The Development of Charismatic Leaders
Micha Popper
University of Haifa
This paper explores the origins of leadership potential and motivation for leadership,
primarily with regard to two types of leaders: personalized and socialized charismatic
leaders. Bowlby's attachment theory (1969, 1973) provides a theoretical basis for
determining an individual's potential to be in leadership positions. The "internal working
model," formed (according to Bowlby) in the course of attachment processes in infancy, has
a considerable impact on self-perception, which may later affect the development of "ego
resources" required for leadership. The motivation to be a leader is analyzed with the help
of various psychodynamic concepts and models.
KEY WORDS: attachment patterns, motivation to lead, socialized charismatic leadership,
personalized charismatic leadership.
The study of leadership developed during the last century through a series of
paradigms. From the beginning of the 20th century to the late 1940s, the "great
man" paradigm reflected the assumption (Carlyle, 1841/1907) that the leader is a
person endowed with extraordinary qualities that are the source of his or her
influence, so leadership was viewed as a collection of inborn qualities that can be
uncovered and measured. As early as 1948, Stogdill (in Bass, 1990) reviewed 124
leadership studies examining dozens of characteristics that might distinguish
leaders from others. Some of the studies examined physical traits; others examined
characteristics such as intelligence, determination, and originality. Many of the
findings contradicted each other; characteristics identified in one study did not
appear in others, and it was not possible on the basis of these studies to make any
clear, unequivocal statement about leadership qualities.
Disappointment with traits research paved the way for a diametrically opposite
avenue, the situation approach; this eventually gave way to contingency models,
which conceptualized leadership in terms of an interaction between leadership
styles and situation variables (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Reddin, 1967; Vroom & Yetton,
1973). These studies usually present data such as correlations between various
Political Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2000
729
0162-895X  2000 International Society of Political Psychology
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.
leadership styles and the followers' attitudes and behaviors, or comparative findings
on attitudinal variables emanating from different leadership styles (see Bass, 1990).
In recent years, criticism of the "leader-centric" perspective has grown (Lord,
Foti, & DeVader, 1984; Meindl, 1995; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). These
approaches argue that "leadership is very much in the eyes of the beholder,
followers, not the leader, and not researchers define it" (Meindl, 1995, p. 331). Two
types of leadership are usually discussed in the "follower-centric" perspective:
instrumental and emotional. The instrumental leader (termed in the literature as
"transactional leadership") is a leader who maintains give-and-take dynamics in
the context of a set of given expectations (Hollander, 1978). The leader, in this
perspective, is someone who satisfies the followers' instrumental expectations by
establishing a close link between effort and reward. This view refers mostly to
leadership in work settings (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
In contrast to the calculated instrumental nature of transactional leadership,
the other form of leadership is based on emotions. "Charismatic leadership"
(Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Shamir, 1991) is the most frequent name
given to the emotional bonds between followers and leaders. Charisma was first
discussed by Weber (1946), who claimed that "in charismatic relations people no
longer obey customs or laws, instead, the followers submit to the imperious
demands of a heroic figure, whose orders are legitimated not by logic, nor by the
hero's place in ascribed hierarchy, but solely by the personal `power to command'
of the charismatic individual" (p. 52). Indeed, "charismatic relations" are regarded
as the "most emotional" (Heifetz, 1994; Shamir, 1991; Willner, 1984). Some even
compare these relations to romantic love (e.g., Lindholm, 1988, 1990).
The label "charisma" has been applied to very diverse leaders (Howell &
Avolio, 1992) in politics (Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt), in religious spheres (Jesus Christ, Jim Jones), in social movements
(Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X), and in business (Lee Iacocca,
Mary Kay Ash, John Z. De Lorean). This list underscores the neutral connotation
of charismatic leadership; it does not distinguish between good or moral and evil
or immoral charismatic leadership. It means that charisma can lead to blind
fanaticism in the service of megalomaniac and destructive values or to heroic
self-sacrifice in the service of beneficial causes. In the last two decades some writers
have referred to differences between "positive" and "negative" charismatic leaders
(House & Howell, 1992; Howell, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1992; Volkan, 1980).
