypotheses relating to follower beliefs and attitudes con-
cerning the task. Specifically, under charismatic leadership, we propose that in terms of leader
focus variables we are likely to find follower effects of heightened reverence, trust, and satisfac-
tion with the leader. In terms of follower focus variables, we suggest that charismatic leadership
will be positively related to followers' sense of collective identity, perceived group performance,
and feelings of empowerment. Accordingly, we examined these six outcome components. Five of
the six were chosen because of their consistent mention in the literature on charismatic and
transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Conger and Kanungo,
1998; Shamir et al., 1993) as hypothesized effects. The sixth-heightened reverence for the
leader-was selected because follower attraction is in large part based on perceptions of the
leader's extraordinary character and the leader's commitment to followers and the goals they
share (Bryman, 1992; Conger and Kanungo, 1998; Weber, 1947). One would assume that the
Copyright ? 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
follower respect and awe engendered by these characteristics would produce a heightened rever-
ence for the leader. A more detailed rationale for the selection of the six outcome variables is
explained under the sections to follow.
Reverence for the leader
The sociologist Max Weber (1925/1968) asserted that the basis for follower attraction under
charismatic leadership was a perception that the leader was extraordinary: '[the charismatic
leader is] set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or
at least ... exceptional powers and qualities ... [which] are not accessible to the ordinary person
but are regarded as of divine or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned
is treated as a leader' (Weber, [1925] 1968, pp. 358-359). These perceptions of exceptional powers
are hypothesized to foster a high level of admiration and respect which lead to reverence for the
charismatic leader. Reverence is further reinforced by the leader's inspirational vision which
conveys the sense that his or her mission is extraordinary. During the implementation of the
vision, the charismatic leader is also seen as engaging in exemplary acts that subordinates
interpret as involving great personal risk and sacrifice on the part of the leader. These acts in
turn heighten follower trust and satisfaction with their leader and deepen the esteem followers
hold for their leader and correspondingly their reverence for him or her. Thus, we propose the
following:
Hypothesis 1. Charismatic leadership behavior will be positively related to the followers' sense
of reverence for that manager.
Trust in the leader
The willingness of followers to be influenced by the charismatic leader is in part based upon their
trust in the leader (Kouzes and Posner, 1987; Yukl, 1989). Given the often lofty visions of
charismatic leaders and the implementation challenges that these visions pose, follower trust is
essential to goal accomplishment and, as such, to the long-term viability of the mission. The
charismatic leader must therefore endeavour to foster deep levels of follower trust. In the only
empirical study specifically conducted on follower trust in the leader, Podsakoff et al. (1990) have
shown that three qualities of a leader contribute significantly to follower trust. These include: (1)
identifying and articulating a vision; (2) setting an example for followers that is consistent with
the values the leader espouses; and (3) promoting group cooperation and the acceptance of group
goals. In addition, we would suggest that the charismatic leader also builds follower trust through
a demonstrated concern for follower needs, risk taking, personal sacrifices, and unconventional
expertize.
Specifically, leaders will be perceived as trustworthy when they advocate their position in a
disinterested manner and demonstrate a concern for followers' needs rather than their own self-
interest (Walster et al., 1966). Charismatic leaders do so by making such qualities appear
extraordinary. They transform their concern for followers' needs into a total dedication and
commitment to a common cause they share, and they express these qualities in a disinterested and
selfless manner. Moreover, charismatic leaders build trust in themselves by engaging in
exemplary acts that are perceived by followers as involving great personal risk, cost, and energy
(Friedland, 1964). In this case, personal risk might include the possible loss of personal finances,
the possibility of being fired or demoted, and the potential loss of formal or informal status,
power, authority, and credibility. The higher the manifest personal cost or sacrifice for common
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
goals that the charismatic leader demonstrates, the greater will be their perceived trustworthiness.
In essence, charismatic leaders strive to demonstrate that they are indefatigable workers prepared
to take on high personal risks or incur high personal costs in order to achieve their shared vision.
Through such personal examples, the charismatic leader reinforces perceptions that he or she is
worthy of complete trust. In addition, charismatic leaders appear to followers as knowledgeable
and expert in their areas of influence. The attribution of charisma is generally influenced by the
expertize of these leaders in two areas. First, charismatic leaders use their expertize in demon-
strating the inadequacy of the traditional technology, rules, and regulations of the status quo as a
means of achieving the shared vision (Weber, 1947). Second, charismatic leaders reveal expertize
in transcending the existing order through the use of unconventional or countercultural strategies
and plans of action (Conger, 1985, 1989). Such expertize further engenders trust by followers in
the charismatic leader. As such, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 2. Charismatic leadership behavior will be positively related to the followers' trust
in that manager.
Satisfaction with the leader
Current theory posits that charismatic leadership enhances follower satisfaction with the leader
through the leader's provision of meaningful goals, their exemplary behaviors, and their
empowerment approaches. For example, charismatic leaders offer their followers lofty and
inspiring visions which are highly meaningful to followers and contain significant rewards for
them (Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993). Since the leader is seen as the
primary source of the vision, he or she is attributed by followers as bringing meaning into their
lives and as providing them with goals that transcend their own limited existence (Jahoda, 1981)
and which permit them to achieve higher order rewards (Burns, 1978). This heightened sense of
meaningfulness and reward is greatly satisfying for followers. Leader behavior which is inter-
preted by followers as satisfying for them in turn increases follower satisfaction with the leader
him or herself (House and Dessler, 1974). Second, the leader's exemplary acts involving personal
risk and self-sacrifice build follower satisfaction with the leader by heightening perceptions of the
leader's commitment to realizing their shared vision and the shared rewards that will accompany
the outcomes of the mission. The leader's demonstrated expertize and innovative insight also
build follower satisfaction with the leader by affirming followers' perceptions that their personal
and material investments in the cause have a high probability of repeating expected rewards.
Third, through the active use of empowerment strategies (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer,
1995), charismatic leaders enhance the sense of self-efficacy of followers in relationship to task
accomplishment which in turn heightens satisfaction with the leader. Given these various forces,
we therefore propose the following:
Hypothesis 3. Charismatic leadership behavior will be positively related to the followers'
feeling of satisfaction with that manager.
