The double-edged sword of leader charisma: Understanding the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness.

This study advanced knowledge on charisma by (a) introducing a new personality-based model to conceptualize and assess charisma and by (b) investigating curvilinear relationships between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness. Moreover, we delved deeper into this curvilinear association by (c) examining moderation by the leader's level of adjustment and by (d) testing a process model through which the effects of charismatic personality on effectiveness are explained with a consideration of specific leader behaviors. Study 1 validated HDS charisma (Hogan Development Survey) as a useful trait-based measure of charisma. In Study 2 a sample of leaders (N = 306) were assessed in the context of a 360-degree development center. In line with the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect, an inverted U-shaped relationship between charismatic personality and observer-rated leader effectiveness was found, indicating that moderate levels are better than low or high levels of charisma. Study 3 (N = 287) replicated this curvilinear relationship and further illustrated the moderating role of leader adjustment, in such a way that the inflection point after which the effects of charisma turn negative occurs at higher levels of charisma when adjustment is high. Nonlinear mediation modeling further confirmed that strategic and operational leader behaviors fully mediate the curvilinear relationship. Leaders low on charisma are less effective because they lack strategic behavior; highly charismatic leaders are less effective because they lack operational behavior. In sum, this work provides insight into the dispositional nature of charisma and uncovers the processes through which and conditions under which leader charisma translates into (in)effectiveness. (PsycINFO Database Record

Managing yourself. Stop overdoing your strengths.

Although most managers can recognize an off-kilter leader (consider the highly supportive boss who cuts people too much slack), it's quite difficult to see overkill in yourself. Unfortunately, that's where leadership development tools such as 360-degree surveys fail to deliver, say Kaplan and Kaiser. Dividing qualities into "strengths" and "weaknesses" and rating them on a five-point scale will not account for strengths overplayed. The authors suggest several strategies, based on their years of consulting experience and research, for figuring out which attributes you've employed to excess and adjusting your behavior accordingly. Strengths taken too far have two consequences: First, they become weaknesses. For instance, quick-wittedness can turn into impatience with others. Second, you're at risk of becoming extremely lopsided--that is, diminishing your capacity on the opposite pole. A leader who is very good at building consensus, for example, may take too long to move into action. To strike a balance between two key leadership dualities--forceful versus enabling, and strategic versus operational--you need to see your actions and motivations clearly. That's no easy task since most leadership development tools don't spell out that you're overdoing your strengths. But there are other ways to bring that information to light. You can start with a review of the highest ratings on your most recent 360 report. Ask yourself: Is this too much of a good thing? Another technique is to make a list of the traits you most want to have as a leader. Are you going to extremes with any of them? To check for lopsidedness, you can prompt feedback from other people with a list of qualities you've composed or one you've gleaned from other sources. Once you know which attributes you're overdoing, you can recalibrate.

Leadership, followership, and evolution: some lessons from the past.

This article analyzes the topic of leadership from an evolutionary perspective and proposes three conclusions that are not part of mainstream theory. First, leading and following are strategies that evolved for solving social coordination problems in ancestral environments, including in particular the problems of group movement, intragroup peacekeeping, and intergroup competition. Second, the relationship between leaders and followers is inherently ambivalent because of the potential for exploitation of followers by leaders. Third, modern organizational structures are sometimes inconsistent with aspects of our evolved leadership psychology, which might explain the alienation and frustration of many citizens and employees. The authors draw several implications of this evolutionary analysis for leadership theory, research, and practice.

Leadership and the fate of organizations.

This article concerns the real-world importance of leadership for the success or failure of organizations and social institutions. The authors propose conceptualizing leadership and evaluating leaders in terms of the performance of the team or organization for which they are responsible. The authors next offer a taxonomy of the dependent variables used as criteria in leadership studies. A review of research using this taxonomy suggests that the vast empirical literature on leadership may tell us more about the success of individual managerial careers than the success of these people in leading groups, teams, and organizations. The authors then summarize the evidence showing that leaders do indeed affect the performance of organizations--for better or for worse--and conclude by describing the mechanisms through which they do so.