Probably the most theoretically prominent distinction between the different
"faces" of charisma was presented by Howell (1988), who distinguished personalized
charismatic leaders and socialized charismatic leaders. Howell and Avolio
(1992) treated this distinction in terms of communication patterns. Socialized
charismatic leaders use power to serve others, align their vision with the followers'
needs and aspirations, maintain open, two-way communication, and rely on moral
standards. Personalized charismatic leaders, by contrast, use power for personal
gain only, promote their own personal vision, maintain one-way communication,
730 Popper
and rely on convenient external moral standards to satisfy self-interests. House and
Howell (1992) concluded that personalized and socialized charismatic leaders
differ in the following aspects. Personalized charismatic leaders are characterized
by strong power needs, authoritarianism, self-serving behavior, and exploitation of
others and disregard for their rights and feelings. Socialized charismatic leaders,
on the other hand, tend to serve the collective interest without being motivated
solely by self-interest, empower their followers, and have regard for their followers'
feelings and rights.
It is apparent that most literature on leadership focuses on leaders' actions and
the impact those actions have on others. The literature is missing explanations of
the internal processes, motivational states, or personality differences that give rise
to different patterns of leadership (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). There have been very
few attempts to examine the developmental antecedents of leadership, and those
attempts are not based on a coherent theoretical framework. Avolio and Gibbons
(1988), for example, examined retrospective accounts of leaders with regard to
previous important experiences that influenced their leadership perspective and
style, such as early leadership positions. Apart from a few mainly descriptive
historical or anecdotal illustrations, such as psychobiographies like that of Gandhi
(Erikson, 1969), we have very little knowledge as to the developmental precursors
of a person who might become a leader in general, and a socialized or personalized
leader in particular. This is not accidental. In the absence of conceptual formulations
and clear operationalizations of the antecedent conditions promoting personalized
and socialized charismatic leaders, the study of the developmental
trajectories relevant to the formation of such leaders has been hampered.
This article is an attempt to shed some light on psychological aspects underlying
the differences between personalized and socialized charismatic leaders, as
well as to formulate a conceptual framework that might contribute to research on
leadership development in general, and the development of personalized and
socialized charismatic leaders in particular. This, as shown, is clearly missing from
the psychological literature on leadership.
The Conceptual Framework
The assumption underlying the present discussion is that leadership, like many
human manifestations, is a function of potential and motivation (Popper, Mayseless,
& Castelnovo, in press). To become a musician, for example, one needs a
musical ear (potential) and a motivation to engage in music. A person who does
not have a good ear for music, however highly motivated, will not be an outstanding
musician. Conversely, an individual with the potential to be a musician but with
no interest (motivation) will clearly not give expression to his or her talent.
Similarly, to become a leader, one needs the potential to be a leader--in particular,
certain "ego resources" to be in leadership positions (or to appear as having such
Development of Charismatic Leaders 731
resources in the eyes of followers)--and a strong desire to be a leader (e.g., Avolio
& Gibbons, 1988).
This article deals with these two factors: the potential for leadership, namely
the ego resources required to be in leadership positions, and the motivation to be a
leader. The aspects of leadership potential are analyzed with the help of attachment
theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1988); the motivation to be a leader is analyzed with
the help of some psychodynamic concepts, theories, and models (e.g., Kohut, 1971,
1977; Zaleznik, 1992). Analysis of the processes determining the potential and the
motivation for leadership is assumed to clarify the forces that affect the direction
of leadership (i.e., personalized or socialized).
Attachment Patterns and the Potential for Leadership
Bowlby's attachment theory and the theoretical and empirical developments
that followed (Ainsworth, Blehar,Wates,& Wall,1978; Bartholomew &Horowitz,
1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1987) provide a relevant theoretical basis and rich bedrock
of research findings that may contribute to the understanding of leadership potential.
The term "attachment" refers to the individual's ongoing emotional ties with
the figure (usually the mother) on whom he or she learned to rely for protection
and care. Differences in the ability to signal the need and desire for closeness, as
well as differences in the caregiver's responsiveness, determine the variations in
babies' attachment styles. On the basis of the baby's primary experience, an
"internal working model" is formed that constitutes a mental representation of the
self, of significant others, and of the child's relations with them. This internal
representation forms the basis for later representations of the self and the world,
and guides the individual's interactions with others (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1988).
On the basis of Bowlby's theories, Ainsworth et al. (1978) identified three
styles of infant attachment: secure, ambivalent, and avoidant. As summarized by
Cassidy (1994), the internal working model of secure individuals includes a basic
trust in the caregiver and confidence that he or she will be available, responsive,
and helpful should the individual encounter adverse or frightening situations. With
this assurance, secure individuals are bold in their explorations of the world and
are able both to rely on themselves and to turn to others when in need. This pattern
is promoted by a caregiver, usually a parent, who is readily available, sensitive to
the child's signals, and lovingly responsive when the child seeks protection and/or
comfort.