Work-group collective identity
From the vantage point of follower focus variables, charismatic leadership is hypothesized to
transform the self-interests of followers into collective interests. They do so by tying participation
in the organization to a larger collective identity (Shamir et al., 1993). Charismatic leaders aim to
enhance the salience of collective identities in the self-concepts of followers primarily to increase
the probability that followers will engage in self-sacrificial and cooperative behaviors that
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
advance the overall mission of the group rather than their own personal aims (Shamir et al.,
1993). As Meindl and Lerner (1983) suggest, a collective or shared identity can heighten the
'heroic motive' among followers and increase the likelihood that pursuits related to self-interests
among individual followers will be abandoned for more collective and altruistic endeavours.
Moreover, a collective identity places significant social and psychological forces on followers
which increase their commitment to the values articulated by the charismatic leader for the
organization and likely heightens their commitment to task efforts (Kanter, 1967; Salancik, 1977;
Shamir et al., 1993. Therefore we propose the following:
Hypothesis 4. Charismatic leadership behavior of a manger will be positively related to the
followers' sense of a collective identity.
Perceived group task performance
Under charismatic leadership, the followers' expectations of successful group performance and
ongoing feelings of task accomplishment play a crucial role in successful outcomes. Returning to
the notion that the goals and visions of charismatic leaders are most often lofty and challenging,
we would expect followers to perceive themselves as a collective entity to possess a capacity to
successfully undertake and accomplish a high level of task efforts (effort-accomplishment
expectancies) (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Shamir et al., 1993). Otherwise they would experience
the task demands of the charismatic leader with a sense of inadequacy and/or despair which
could lead to either ineffectual attempts at task efforts or the abandonment of such efforts
(Conger and Kanungo, 1988). As Bandura (1977) has noted: 'The strength of people's conviction
in their own effectiveness is likely to affect whether they would even try to cope with given
situations ... Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long
they will persist ni the face of obstacles and aversive experiences' (p. 193-194). A heightened
sense of group task efficacy allows charismatic leaders to mobilize their organizations in the face
of difficult challenges. It enables leaders to set higher performance goals and to have them
accepted. Finally, it helps in motivating subordinates to persist in efforts despite difficult
organizational and environmental obstacles. It follows that accomplishment of such difficult
tasks would lead to perceptions of successful task performance and to a sense of belonging to an
effective, high-performing team. Therefore, followers of charismatic leaders are likely to be highly
satisfied with their performance as a group and should possess an enhanced sense of group task
performance. Thus.
Hypothesis 5. Charismatic leadership behavior of a manager will be positively related to the
followers' perceptions of group task performance.
Feelings of empowerment
Charismatic leadership is characterized by its emphasis on transforming the values, beliefs, and
attitudes of followers, typically in conjunction with a lofty, stimulating and idealized vision for
the future (Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1987). According to Yukl (1989), the effect of such
transformation influence is to empower subordinates to participate in the transformation of the
organization. Empowerment literature also recognizes the empowering effect of an idealized
vision. For example, Burke (1986) proposed that leaders empower by providing clarity of
direction, 'but not just any direction-a direction that encompasses a higher purpose, a worthy
cause, an idea ... (p. 69)'. According to Bennis and Nanus (1985), the feeling of making a
difference for the organization is a critical component of empowerment.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
More recent theoretical and empirical work on empowerment also emphasizes the empowering
effect of valued ideals and goals. The Thomas and Velthouse model of empowerment (Thomas
and Velthouse, 1990; Thomas and Tymon, 1994) and Spreitzer's work on empowerment
(Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997) both include the dimension of meaning as an essential
component of empowerment. Menon's model of empowerment (Menon, in press; Menon and
Borg, 1995) includes the dimension of goal internalization which captures the empowering
influence of valued organizational goals. According to Kanungo and Mendonca (1996), leaders
formulate and articulate idealized future goals which serve to energize and hence empower
subordinates to the extent that these goals are internalized.
Besides articulating and championing an energizing cause, charismatic leaders also empower
by providing followers with information about their personal efficacy (Conger and Kanungo,
1988). The charismatic leader conveys such information through various means. These include:
(1) expressing confidence in subordinates accompanied by high performance expectations
(Bandura, 1986; Burke, 1986; Conger, 1989; Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Neilsen, 1986; Shamir
et al., 1993); (2) providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (Conger and Kanungo, 1988;
Kanter, 1979); and (3) setting inspirational and highly meaningful goals (Bass, 1985; Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Burke, 1986; McClelland, 1985). Conger and Kanungo
(1988) proposed that such enhanced feelings of self-efficacy are critical to the psychological
experience of empowerment. The empowerment research referred to above also recognizes a
sense of competence as being essential to feelings of empowerment (Bennis and Nanus, 1985;
Menon and Borg, 1995; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).
In the light of the above arguments, therefore.
Hypothesis 6. Charismatic leadership behavior of a manager will be positively related to the
followers' feeling of empowerment.
Methods
Sample and administration
Measures of charismatic leadership and follower effects were obtained from 252 managers in a
large, diversified company. Structural equation modelling was then used to examine the direct
and indirect effects of the charismatic leadership behaviors on follower effects. The participants
in the study were managers attending training sessions in a large manufacturing conglomerate
based in the Northeast. Out of a total of 252 respondents, 94 per cent were male, 86 per cent were
married, and 80 per cent had at least a college degree. The mean age of the sample was 42.5 years
(S.D. = 6.89). The mean organizational tenure was 13.62 years (S.D. = 8.86) while the mean job
tenure was 2.9 years (S.D. = 2.74).
The respondents were asked to answer a questionnaire assessing a supervisor's behavior
which was administered in two parts. Part I contained the charismatic leadership scale and
demographic items, while Part II contained measures to assess six other variables: namely
reverence, trust, satisfaction with leader, and collective identity, perceived group performance,
and empowerment. Part II of the questionnaire was administered 24 hours after the
administration of Part I to minimize same-source bias. Reliability data for all measures are
available in Table 1.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Measures
Charismatic leadership
Charismatic leadership behavior (CHRSMA) was measured using the 20-item Conger-Kanungo
charismatic leadership scale. In a series of empirical studies, the Conger-Kanungo measurement
scale has undergone testing and validation (Conger and Kanungo, 1992, 1994; Conger et al.,
1997). The results of these studies indicate that the Conger-Kanungo scale has sound psycho-
metric properties with adequate reliability and convergent and discriminant validity coefficients.
