Authentic Leadership vs. Charismatic Leadership

Authentic leaders have strong values and a sense of purpose, and rather than trying to be all things to all people, concentrate on providing a positive role model by developing his or her own strengths, (Nahavandi, p.p. 211-212). Charismatic leaders concentrate on crafting a messages, managing their images, and becoming role models for their followers by focusing on their needs and appealing to them emotionally, (Nahavandi, p.p. 197 -198). While history has shown us charismatic leaders who are authentic, I believe that this is rarer phenomena than charismatic leaders who are not authentic, and overall, truly charismatica leaders are relatively rare. Leaders with high LMX are sometimes considered charismatic, however charisma is much more than having good interpersonal skills and powers of persuasion. According to the noted sociologist Max Weber, the personalities of truly charismatic leaders exhibit "charismatic authority" the components of which include exemplary character, and extraordinary insight and accomplishment.

There are notable differences between the manifestations of self-confidence in the two leadership styles. While authentic leaders develop their self-confidence through knowing and articulating their values and developing their strengths, (Nahavandi p.212), charismatic leaders develop their self-confidence through encouraging their followers who in turn encourage the leader thereby increasing the leader’s self-confidence, (p. 196).

While I do not dismiss the importance of charisma in establishing good interpersonal relationships as an important part of transformational leadership and other leadership styles, I tend to distrust leaders and managers who appeal to people purely on an emotional level rather than on an intellectual level. The key to being an authentic leader is in knowing oneself and leading by example, while the key to being a charismatic leader is in knowing ones followers and leading through a potentially ideated image that is presented to them. Nahavandi maintains that while authentic leaders do not need to be charismatic to be successful and that they can lead either by being task or relationship oriented, charismatic leaders necessarily have to have an “element of authenticity” to be effective, (p. 214). Personally, I am cynical and my initial reaction is to distrust those who try to lead emotionally through charm and charisma, I seek credibility and prefer to be led by someone I know is capable.

I believe leaders who rely purely on charisma, rather than self-knowledge, could potentially be challenged and threatened by the authenticity of values displayed in the workplace and subsequently thwart productivity if it doesn’t align with their perceptions and the vision that they attempt to portray. Kouzes and Posner maintain that it is not enough to deliver rousing speeches and talk about lofty ideals, as charismatic leaders are apt to do, constituents are more deeply moved by leadership by example, something that is associated with authentic leadership, (p. 77).

Nahavandi states that the applied theory of authentic leadership can be traced back to Roger’s and Maslow’s concepts of self-actualization, and that this is a relatively new concept and more research needs to be done, (p. 212). Additionally Nahavandi states that although the results can be inconclusive, the leader and follower relationship under charismatic leadership has been widely studied and there is a strong indication that positive results can be realized through this leadership style, (204).

References:

Kouzes, J. M. & Pozner, B.Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nahavandi, A. (2009). The art and science of leadership (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.