The internal working model of the ambivalent pattern is characterized by
uncertainty as to whether the parent or caregiver will be available, responsive, or
helpful when called upon. Because of this uncertainty, the ambivalent individual
is always prone to separation anxiety and tends to be clinging, while manifesting
unresolved anger directed at the caregiver. This behavior is seen as an attempt to
elicit attention from an unresponsive caregiver. This pattern, in which conflict is
732 Popper
evident, is brought about by such conditions as a parent being available and helpful
on some occasions but not others (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994).
A third pattern is that of avoidant attachment, in which individuals do not
believe that when they seek care they will receive it. On the contrary, they expect
to be rebuffed. Sometimes these individuals attempt to become emotionally selfsufficient,
and in extreme cases they devalue the importance of attachment for their
lives and use a strategy of minimizing attachment behavior and feelings (Cassidy,
1994; Main, 1990). They may, nevertheless, exhibit hostility and antisocial behavior
toward others (Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Sroufe, 1983).
A meaningful advance in the study of adults' internal models occurred with
the development of the adults' self-report questionnaire by Hazan and Shaver
(1987). As well as developing the questionnaire, Hazan and Shaver helped to
expand the examination of the influence of the internal model on relationships with
other adults. For example, they and many others following them (e.g., Collins &
Read, 1990; Mikulincer, Florian, & Tolmacz, 1990) examined the connections
between attachment patterns and romantic love, and their findings were compatible
with findings from studies on childhood attachment patterns.
The basic claim underlying all of these studies is that the internal model, which
is formed in the course of attachment processes in infancy, has two aspects:
self-perception and perception of others.
The concept of the internal working model (expressing the attitude to self and
to others), which can be measured by instruments that measure attachment style,
together with the ability to predict from attachment measures the quality of the
adult's relationships with other adults, constitute the basis for the theoretical
arguments on the potential and directions of leaders' development. The fundamental
argument in this context is as follows:
Because the leader is a product of potential and motivation, it is assumed that
fearful people with high anxiety levels will find it hard to be in positions of
leadership. The ability to convey a sense of strength is central in the attribution
processes of the followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Meindl, 1995; Shamir,
1991). Only individuals with secure and avoidant patterns (for different reasons)
convey a sense of strength and certainty, especially to those who are consumed by
doubt and uncertainty. Even for the "narcissistic leaders" (described below), this
mask of certainty is no mere pose (Popper, in press; Post, 1986). To sustain
grandiose feelings of strength, these individuals use a mechanism of splitting to
maintain their illusion (Post, 1986; Volkan, 1980).
In conclusion, individuals with a secure pattern, with positive self-evaluation,
or alternatively, with an avoidant pattern--those who, according to the evidence
of attachment studies, "have learned to go it alone" without dependence on
others--will display to their followers projections and attributions that the followers
might seek (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Kets de Vries,
1989; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995; Popper et al., in press). Nonetheless, as
mentioned above, an individual's possession of considerable ego resources and
Development of Charismatic Leaders 733
leadership potential is insufficient; motivation to be a leader is also needed.
Therefore, models that can help to define both the potential and the motivation for
leadership can advance the developmental study of leadership.
Motivation for Leadership
Winston Churchill, reviewing his life, formulated an intuitive explanation for
his motivation to be in a leadership position: "Famous men are usually the product
of an unhappy childhood. The stern compression of circumstances, the twinge of
adversity, the spur of slights and taunts in early years are needed to evoke that
ruthless fixity of purpose and tenacious mother-wit without which great actions are
seldom accomplished" (Gardner, 1995, p. 33). The connection between early
childhood and the motivation to be a leader appears in the better-known psychobiographies
of leaders (e.g., Burns, 1978; Erikson, 1958, 1969; George & George,
1956; Kets de Vries, 1989; Lasswell, 1930).
Surprisingly, there has been no comprehensive and systematic discussion of
why that longing for leadership positions produces sometimes a socialized and
sometimes a personalized charismatic leader. Two types of dynamics might be
relevant for explaining the differences between them: dynamics related to the
absence of a father, and dynamics related to insufficient adoration in early childhood.
Each results in a different pattern that the individual adopts in becoming a
leader.