The factor structure of the Conger-Kanungo scale also reveals that the perceived behavioral
components of charismatic leadership are stable. Finally, correlations of each of the Conger-
Kanungo charismatic leadership subscales with other perceived leadership behavior measures
indicate that the models and the scale as its operational measure are distinct from existing
leadership scales (Conger and Kanungo, 1994). The complete scale, which utilized a 6-point 'very
characteristic' to 'very uncharacteristic' response format, is outlined in Table 4.
Leader focus variables
Reverence for the leader (REV) was measured by a three-item scale developed for this study (see
Appendix 1 for scale items). Trust in the leader (TRU) was measured by a three-item scale. These
items were taken from Bass (1985) and Butler (1991). Satisfaction with the leader (SAT) was
measured by three items based on Bass (1985). A 6-point 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree'
response format was used for all the above items (see Appendix 1 for scale items).
Follower focus variables
Collective identity (CI) was measured by five items specifically developed for this study on the
basis of face and content validity. The items reflect the sense of shared values, openness, and
broad consensus that characterize cohesive work groups. For the present managerial sample,
respondents were asked to refer to the work group, organizational unit or department that they
belonged to. The actual items are available in Appendix 1. Perceived group performance (GP)
was also measured by five items developed for this study (see Appendix 1). It is important to note
that these items measure current perceptions of group performance with respect to ongoing
performance broadly defined rather than expectations of future performance with regard to
specific tasks. This approach is consistent with the cross-sectional nature of the study, the nature
of the sample (managers from different domains), and the arguments relating to Hypothesis 5.
Items were, therefore, constructed to reflect current beliefs about performance effectiveness.
Empowerment (EMP) was measured by Menon's 15-item subjective empowerment scale
(Menon, in press; Menon and Borg, 1995). This scale was preferred over Spreitzer's (1995) scale
because Menon's scale includes items that tap the dimension of goal internalization. We felt that
this is particularly well suited to study the effects of charismatic leadership given the empowering
nature of inspirational goals typically espoused by charismatic leaders. As can be seen from
Appendix 1, the items pertaining to dimensions traditionally associated with empowerment, like
perceived control and perceived competence, are similar to the Spreitzer (1995) scale, the major
difference being the items related to goal internalization. These convergent and divergent
relationships were empirically demonstrated by Menon (1995) who also reported alpha
reliabilities of 0.87, 0.89, and 0.82 in three different samples. Menon (in press) provides evidence
of the construct validity of the scale. A 6-point 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree' response
format was used for all the follower focus measures.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and bivariate correlations of all
variables. As can be seen, all measures have acceptable reliabilities. Structural equation
modelling using the LISREL 7 program was used to test the two sets of hypotheses. Since the
number of items in some of the scales were relatively large (e.g., 20 items in the charisma scale,
15 items in the empowerment scale), it is possible that the number of estimated parameters in a
given model might be too large for the available sample size. To minimize this possibility,
composite indicators were used to represent scales with more than three items (see Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988 for a discussion of this technique). For example, charisma was represented by
three indicators, formed by combining the 20 items through random assignment. First the 20
items were randomly assigned into three groups-two groups of seven items and one group of six
items. Individual items in each group were then averaged to obtain the three composite indicators
(see Shore et al. (1995) for a recent illustration of this technique).
To confirm the distinctiveness of the charisma scale and the three leader focus variables, a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 7 was conducted on the 12 items or indicators
measuring charismatic behavior, reverence, trust, and satisfaction with the leader. The
hypothesized four factor model had a chi-square (df = 48) of 128.22, goodness-of-fit index
(GFI) of 0.914, and a root mean square residual (rmsr) of 0.039. In comparison, the single factor
model, with all 12 indicators loading on a single factor, had a chi-square (df = 54) of 383.53, GFI
of 0.778, and rmsr of 0.051. The chi-square difference was highly significant, confirming the
presence of four distinct factors. However, an examination of the correlations in Table 1 revealed
that 'satisfaction' and 'reverence' are highly correlated (r = 0.75) raising the possibility that these
two measures may not be sufficiently distinct. To test this, the CFA model with four factors was
modified by having the indicators of satisfaction and reverence load on a single factor. The
resulting three factor model had a chi-square (df = 51) of 174.99, GFI of 0.884 and rmsr of 0.040.
Compared to the four factor model the chi-square difference (df = 3) was 46.77, which is highly
significant. Thus, it was concluded that the four measures were sufficiently distinct.
Similarly, to confirm the distinctiveness of the charisma scale and the three follower focus
variables, a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 7 was conducted on the 12 composite
indicators measuring charismatic behavior, collective identity, empowerment, and group
performance. The hypothesized four factor model had a chi-square (df = 48) of 127.63, GFI
of 0.920, and rmsr of 0.021. In comparison, the single factor model, with all 12 indicators loading
on a single factor, had a chi-square (df = 54) of 579.72, GFI of 0.695, and rmsr of 0.045. The chi-
square difference was highly significant. Again, an examination of the correlations in Table 1
revealed that 'perceived group performance' and 'empowerment' are highly correlated (r = 0.64)
raising the possibility that these two measures may not be sufficiently distinct. To test this, the
CFA model with four factors was modified by having the indicators of group performance and
empowerment load on a single factor. The resulting three factor model had a chi-square (df = 51)
of 255.94, GFI of 0.838 and rmsr of 0.03. Compared to the four factor model the chi-square
difference (df = 3) was 128.31, which is highly significant. Thus, it was concluded that these four
measures were also sufficiently distinct.
Hypotheses testing
Hypotheses 1 to 6 were tested using the hypothesis testing procedure recommended by Joreskog
and Sorbom (1989, pp. 216-221). First, to test the hypotheses involving charisma and the leader
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Variable Mean S.D. Alpha 1 2 3
1. Charisma 4.50 0.50 0.82
2. Reverence 5.13 0.74 0.85 0.50T
3. Trust 3.94 0.48 0.72 0.20t 0.39:
4. Satisfaction 5.02 0.75 0.81 0.45$ 0.75$ 0.28$
5. Collective Identity 4.71 0.61 0.78 0.34$ 0.41$ 0.19t
6. Group Performance 4.83 0.61 0.85 0.35f 0.42: 0.16*
7. Empowerment 5.29 0.46 0.91 0.31 0.43$ 0.15*
*p < 0.05; tp < 0.01; Sp < 0.001.
focus variables, a saturated structural model with uncorrelated errors and disturbances (Medsker
et al., 1994) was set up with charisma (CHRSMA) as the exogenous latent variable. This model
which allows for all possible unidirectional relationships between the variables charisma
(CHRSMA), reverence (REV), trust (TRU), and satisfaction with the leader (LSAT), had a
chi-square (df= 48) of 128.22, with a GFI of 0.914 and rmsr of 0.039.
