In last semester's Organizational Behavior class, we discussed the benefits and the dangers of charismatic leadership. Several of us wrote papers on leaders who used their charisma to commit embezzlement of their organizations. These cases were extreme examples, but a charismatic leader can certainly be a detriment to an organization in other ways. In chapter 7 of Forces for Good, Crutchfield and Grant write that, "too many nonprofits are known by their charismatic, visionary founders who have a hard time sharing leadership and who use their organizations to promote their grandiose visions rather than build institutions that will outlast them" (156). This type of leader is oftentimes essential for the early success of an organization, as people need to be convinced of new ideas. However, an organization's leadership must also have a broad understanding of the issues surrounding the organization's mission and be able and willing to adapt to reach the target population. I do think that shared leadership is an important way to prevent Founder's Syndrome. Organizations that have several people providing input and making decisions will have a more well-rounded approach than ones with one strong leader.
I was surprised to read, however, that many of the organizations that Crutchfield and Grant studied did not have a prominent leadership figure "at the helm." When I think of traditional leadership of nonprofit organizations, I picture a group of people with different expertise making decisions, with one person speaking for and promoting the organization. It is interesting that these most successful organizations do not have this prominent person at the top.
What do you think? Do successful organizations you work with have a prominent and/or charismatic leader? Can a less-well-known group of leaders promote the organization just as well?
Hayley,
ReplyDeleteI am also very surprised that successful organizations may not necessarily have charismatic or prominent leaders in order to bring them to the next level. I do believe though that being charismatic isn't necessarily an essential attribute that a leader must have, at least to start.
A strong leader must absolutely be a good manager. He or she must definitely know the strengths and weaknesses of the staff, and surround him or herself with strong people. These strong people should have leadership qualities of their own. In time, this is what builds the reputation of the organization and then, of that leader. Then with name recognition, they could become well-known, just from the success of the organization. Charisma is an inborn trait. It's definitely not something that can be learned, because you either have it or you don't. But, that doesn't mean you MUST have it to run a successful organization.
I am a firm believer that you are as strong as those are around you. A good leader knows this, and will practice this theory.
Believe it or not, we actually talked a lot about charisma and leadership during my reign as a history major. Indeed, I agree with you Hayley that a leader can be the 'face' of an organization, but I do not necessarily believe that charisma is always a 'force for good.'
ReplyDeleteFor instance, one of the main take-aways from my program is that charismatic leaders usually are a product of the environment they in which they develop, and once that environment goes, so does the leader. A good example is Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler, both were considered to be visionary leaders during their reign. Indeed, Joseph Stalin is known for propagating something called the 'cult of personality,' and was actually one of the first modern leader to deify himself. Now the main point of this historical tedium is to show what happens to the memory of charismatic leaders once the environment and fervor for which they represent dissipates. Hitler died, and so did Nazism. As soon as Stalin died, Kruschev spent his entire reign reversing Stalin's 'cult of personality.' Now what is the point of this lengthy analogy.
My main point is that organizations that are propped up by the charisma of their leaders usually do NOT last after their leaders die, leave, or retire.
So I guess this was just a long way of saying that I think that charisma can be an asset in a leader, but I do not think that its a prerequisite.