Absence of a Father
Iremonger (1970), who collected biographical materials on 24 British prime
ministers from Spencer Perceval in 1809 to Neville Chamberlain in 1937, discovered
that 15 of them (66%) had lost a father in childhood, compared to only 2% of
the general population. Zaleznik (1992) concluded that the leaders he studied had
in common a deep inner feeling of father deprivation, whose source may have been
the physical absence of the father (through death or divorce) or absence in the
psychological sense, through detachment, aloofness, or unavailability on account
of work or other occupations. Whatever the cause, the father was "not there for the
child." This deep, persistent feeling, in Zaleznik's view, gave rise to a strong desire
for leadership. This is one expression of a general principle that Zaleznik describes
as "twice born." In the specific case of father deprivation, it is one of the possible
psychological outlets. The child, lacking a father to lean on, is motivated to become
himself "an improved" father, a leader.
Similar motives were found by Burns (1978) in reviewing biographies of some
famous leaders. In the cases presented (e.g., Gandhi), the picture was similar: The
father was detached or absent and the mother was close. Like Zaleznik, Burns saw
the absence of a close and supportive father as a key factor in the motivation to
become a leader, but added the dynamics with the mother. In the absence of a father,
734 Popper
Burns claimed, the developing child lacks an identification figure; thus, the
psychological element needed to resolve the Oedipal conflict is missing, and then,
according to the psychoanalytical argumentation, the child's motivation to be a
"big father" himself grows increasingly powerful. This kind of motivation may be
especially strong when there is a deep emotional attachment to the mother.
These tendencies may be intensified if the mother expects her son to be some
sort of a "father figure." These expectations may lead the child to perceive himself
as a father substitute, and with this come the feelings that are usually related to the
father's self-perception: responsibility, centrality, and even existential meaning
through a "fatherhood feeling." A child who grows up in this kind of atmosphere
and with this kind of expectation might perceive leadership as the most natural and
desirable position for himself.
Insufficient Adoration in Early Childhood
Insufficient adoration in early childhood and its meanings and implications are
usually related in the psychological literature on narcissism. During the past three
decades, psychoanalytic theories have been concerned with illuminating the psychology
of narcissism. Heinz Kohut (1971, 1977) and Otto Kernberg (1975, 1976,
1982) have played the leading role in the psychoanalytic inquiries into the nature
of narcissism. Although Kohut's explanations seem to be more relevant to the
dynamics of leadership development (as will be explained later), because of the
importance and centrality of both writers' contributions, I briefly refer to Kernberg's
thought also. This will help to better clarify why Kohut's explanations seem
more appropriate to the specific issues discussed in this article.
Classical psychoanalysis has postulated intrapsychic conflict--the dynamic
tension between drive and defense--as a fundamentally explanatory mechanism
of psychopathology. Kernberg (1975, 1976), while supporting the essential validity
of the conflict model, sought to expand his focus by incorporating the infant
experience of the external world of objects as a basis for elaborating the drives and
defenses that shape the infant's internal reality. Initially, these drives are an
amalgam of affects and cognitions associated with them, all embedded in a web of
object relations. Over time, these affects and cognitions separate into libidinal and
aggressive, positive and negative components, in part as a function of the experiences
of gratification and frustration with the object role. Intense aggression as an
outgrowth of the interplay between drive and deprivation is assigned a primary
etiological role in Kernberg's theory. For him, unmanageable aggression (in the
context of overwhelming dependency needs) generates the intrapsychic conflict,
and the associated primitive defenses anchored in splitting, that define pathological
narcissism. The precipitates of these intrapsychic processes manifest themselves
in grandiosity, a major part of the defense constellation against aggression, which
for Kernberg characterized pathological narcissism. For Kernberg the grandiose
self is always pathological; the narcissistic personality develops only in response
Development of Charismatic Leaders 735
to psychological damage inflicted early in the course of development. The resulting
pathological grandiose self is associated with primitive and defective superego
formation (Kernberg, 1975, pp. 263­282).
Kernberg's model might be relevant for explaining certain types of leaders'
motivation and behaviors. However, pathological narcissism as described by
Kernberg can find manifestations in various outlets that are not necessarily related
to interaction with people (Storr, 1972). Therefore, Kohut's explanation might be
more relevant to our discussion because, unlike intrapsychic conflict models, it
emphasizes interactions that might be parallel to leader-followers interactions
(Post, 1986).