To test the various hypotheses, the following strategy was adopted (see Joreskog and Sorbom,
1989). First, the coefficient corresponding to the hypothesis in question was set to zero. The
resulting model was then compared to the saturated model using a single degree of freedom chi-
square difference test to see if the two models are significantly different. For example, to test
Hypotheses 1, the coefficient y71 representing the direct relationship between charisma and
reverence (see Figure 1) was set to zero. The resulting model had a chi-square (df = 49) of 197.38,
with a GFI of 0.885 and rmsr of 0.109. Compared to the saturated model, the chi-square
difference (df = 1) is 69.16, which is highly significant. This indicates that the coefficient y1j is
significantly different from zero. From the sign and magnitude of this coefficient in the saturated
model we can then conclude that Hypothesis 1, which predicts a positive relationship between
charismatic behavior and reverence is strongly supported. The complete results of the hypothesis
testing is available in Table 2.
As can be seen from Table 2, Hypotheses 2 and 3 are not supported since the reduced models
obtained by setting the appropriate coefficients to zero are not significantly different from the
saturated model. Thus, in the present data set there is no direct relationship between charismatic
behavior and trust or satisfaction. Rather, the relationships between charismatic behavior and
these two variables respectively seem to be completely mediated by reverence, in this four variable
model. We also see from the saturated model that the relationship between trust and satisfaction
is non-significant. As can be seen from Table 2, setting the corresponding coefficient to zero does
not result in any significant chi-square difference compared to the saturated model. Thus, the
'true model' or the model that best represents this particular data set is as shown in Figure 1.
A similar procedure was used to test Hypotheses 4 to 6 involving follower focus variables.
First, a saturated structural model with all possible unidirectional relationships between charisma
(CHRSMA) and the variables group collective identity (COH), perceived group performance
(GP), and empowerment (EMP), was set up. This model had a chi-square (df = 48) of 127.63,
with GFI of 0.920 and rmsr of 0.021. Hypotheses 4 to 6 were then individually tested by setting
the appropriate coefficient of the direct path from CHRSMA to each of the other variables to
zero, one variable at a time. The results of this analysis is shown in Table 3.
As can be seen from Table 3, the chi-square difference test reveals that the coefficients y l and
y21, corresponding to Hypotheses 4 and 5 respectively, are significantly different from zero.
Therefore, Hypotheses 4 and 5 are supported. On the other hand, since coefficient Y31 is not
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Table 2. Results of hypothesis testing: leader focus variables*
Model/constraints 7Y1 Y21 731 f21 f31 f32 X2 df GFI rmsr Xdiff
1. Saturated structural 0.39t -0.00 -0.04 0.69t 1.30t -0.12 128.22 48 0.914 0.039
model
2. y =0 - 0.05 0.06 0.63t 1.16t -0.06 197.38 49 0.885 0.109 69.16
3. 72 = 0 0.39t - -0.04 0.68t 1.29t -0.11 128.23 49 0.914 0.039 0.01O
4. 731 = 0 0.38t 0.00 - 0.68t 1.23t -0.09 128.68 49 0.914 0.038 0.48$
5. 'True Model' 721, 731 0.38t - - 0.68t 1.16t - 128.88 51 0.913 0.038 0.661
f32 = 0
* Corresponding model is depicted in Figure 1; tP < 0.001; $ = non-significant.
Table 3. Results of hypothesis testing: follower focus variables*
Model/constraints y Y21 731 f21 31 32 x df GFI rmsr dif
1. Saturated structural 0.23t O.lOt 0.01 0.64t 0.29: 0.35$ 127.63 48 0.920 0.021
model
2. y71 0 - 0.13t 0.02 0.64$ 0.28t 0.351 155.74 49 0.906 0.049 28.11
3. 721 = 0 0.255 - 0.01 0.74: 0.30$ 0.33t 133.60 49 0.917 0.024 5.97
4. 731 = 0 0.23: 0.10t - 0.64$ 0.29: 0.36: 127.85 49 0.919 0.021 0.22?
* Corresponding model is depicted in Figure 2.
tP < 0.05; tp < 0.001; ? = non-significant.
121 =1.16***
H1
y = .38***
Figure 1. Structural model: charisma and leader focus variables (***p < 0.001. Note: The coefficients
correspond to the model with y21, 731 and f32 constrained to zero)
significantly different from zero, Hypothesis 6 is not supported. Given that all the other
coefficients are significant in the saturated model, the 'true model' or the model that best
represents this data set is depicted in Figure 2. Charismatic leader behavior is directly related to
group collective identity and perceptions of group performance. These two variables in turn
completely mediate the relationship between charismatic behavior and subjective empowerment
in this four variable model.
Thus, charismatic leader behavior seems to directly generate in followers a feeling of reverence,
a sense of group collective identity, and perceptions of group task performance. In the next
section, we shall investigate the causal relationship between the individual behavior components
of charismatic leadership behaviors and specific follower effects.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
= .29***
H4
P32 =.36***
112
Group Per-
formance
Figure 2. Structural model: charisma and follower focus variables (***p < 0.001. Note: The coefficients
correspond to the model with Y31 constrained to zero)
Sub-scale analysis
The Conger-Kanungo scale of charismatic leadership has five sub-scales: strategic vision and
articulation (SVA), sensitivity to the environment (SE), sensitivity to member needs (SMN),
personal risk (PR), and unconventional behavior (UB) (See Conger et al. (1997), for details of
validation studies). To confirm the existence of these five sub-scales in the present data set, the
20 item Conger-Kanungo scale was subjected to a principal component factor analysis using
varimax rotation with a five factor solution. Table 4 shows the results of the factor analysis. With
a different database, the pattern of factor loadings in Table 4 exactly replicates the pattern of
factor loadings reported in Conger et al. (1997)-i.e., the items load on the five factors exactly as
expected. This was confirmed by the results of a confirmatory factor analysis. Compared to a
single factor model [Chi-square (df = 170) = 979.62; GFI = 0.662; rmsr = 0.661], the five
factor model [Chi-square (df = 160) = 348.17; GFI = 0.892; rmsr = 0.062] provided superior
fit, the chi-square difference between the two models being highly significant. An examination of
the intercorrelations among the sub-scales (in Table 5) did not reveal unusually high correlations
between any given pair of subs-scales, obviating the need to test the hypothesized five factor
model against potential four or three factor models.