For Kohut (1971, 1977), narcissistic pathology is the ultimate end-product of
the parents' unsuccessful attempts to negotiate the infant's grandiose and idealizing
needs. Like many others (e.g., Lichtenstein, 1964; Pines, 1981; Winnicott, 1971),
Kohut emphasized the parents, especially the mother's adoration, her satisfaction
of the infant's narcissistic needs, the feeding of the "grandiose self," as an essential
part of the infant's development. Lichtenstein (1964), Winnicott (1971), and Pines
(1981) claimed that the formation of primary identity is always based on the
mirroring experience. In addition to effectively "mirroring" the infant's grandiosity,
the parents serve as a repository for the infant's primitive idealizations of the
parent. These idealizations permit the infant to merge with the omnipotent self
object, and thereby ward off the threat of disorganization in the face of helplessness
(Kohut, 1977).
If the child is traumatized during this critical period of development, his
emerging self-concept is damaged, leading to the formation of what Kohut (1971)
called "the injured self." Such damage can occur in several ways. Children rejected
by cold and ungiving mothers may be left emotionally hungry, with an exaggerated
need for admiration. A special form of rejection is overprotection by the intrusive
narcissistic mother. She cannot let her child individuate because she sees him as
an extension of herself.
For Kohut, the aggression described by Kernberg, and the conflicts and
defense that it spawns, are not the primary etiological agents in the pathogenesis
of narcissism. Rather, the explanations are anchored in the empathic failures and
failed idealization. These particular failures are, according to Kohut, self-psychology
argumentation, the principal causal underpinning of narcissism.
According to Kohut, the formation of the injured self results in two personality
patterns. The first is the mirror-hungry personality, who pursues mirroring self-object
relationships with other people (followers, for instance) who are expected to
verify his sense of personal greatness. The second type is the ideal-hungry personality.
Individuals of this type can experience themselves as worthwhile only as they
can relate to individuals whom they can admire for their prestige, power, beauty,
intelligence, and so forth. They are forever in search of such idealized figures.
"Mirroring explanations," by definition, emphasize the interaction with other
people as a primary source of compensatory dynamics that might be expected to
736 Popper
affect the injured self. Thus, this kind of explanation might be particularly relevant
to the analysis of leadership phenomena (Popper, in press; Post, 1986, 1993).
Nevertheless, the discussion in this paper relates only to those who are driven by
the need for adoration, who are constantly seeking to nourish their famished self,
who are compelled to display themselves in order to attract the attention of others.
Personalized and Socialized Charismatic Leaders: A Motivational Analysis
Generally, the argument is that the tendency to be a personalized charismatic
leader is rooted in the narcissistic explanation, whereas the possibilities deriving
from the absence of a father are more likely to lead to the socialized charismatic
leadership pattern. Clarifying this argument requires further discussion of mirroring
and narcissism.
According to Kohut (1971), in the transition from childhood to maturity, the
grandiosity fantasy must be gradually worked out with the support of those closest
to the child. In these personal relationships there is a process of transference,
defined as "mirroring transference," when the child creates an idealized object
image like an image in a mirror. In this way the child's self-image acquires the
grandiosity fantasy. Herein lies the danger: The grandiosity fantasy lets the individual
see reality as he wishes it to be. However, normal development means
constant improvement of the ability to test reality. There are milestones in the
normal progress of the grandiosity fantasy: recognition of others as existing in their
own right with their strengths and weaknesses, recognition of one's personal
limitations and the limitations of reality, all of which are necessary for forming
relationships. When the normal process of working through the grandiosity fantasy
is disrupted, the result is a narcissistic disorder expressed in a self-absorbed
personality, revealing elements of vulnerability and need for adoration.
The longing for leadership may be connected with narcissism and mirroring
in the following ways. During the mirroring process, the process of building the
"grandiose self," not enough narcissism exists to sustain ongoing development,
owing to insufficient adoration from the mother (Freud, 1914/1986), perhaps
because of the lack of a mother in a concrete physical sense or lack of an adoring
relationship with the mother. It may be predicted that these factors will lead the
individual to seek the missing admiration at later stages in his life. According to
these explanations, narcissistic deprivation in infancy might cause in some a
constant aspiration to be big, strong, admired--in short, to be grandiose.
In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American
Psychiatric Association, 1994), the individual with a narcissistic disturbance is
described as follows: (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
achievement and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate
achievements); (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power,
brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; (3) believes that he or she is "special" and
unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other people
Development of Charismatic Leaders 737
(or institutions) who are special or have high status; (4) requires excessive admiration;
(5) has a sense of entitlement, namely, unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations;
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, namely, takes advantage of others to
achieve his or her own needs; (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or
identify with the feelings and needs of others; (8) is often envious of others and
believes that others envy him or her; (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or
attitudes.