Table 5 shows the means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and intercorrelations among
the sub-scales. Bivariate correlations between the sub-scales and the six outcome variables are
also provided in Table 5. The relationships between the outcome variables and each of the five
sub-scales was simultaneously estimated using the LISREL 7 program, with the five sub-scales as
independent variables and the six outcome variables as dependent variables. The results of the
regression analysis are shown in Table 6.
As can be seen from Table 6, the outcome variable reverence is most strongly related to the
sub-scale sensitivity to the environment. Three other sub-scales strategic vision and articulation,
sensitivity to member needs, and personal risk also contribute to feelings of reverence. Trust is
significantly related only to the sub-scale sensitivity to the environment. Satisfaction with the
leader is strongly related to the sub-scales strategic vision and articulation, sensitivity to the
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Table 4. Factor loadings for C-K scale items
Item
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Strategic vision and articulation (SVA)
0.19 0.15
Has vision; often brings up ideas about possibilities for the 0.79
0.08
-0.08
future
-0.04
Provides inspiring strategic and organizational goals 0.74 -0.01 0.26
-0.05
0.02
Consistently generates new ideas for the future of the 0.66 0.35 0.05
organization
0.00 0.20
Entrepreneurial; seizes new opportunities in order to 0.65 0.10 0.04
achieve goals
0.09 0.12
Readily recognizes new environmental opportunities 0.58 0.12 0.37
(favourable physical and social conditions) that may
facilitate achievement or organizational objectives
0.20 0.01
Inspirational; able to motivate by articulating effectively 0.58 0.16 0.26
the importance of what organizational members are doing
Exciting public speaker
0.28 0.13
0.54 0.02 -0.16
Personal risk (PR)
0.86 0.05
0.07 0.20
Takes high personal risks for the sake of the organization 0.23
0.81 0.04
0.10 0.18
Often incurs high personal cost for the good of the 0.19
0.78 0.08
0.12 0.09
0.09 0.74
0.00 -0.08
0.14 0.71
0.14 -0.03
In pursuing organizational objectives, engages in activities 0.10
involving considerable personal risk
organization
Sensitivity to the environment (SE)
Readily recognizes constraints in the physical environment 0.09
(technological limitations, lack of resources, etc.) that may
stand in the way of achieving organizational objectives
Readily recognizes constraints in the organization's social 0.07
and cultural environment (cultural norms, lack of grass
roots support, etc.) that may stand in the way of achieving
organizational objectives
Recognizes the limitations of other members of the 0.18
-0.11 0.60
0.24 0.08
organization
Recognizes the abilities and skills of other members of the 0.35
0.01 0.50
0.22 -0.01
0.11 0.25
0.78 -0.17
organization
Sensitivity to member needs (SMN)
Shows sensitivity for the needs and feelings of the other 0.06
members in the organization
Influences others by developing mutual liking and respect 0.09
Often expresses personal concern for the needs and 0.02
-0.08 0.04
0.78 -0.05
0.19 0.26
0.76 -0.09
feelings of other members in the organization
Unconventional behavior (UB)
0.06 -0.11
-0.04 0.80
Use non-traditional means to achieve organizational goals 0.25
0.17 0.05
-0.10 0.79
Often exhibits very unique behavior that surprises other 0.12
0.30 0.03
-0.16 0.61
Engages in unconventional behavior in order to achieve 0.02
organizational goals
members of the organization
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
0.07
Table 5. C-K sub-scales: descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Variable Mean S.D. alpha 1 2 3 4 5
C-K Sub-scales
1. SVA 4.8 0.63 0.81
2. SE 4.76 0.64 0.64 0.42:
3. SMN 4.51 0.91 0.77 0.21t 0.401
4. PR 4.15 1.08 0.84 0.401 0.18t 0.16*
5. UB 3.83 1.00 0.71 0.281 -0.04 -0.20t 0.391
Outcome variables
REV 5.13 0.74 0.85 0.39t 0.49t 0.36t 0.29t 0.05
TRU 3.94 0.48 0.72 0.14* 0.21t 0.12 0.08 0.07
SAT 5.02 0.75 0.81 0.391 0.44: 0.44f 0.16* -0.02
CI 4.71 0.61 0.78 0.311 0.321 0.321 0.12 0.01
GP 4.83 0.61 0.85 0.311 0.381 0.21t 0.13* 0.08
EMP 5.29 0.46 0.91 0.321 0.361 0.22t 0.07 0.03
*p < 0.05; tp < 0.01; :p < 0.001.
Note. SVA, strategic vision and articulation; SE, sensitivity to the environment; SMN, sensitivity to member needs; PR,
personal risk; UB, unconventional behavior; REV, reverence; TRU, trust; SAT, satisfaction; CI, collective identity; GP,
group performance; EMP, empowerment.
environment, and sensitivity to member needs. Collective identity is related strongly to both
strategic vision and articulation and sensitivity to member needs. Perceived group performance,
on the other hand, is most strongly related to sensitivity to the environment. Empowerment is
significantly related to both strategic vision and articulation and sensitivity to the environment.
None of the dependent variables were related to the leader's unconventional behavior (UB). The
effects of unconventional behavior of superiors on subordinates need further exploration in
future studies. Perhaps the main effect of unconventional behavior lies in drawing follower's
attention to the leader's vision and implementation strategies.
Discussion
This study identified six follower effects from the charismatic leadership literature and tested
whether the behavioral components of the Conger-Kanungo model of charismatic leadership
produced these predicted effects. The findings indicate that three of the components have a strong
direct relationship with charismatic leadership: (1) leader reverence, (2) follower collective
identity, and (3) follower perceptions of group task performance. The remaining three
components all had mediated or indirect relationships with charismatic leadership.
One of the important findings of the study was the fact that indeed the followers of charismatic
leaders develop a reverence for their leader and that this appears to be based most strongly upon
their perceptions of the leader's sensitivity to the environment. Secondarily, the leaders' abilities
at formulating and articulating an inspiring vision and their sensitivity to member needs play a
role. Presumably followers see the leader's environmental sensitivity and visioning abilities as
exemplary skills in their leaders which are deserving of admiration. This outcome may be a
byproduct of the managerial composition of the sample. Many managers have a strategic and/or
marketplace responsibility and in turn may be more attuned to the need for their leader to be
highly sensitive to the larger environment. Non-managers may be less knowledgeable about or
impressed by the leader's sensitivity, and therefore their reverence for the leader may be
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Table 6. LISREL (gamma) estimates of relationships between charisma sub-scales and outcome variables
Independent variables Dependent variables
Reverence Trust Satisfaction Collective Group Empowerment
(REV) (TRU) (SAT) identity performance (EMP)
(CI) (GP)
Strategic vision and 0.21t 0.03 0.31: 0.22t 0.17* 0.16t
articulation (SVA)
Sensitivity to the 0.38: 0.15* 0.26: 0.12 0.251 0.18T
environment (SE)
Sensitivity to member 0.13t 0.02 0.261 0.15: 0.06 0.04
needs (SMN)
Personal risk (PR) 0.10* -0.00 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04
Unconventional -0.02 0.03 -0.03 0.00 0.05 0.02
behavior (UB)
*p < 0.05; tp < 0.01; tp < 0.001.
influenced by other factors. On the other hand, the leader's sensitivity to member needs reflects a
caring concern and respect for followers which most likely engenders reciprocal respect from
followers. These findings would appear to support assertions by Weber (1925/1968) that one of
the foundations of charismatic leadership is a 'devotion to the specific and ... exemplary
character of an individual person' (Weber, 1925/1968, p. 46)-perceptions of the 'exemplary
character' being shaped by specific leadership behaviors and competencies. What is also
intriguing is the link to prophecy or foresight which is implied in the strong relation between
reverence and the subscale of environmental sensitivity. Early Biblical references-specifically
two letters of St. Paul in Romans, 12, and 1 Corinthians, 12-use the term of charisma to
describe gifts from God specifically related to prophecy.
Leader reverence is generally an unexplored topic in the leadership research literature and is
deserving of significant future attention. There is a need to develop a more comprehensive
conceptualization of the construct. Our own measure of reverence was built around only three
items-respect, esteem, and admiration. There may be other dimensions of reverence itself. In
addition, there may be other leadership behaviors which were not measured in this study that
induce follower feelings of reverence. Future research is needed to help us broaden our
understanding of how followers come to revere their leader and to determine whether this quality
of follower reverence is an attribute that effectively distinguishes charismatic leadership from
other forms.
A somewhat surprising finding was that trust and satisfaction with the leader were mediated by
reverence rather than being directly related to charismatic leadership. There has been little
emphasis in the leadership literature on variables that intervene between leader behaviors and
follower effects (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996). A mediating variable (Kenny, 1979) comes
between a dependent and an independent variable, where the independent variable in essence
causes the intervening variable which causes, in turn, the dependent variable (p. 4). In this case,
the mediating relationship is a two-part causal sequence in which the independent variable
significantly affects the intervening variable, which, in turn, affects significantly the dependent
variable, but the independent variable does not directly affect the dependent variable (Baron and
Kenny, 1986). In this case, reverence as the mediating variable affects follower trust and
satisfaction in the leader under charismatic leadership. We might speculate that trust and
satisfaction are powerfully shaped by a cognitive (leaders held in high esteem) and an affective
* J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
state (affectionate respect) felt by followers in their relations with the charismatic leader rather
than simply by the behavioral components of charisma per se. One earlier study has shown that
the leader's vision was related to greater trust in the leader (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996).
Another study has also shown that the core components of vision, appropriate role-modelling,
the promotion of group cooperation, and the provision of individualized support significantly
influenced follower trust in the leader (Podsakoff et al., 1990). However, both the studies did not
investigate the leader reverence variable as a distinct follower effect. Hence these studies could not
identify the mediational role of reverence variable in leader behaviors and trust relationships. It is
natural to expect that followers would trust or have reliance on the leader only when they
recognize superior ability or quality in the leader which they adore. It is adoration not just liking
that creates trust in the leader.
Collective identity, as it turns out, is related to charismatic leadership especially through the
subscales of vision and its articulation and sensitivity to member needs. This finding confirms
earlier theory which hypothesized that charismatic leaders employ their vision not only to set
goals but to shape a collective identity for followers (Meindl and Lerner, 1983; Shamir et al.,
1993). In addition, these leaders are modelling the importance of cooperative behavior through
their own concern for others and by direct actions promoting mutual liking and respect among
followers.
Perceived group task performance is also directly influenced by charismatic leadership largely
through the leader's sensitivity to the environment and somewhat less so through their
formulation of a strategic vision and its articulation. We might speculate that followers perceive
that the leader's strong sensitivity to the external and internal environment ensures that more
realistic assessments are made of what tasks can actually be accomplished collectively by
organizational members. As a result, we would expect to see followers describing perceptions of
their collective efficacy, as reflected in assessments of past performance, to be positive.
Finally, we do not find it surprising that feelings of empowerment are mediated through
collective identity and perceived group performance. While the strategic vision espoused by the
charismatic leader may be personally appealing to the subordinate, it is the acceptance and
endorsement of the leader's ideas by the reference group that provides social confirmation of the
appropriateness and worthiness of the vision. The leader's empowering message is also typically
phrased in terms of achieving a difficult or lofty goal through collective effort. Goal internal-
ization is thus facilitated by the sense of shared values. Collective identity may also provide
mutual support which in turn provides a source of self-efficacy information that is empowering.
Specifically, we would propose that group cooperation offers support in the form of at least three
sources of self-efficacy information, as identified by Bandura (1986)-vicarious experience,
verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. In any group, there are varying levels of competence.
Those members who are more competent may serve as vicarious models for others. Less
competent co-workers may come to believe that if they act in a like manner they too will be able to
achieve improvements in their performance. Secondly, a highly cooperative group may, with
greater frequency, use words of encouragement with one another to empower co-workers. Finally,
a group with a strong collective identity has a higher probability of creating an emotionally
supportive and trusting group atmosphere which can be effective in strengthening self-efficacy
beliefs of its individual members (Neilsen, 1986). In addition, followers' sense of successful group
task performance strengthens a collective sense of task competence, control over the work
environment and commitment to task goals.
This investigation has several important limitations. In this study, unlike in a purely experi-
mental study, the respondents knew and/or had close organizational contact of an ongoing
nature with the managers whom they rated for charismatic leadership behavior. The strong
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
association between charismatic behavior and reverence might be partly due to this close
interaction. The present research design however cannot rule out the possibility of reverse/
reciprocal causality, i.e., it is the reverence that can partially account for the ratings on
charismatic behavior.