A position of leadership can, of course, produce these feelings. The motivation
of leaders who are narcissistic at the pathological level springs from such a search
for admiration or a sense of uniqueness. Such leaders have no desire for real human
interaction and intimacy, although in some cases this might not be clearly evident.
Volkan (1980), for example, distinguished "reparative" leaders and "destructive"
leaders. Both are in constant search of adoration; however, reparative leaders want
adoration from "valued" followers, followers who are elevated into becoming
idealized objects so that their representatives can be fused into their grandiose self.
In destructive leaders, the lack of genuine interest in others is more salient. Indeed,
many leaders through history, such as King Herod, who immortalized his cruel
reign with vast monuments, and in modern times Stalin and Hitler (Bullock, 1991),
can serve as examples of this description of pathological narcissism: constant and
tireless fostering of the grandiose self, combined with indifference and lack of real
interest in others.
Socialized charismatic leaders, on the other hand, are not characterized by this
combination of lack of empathy for others and constant attempts at self-aggrandization--the
conspicuous characteristics of personalized charismatic leaders. Socialized
charismatic leaders' sources of motivation do not lie in the pathological
narcissistic space of the obsessive quest for adoration and uniqueness.
The Development of Personalized and Socialized Charismatic Leaders:
Toward a Researchable Conceptual Framework
Recently there have been some attempts to empirically investigate the differences
between personalized and socialized charismatic leaders. This line of research
adds measurable criteria to the conceptual work done so far in this domain
(e.g., House & Howell, 1992; Howell, 1988). In a validation study conducted in
the Israeli army's officers school (Popper &Neeman, 1999),the mostoutstandingly
charismatic leaders among the cadets were selected by their commanders. (The
assumption was that in these courses, the commanders-instructors have many
opportunities to observe the cadets' functioning as leaders. After all, these courses
are intended for "leaders in the making," and hence they provide an ideal research
laboratory for the study of leadership qualities.) The selection was based on a
method used by Mikulincer et al. (1990). Each platoon commander and team
commander (a platoon consists of three teams) was asked to choose four cadets in
738 Popper
each team. There was 84% agreement among platoon and teamcommanders. Those
for whom there was no agreement were excluded from the sample, which eventually
included 104 cadets. The next step was to construct an instrument for measuring
socialized and personalized charismatic leadership tendencies that were based
on Howell's theoretical distinctions. The instrument consisted of nine statements,
five relating to personalized leadership and four to socialized leadership. A study
was carried out to examine the internal validity of the items. The Cronbach's alpha
coefficient of the personalized charismatic leadership scales was .81 (typical items:
"He uses his influence for personal benefits"; "His personal success is more
important to him than the success of the team"). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient
of the socialized charismatic leadership scales was .75 (typical item: "He acts
beyond his personal interest for the good of the whole team").
Another validation check was of whether the constructed instrument clearly
distinguished socialized and personalized charisma. For that purpose, correlations
between the socialized and personalized leadership measures were computed. The
correlation between the socialized charismatic leadership and personalized charismatic
leadership measures was ­0.62 (p = .05). The results are in the expected
direction, namely, those who score high on personalized charismatic leadership
will score low on socialized charismatic leadership, and vice versa.
Next, each cadet received a score indicating the cadet's inclination to be either
a personalized or socialized leader. In addition, the cadets' level of narcissism was
measured by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979).
The research findings supported the supposition that cadets with a tendency toward
personalized charisma evince a more prominent narcissistic tendency than leaders
with a tendency toward socialized charisma.
Mumford, Gessner, Connely, O'Connor, and Clifton (1993), using qualitative
and quantitative analysis of leaders' biographies and historic documents, found that
personalized leaders articulate a vision of an unsocialized world. Further, the events
in childhood experienced by personalized leaders contributed to a view of the world
where personal safety is achieved through domination. On the other hand, socialized
leaders believe that power is to be used not as a method of domination but as
a method of empowering others (O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connely,
1995).
This kind of research provides us with more accurate criteria regarding the
differences between personalized and socialized charismatic leaders. However,
despite this progress, the developmental aspects of such leadership patterns still
remain unresearched. Optimally, such developmental investigations require thorough
longitudinal studies, which demand a major research effort. In the absence of
measurable concepts, no other alternatives of developmental research have been
carried out (Popper et al., in press). The conceptualization presented in this article
offers integrative variables that reflect variability in childhood experiences. These
variables can be applied to developmental trajectories of research on leadership.