Another limitation of this study is the nature of the sample. All the respondents in the study
were managers. Charismatic leaders are typically thought to influence personnel at all levels of
the organization, including the rank and file workers who are crucial for the actual imple-
mentation of the leader's vision. Thus, the results of this study need to be replicated with a more
representative cross-sectional organizational sample.
It should also be recognized that the grouping of the dependent variables into leader focus and
follower focus variables was primarily intended to facilitate the interpretation of emerging
relationships between charismatic behavior and the dependent variables; as can be recalled, there
were no specific hypotheses linking the various dependent variables to each other. It is quite
possible that a different grouping based on a different logic or no grouping at all would have
produced a different pattern of results. For instance, charismatic behavior could be linked to
empowerment (classified as a follower focus variable in this study) through trust (classified as a
leader focus variable).1 This issue can only be resolved by future research with a priori hypotheses
about direct and mediational links between charismatic behavior and dependent variables of
interest.
In this study, ratings of charismatic behavior as well as the follower outcome variables were
obtained from the same subordinate. This can lead to possible same source bias accounting for
the associations between variables. On the other hand, the charismatic behavior ratings and the
follower outcome ratings were obtained using two different questionnaires, with a 24-hour hiatus
between administrations. This procedure would help reduce possible same-source bias (Avolio
et al., 1991; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). The data analysis results also provide some indication
about the extent of common method bias. In the structural model relating charisma with the
leader focus variables (see Table 2), the direct relationships between charisma and the dependent
variables trust and satisfaction were statistically non-significant. Similarly, in the structural
model with follower focus variables, the direct relationship between charisma and empowerment
was statistically non-significant (see Table 3). The statistical non-significance of some of the
direct relationships between charismatic behavior and the dependent variables is not consistent
with extensive method bias effects. Nevertheless, as a possible test of method bias effects, a
statistical test was conducted using the procedure recently demonstrated by Markel and Frone
(1998). The two models in Figures 1 and 2 were re-estimated with all the indicator variables
loading on a general method factor. In the case of the leader focus variables model (Figure 1),
including the general method factor resulted in a chi-square (df = 39) of 71.56 (p = 0.001), GFI
of 0.953 and rmsr of 0.026. As can be seen from Table 2, this represents an improved fit.
However, none of the individual path coefficients corresponding to relationships between the
indicators and the general method factor was significant. The beta and gamma estimates (see
Figure 1) were similar to those obtained earlier. This pattern of results was also obtained for the
structural model involving follower focus variables. Thus, while the fit of both models improved,
indicating the presence of a common latent factor, the parameter estimates reveal that the earlier
results and conclusions are still valid. This finding is consistent with other research on common
method bias which has concluded that while method bias may be present, it may not always
significantly affect results or conclusions (Crampton and Wagner, 1994; Doty and Glick, 1998;
Spector and Brannick, 1995). Nevertheless, the presence of method bias, as suggested by the
' The authors are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for raising this insight.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
above statistical test as well as the magnitude of some of the correlations among the dependent
variables, is an inherent limitation of the research design used in this study. In future investiga-
tions, splitting the measures of independent and dependent variables while concurrently using
different raters of the same leader will better address this potential problem.
It is important that future research also examine additional follower effects. For instance,
theoretical literature on charismatic leadership suggests that often followers develop two types
of feeling under the influence of the leader: (1) a sense of dependence on the leader, and (2)
a sense of empowerment. Only the latter type of feeling among subordinates was investigated
in this study. The conditions under which a dependence relationship with the leader
develops needs to be studied, and such conditions need to be contrasted with conditions
promoting feeling of empowerment among followers. Furthermore, other follower effects such as
organizational and task commitments as a result of charismatic influence need to be explored.
Since the vision of a charismatic leader forms the core of the organizational mission, it is expected
that followers who internalize the vision would exhibit a higher degree of organizational and task
commitment.
Finally, one of the principal contributions of the Conger-Kanungo model of charismatic
leadership is the positioning of followers' attributions about the leader as mediating variables
between the leader's behaviors and other effects such as efficacy and trust. This focal aspect of the
model was not directly tested by the present study. Our results regarding the mediating effect of
reverence for the leader on certain follower effects may, however, be seen as a partial test of the
Conger-Kanungo attribution hypothesis if we assume that reverence for the leader is closely akin
to the attribution of charisma to the leader. Nonetheless, future investigations will need to
include explicit measurement of followers' attributions about the leadership unique qualities and
the leader's motivations to test this important dimension of the model properly.
References
Agle BR, Sonnenfeld JA. 1994. Charismatic chief executive officers: are they more effective? An empirical
test of charismatic leadership theory. Academy of Management Proceedings, Dallas, 2-6.
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423.
Avolio BJ, Yammarino FJ, Bass BM. 1991. Identifying common methods variance with data collected from
a single source: an unresolved ticky issue. Journal of nagement, 17(3): 571-587.
Bandura A. 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84:
191-215.
Bandura A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. A Social-cognitive View. Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bass BM. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press: New York.
Bass BM, Avolio B. 1993. Transformational leadership: a response to critiques In Leadership theory and
research: Perspectives and directions, Chemers MM, Ayman R (eds). Academic Press: New York; 49-80.
Bass BM, Waldman DA, Avolio BJ, Bebb M. 1987. Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes
effect. Group and Organization Studies, 12: 73-87.
Bass BM, Yammarino FJ. 1988. Leadership: Dispositional and situational. (ONR Tech Rep No 1) State
University of New York, Center for Leadership Studies: Binghamton, NY.
Bennis W, Nanus B. 1985. Leaders. The Strategies of Taking Charge. Harper & Row: New York.
Berlew DE. 1974. Leadership and Organizational excitement. California Management Review, 17: 21-30.
Burke WW. 1986. Leadership as empowering others. In Executive Power, Srivastva S (ed.). Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco; 51-77.
Burns JM. 1978. Leadership. Harper & Row: New York.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Butler JK. 1991. Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of a condition of trust
inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3): 643-663.
Conger JA. 1985. Charismatic leadership in business: A exploration study Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
Conger JA. 1989. The Charismatic Leader. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings. Academy of Management Review, 12: 637-647.
Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1988. The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3): 471-482.
Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1992. Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership. Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Science, 24: 86-102.
Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1994. Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes
and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 439-452.
Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1998. Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Sage Publishers: Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Conger JA, Kanungo RN, Menon ST, Mathur P. 1997. Measuring charisma: dimensionality and validity of
the Conger-Kanungo scale of charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(3):
290-302.