Development of Charismatic Leaders 739
With the help of attachment theory, leadership potential is defined in terms of
internal working models derived from attachment patterns. As mentioned, the
assumption is that potential leaders must have either a secure or an avoidant
attachment pattern. Such individuals are not too anxious to be intimidated or
paralyzed by others, and they are assumed to have the ego resources required for
being in a leadership position, namely providing followers with a screen for
projections and attributions. [Projection is "the process by which specific impulses,
wishes, aspects of the self, or internal objects are imagined to be located in some
object external to oneself" (Rycroft, 1995, p. 139).] Obviously, followers will not
attribute strength or project power wishes onto someone who is perceived ambivalent
or weak (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Empirical support in line with such claims
was presented by Mikulincer and Florian (1995), who found in an army basic
training course that those who were "anxious ambivalent" were rated by their peers
as "non-leaders." Smith and Fotti's (1998) research also supports this line of
argumentation. It was found that the most important variable affecting preference
of leaders by group members was the degree of self-efficacy the followers attributed
to the leader (perceived self-efficacy of the leader was more important than
the leaders' intelligence or dominance). This, as stated, does not mean that
everyone with such ego resources will be a leader.
The motivation to be in leadership positions and the direction of this motivation
are derived from the described psychological processes and the type of internal
working models originated in early childhood. For example, it can be assumed that
socialized charismatic leaders will be individuals with a secure pattern. Their
pattern of attachment is reflected in their self-assurance and positive self-regard,
as well as in their positive regard of others and keen interest in others, along with
a general inclination to invest in interpersonal relations. Moreover, according to
Bowlby's (1969, 1973) attachment theory, the secure pattern is usually enhanced
by mothers who are available, sensitive, and loving-responsive when the child
seeks protection or comfort; therefore, children of this type who become leaders
are, as Zaleznik described, likely to be characterized by internal feeling of the
absence of a father. Such children might have experienced expectations to be
leaders and successfully practiced leadership roles in childhood (e.g., Avolio &
Gibbons, 1988; Gibbons, 1986). This argument is consistent with "self-efficacy"
models (Bandura, 1977) as well as with descriptions of some prominent leaders
(e.g., Gandhi; Erikson, 1969).
By contrast, personalized charismatic leaders will probably be those individuals
with avoidant patterns, those who do not have a keen interest in others and are
reluctant to maintain intimate, ongoing relationships. When these individuals are
motivated by narcissistic yearning, yearning for admiration (which does not require
intimacy and closeness), they are highly likely to become personalized charismatic
leaders.
The links among potential, motivation, and direction of leadership can be
demonstrated in the following possible hypotheses: Individuals who are anxious
740 Popper
ambivalent will show more tendency to be dependent on others (Kunce & Shaver,
1994). They will most likely have low self-efficacy regarding their leadership, so
there is less likelihood that they will be leaders (or be perceived as such). On the
other hand, individuals with the secure attachment pattern will perceive themselves
as having a sufficient level of self-efficacy to be in leadership positions. Moreover,
they will feel competent to be leaders in social situations where close relations and
intimacy might be required. Individuals with the avoidant attachment pattern will
have self-efficacy in being leaders, especially in specific missions or in leading to
a goal that does not require close, intimate relationships (e.g., Volkan, 1980).
Differences in motivations to lead will exist between leaders with the avoidant
pattern and leaders with secure patterns. Leaders with the avoidant pattern will find
sources for adoration. Leaders with secure patterns will find sources to satisfy their
needs for exploration and centrality, through care to others.
In sum, this article has connected the issues of potential to be in leadership
positions, the motivation to lead, and the kind of leadership that might be expressed
(socialized or personalized). In addition to the theoretical integration of issues not
yet introduced into the psychological literature on leadership, this article facilitates
the translation and formulation of these arguments into researchable avenues. The
main concepts and models discussed above can be operationalized and measured.
For instance, there are measurable instruments for the distinction between socialized
and personalized charismatic leaders (e.g., Popper & Neeman, 1999), there
are measures for examining childhood variability of experiences [the internal
working models (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987), the NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1979), etc.],
and there is a conceptual framework that makes it possible to formulate hypotheses
regarding the connections among the discussed variables. The formation of the
concepts and measures discussed and the rationale for their construction may lead
to a kind of infrastructure for future developmental studies on leaders.
AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Micha Popper,
Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, 31905 Mt. Carmel, Israel. E-mail:
popper@construct.haifa.ac.il
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Wates, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
study of strange situations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
ed., p. 629). Washington, DC: Author.
Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life span approach. In
J. A. Conger&R.N. Kanungo(Eds.),Charismatic leadership: Theelusive factorin organizational
effectiveness (pp. 276­308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Development of Charismatic Leaders 741
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191­215.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226­244.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and management
applications. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership
for individual, team and organizational development. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Passmore
(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 231­272). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.
Bullock, A. (1991). Hitler and Stalin: Parallel lives. London: Harper and Collins.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carlyle, T. (1907). On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
(Original work published 1841)
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (2­3, Serial No. 240), 228­249.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment theory and research.
Child Development, 65, 971­991.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adults' attachment, working models, and relationship quality in
dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644­663.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637­647.
Erikson, E. H. (1958). Young man Luther: A study in psychoanalysis and history. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1969). Gandhi's truth: On the origins of militant non-violence. New York: Norton.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freud, S. (1986). On narcissism: An introduction. In Essential papers on narcissism (A. Morrison, Ed.).
New York: University Press. (Original work published 1914)
Gardner, J. (1995). Leading minds. An anatomy of leadership. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 32­58.
George, A. L., & George, G. L. (1956). Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A personality study. New
York: Macmillan.
Gibbons, T. C. (1986). Revisiting the question of born vs. made: Toward a theory of development of
transformational leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fielding Institute.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511­524.
Heifetz, R. H. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics. New York: Free Press.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189­207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3,
81­108.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations.
In J. A. Conger & K. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership and the elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness (pp. 213­236). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
742 Popper
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation?
Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43­54.
Iremonger, L. (1970). The fiery chariot. London: Secker & Warburg.
Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline condition and pathological narcissism. New York: Aronson.
Kernberg, O. (1976). Object relations and clinical psychoanalysis. New York: Aronson.
Kernberg, O. (1982). Narcissism. In Introducing psychoanalytic theory. London: Methuen.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1989). Prisoners of leadership. New York: Norton.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation
of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135­146.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International University Press.
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International University Press.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/
developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12, 648­657.
Lasswell, H. (1930). Psychoanalysis and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lichtenstein, H. (1964). The role of narcissism in the emergence of primary identity. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 45, 49­56.
Lindholm, C. (1988). Lovers and leaders. Social Science Information, 16, 227­246.
Lindholm, C. (1990). Charisma. London: Blackwell.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, D. L. (1984). A test of cognitive categorization theory: Internal
structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 34, 343­378.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and
performance. London: Routledge.
Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing
methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33, 48­61.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as follower-centric theory: A social construction
approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329­341.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30, 78­102.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal and coping with real-life stressful situations: The
contribution of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 406­414.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment style and fear of personal death: A case
study of affect and regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 273­280.
Mumford, M. D., Gessner, T. E., Connely, M. S., O'Connor, J. A., & Clifton, T. C. (1993). Leadership
and destructive acts: Individual and situational influences. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 115­147.
O'Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. L., & Connely, M. S. (1995). Charismatic
leaders and destructiveness: An historiometric study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529­555.
Pines, M. (1981). Reflections on mirroring. International Review of Psychoanalysis, 11, 27­42.
Popper, M. (In press). Hypnotic Leadership--Leaders, Followers and the Loss of Self. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (In press). Transformational leadership and attachment.
Leadership Quarterly.
Popper, M., & Neeman, O. (1999). Personalized and socialized charismatic leaders: An empirical
investigation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Haifa.
Post, J. M. (1986). Narcissism and the charismatic leader­follower relationship. Political Psychology,
7, 675­687.
Post, J. M. (1993). Current concepts of narcissistic personality: Implications for political psychology.
Political Psychology, 14, 99­121.
Development of Charismatic Leaders 743
Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 55­60.
Reddin, W. J. (1967). The 3-D management style theory. Training and Developmental Journal (April),
8­17.
Rycroft, C. (1995). A dictionary of psychoanalysis. New York: Penguin.
Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explained predictions. Leadership
Quarterly, 2, 81­104.
Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. Leadership
Quarterly, 9, 147­160.
Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of
maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium in child psychology
(vol. 16, pp. 112­135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Storr, A. (1972). The dynamics of creation. London: Secker & Warburg.
Volkan, D. V. (1980). Narcissistic personality organization and "reparative" leadership. International
Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 30, 131­152.
Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (H. Gerth & C. W. Mills, Eds.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Willner,A. R. (1984). Thespellbinders:Charismaticpolitical leaders.New Haven, CT:Yale University
Press.
Winnicott, H. P. (1971). Playing and reality. New York: Basic Books.
Zaleznik, A. (1992). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review
(March­April), 126­133.
744 Popper