Crampton SM, Wagner JA III. 1994. Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational research: an
investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1): 67-76.
Doty DH, Glick WH. 1998. Common method bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Organizational Research Methods, 1(4): 374-406.
Friedland WH. 1964. For a sociological concept of charisma Social Forces, 43: 18-26.
House RJ. 1977. A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In Leadership. The cutting edge, Hunt JG,
Larson LL (eds). Southern Illinois University Press: Carbondale, IL; 189-207.
House RJ, Spangler WD, Woycke J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A
psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 364-396.
House RJ, Dessler G. 1974. The path-goal theory of leadership: some post hoc and a priori tests In
Contingency approaches to leadership, Hunt JG, Larson LL (eds). Southern Illinois University Press:
Carbondale, IL; 29-55.
Howell JM, Frost PJ. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 43: 243-269.
Jahoda M. 1981. Work employment and unemployment: values, theories and approaches in social research.
American Psychologists, 36: 184-191.
Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. 1989. LISREL 7. A Guide to the Program and Applications, 2nd edn. SPSS Inc.:
Chicago, IL.
Kanter RM. 1967. Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian
communities. American Sociological Review, 33(4): 499-517.
Kanter RM. 1979. Power failures in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57: 65-75.
Kanungo RN, Mendonca M. 1996. Ethical Dimensions of Leadership. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Katz J, Kahn RL. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley: New York.
Kirkpatrick SA, Locke EA. 1996. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership
components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 36-51.
Kouzes JM, Posner BZ. 1987. The Leadership Challenge. Jossey-Bassy: San Francisco.
Locke E, Kirkpatrick S, Wheeler JK, Schneider J, Niles K, Goldstein H, Welsh K, Chau D-Ok. 1991. The
Essence of Leadership. Lexington Books: New York.
Markel KS, Frone MR. 1998. Job characteristics, work-school conflict, and school outcomes among
adolescents: testing a structural model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2): 277-287.
McClelland DC. 1985. Human Motivation. Scott Foresman: Glenview, IL.
Medsker GJ, Williams LJ, Holahan PJ. 1994. A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in
organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20(2):
439-464.
Meindl J, Lerner MJ. 1983. The heroic motive: some experimental demonstrations. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 19: 1-20.
Menon ST. 1999. Psychological empowerment: definition, measurement, and validation. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science, 31(3): 161-164
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
Menon ST, Borg I. 1995. Facets of subjective empowerment. In Facet Analysis and Design, Hox J,
Swanborn P (eds). Zeist Press: Zeist, The Netherlands; 129-140.
Neilson E. 1986. Empowerment strategies: Balancing authority and responsibility. In Executive Power,
Srivastrax S (ed.). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco; 78-110.
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal
of Management, 12: 531-544.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH, Fetter R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142.
Puffer SM. 1990. Attributions of charasmatic leadership: The impact of decision style, outcome
characteristics. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 177-192.
Salancik GR. 1977. Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In Neiw Directions
in Organizational Behavior, Staw BM, Salancik GR (eds). St Clair: Chicago; 1-54.
Shamir B. 1992. Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: The romance of leadership revisited.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(5): 386-407.
Shamir B, House R, Arthur MB. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept
based theory. Organizational Science, 4(4): 577-594.
Shamir B, Zakay E, Breinin E, Popper M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behaviors in military
units: subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 387-409.
Shore LF, Barksdale K, Shore TH. 1995. Managerial perceptions of employee commitment to the
organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6): 1593-1615.
Spector PE, Brannick MT. 1995. The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10: 249-274.
Spreitzer GM. 1995. Individual empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1442-1465.
Spreitzer GM, Kizilos MA, Nason SW. 1997. A dimensional analysis of the relationship between
psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5):
679-704.
Thomas KW, Tymon WG. 1994. Does empowerment always work: understanding the role of intrinsic
motivation and personal interpretation. Journal of Management Systems, 6(2): 1-13.
Thomas KW, Velthouse BA. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: an 'interpretive' model of intrinsic
task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666-681.
Walster E, Aronson D, Abrahams D. 1966. On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige
communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2: 325-342.
Weber M. 1925/1968. Economy and Society, 3 vols, Guenther R, Wittich C (eds). Bedminster: New York.
Weber M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, Henderson AM, Parsons T (eds). Free
Press: New York.
Yukl GA. 1989. Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15:
251-289.
Zaleznik A, Kets de Vries M. 1975. Power and the Corporate Mind. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
Appendix 1: Measures
Reverence
1. I hold him/her in high respect.
2. I have great esteem for him/her.
3. I admire him/her as a leader.
Trust
1. I have complete faith in him/her (Bass, 1985).
2. Sometimes I cannot trust him/her (reverse scored; Butler, 1991).
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)
3. I can count on him/her to be trustworthy (Butler, 1991).
Satisfaction with leader
1. I feel good to be around him/her.
2. I am satisfied that his/her style of leadership is the right one for getting our group's job
done.
3. I am pleased (or satisfied) with his/her leadership.
Collective identity
1. We see ourselves in the work group as a cohesive team.
2. In our work group, our conflict is out in the open and is constructively handled.
3. Members of our organizational unit share the same values about our task and purpose.
4. Among our work group, we are remarkably similar in our values about what has to be
done.
5. There is widely shared consensus about our goals and the approaches needed to achieve
them.
Group performance
1. We have high work performance.
2. Most of our tasks are accomplished quickly and efficiently.
3. We always set a high standard of task accomplishment.
4. We always achieve a high standard of task accomplishment.
5. We almost always beat our targets.
Empowerment
1. I can influence the way work is done in my department.
2. I can influence decisions taken in my department.
3. I have the authority to make decisions at work.
4. I have the authority to work effectively.
5. Important responsibilities are part of my job.
6. I have the capabilities required to do my job well.
7. I have the skills and abilities to do my job well.
8. I have the competence to work effectively.
9. I can do my work efficiently.
10. I can handle the challenges I face at work.
11. I am inspired by what we are trying to achieve as an organization.
12. I am inspired by the goals of the organization.
13. I am enthusiastic about working toward the organization's objectives.
14. I am keen on our doing well as an organization.
15. I am enthusiastic about the contribution my work makes to the organization.
J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)

Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects

Author(s): Jay A. Conger, Rabindra N. Kanungo and Sanjay T. Menon

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 21, 747-767 (2000)