I think there can be emergencies when we need someone to take charge, and to grasp the reins while we willingly settle into the traces. And, certainly, I agree with you that management styles can vary naturally across industries and even firms - sometimes quite properly employing more authoritarian systems than are generally viewed as appropriate in any circumstance by detached observers today.

Charisma, though, is all about the individual, not the organization or its aims (unless the individual is the founder still acting as CEO). Accordingly, viewing it as an acceptable leadership style under broadly general circumstances (other than certain entrepreneurial ones) strikes me as problematic. If the organization has to adapt to the arbitrary character of the “leader,” then it seems to me that we are getting things backwards.

Does that make any sense to you?

Today’s leaders have to colloraborate with others in order to build a strong foundation in their company. Yet we still hold on and gravitate towards the charismatic leader to drive the business. Sometimes it does work, though in today’s knowledge world, a strong leader needs to include the strength of those who have the knowledge.

I wonder if different industries call for different types of leadership? I don’t believe one size fits all, and yet the new leadership has to be inclusive in their role.
Pat

President Reagan was criticized by many for letting cabinet meetings become somewhat unruly as he waited for members to either find a consensus or surface all the issues. Either way, he had either a decision he might be able to approve, or all the available information offered and analyzed so he could make one himself. I agree, a good model.

As we’ve both noted in this context, the key role of the manager is to make decisions, and that function can’t be decentralized just because everything else - even if appropriately - is.

Thanks for your visit, your excellent insight, and your writing - enjoy your 4th of July weekend also!

This is the style of leadership that I subscribe to and believe is a more applicable style especially in a dispersed organization wherein knowledge / intelligence is decentralized.

Thanks again and have a wonderful 4th!

Nina

I clicked over to your linked post (I hope everyone reading this takes a well-spent moment to do so, as well) and enjoyed very much the take on “care-isma” you present there. If the manager cares about both organizational purpose and the people he or she is jointly pursuing it alongside, things could promise to go well - and, indeed, people might even be drawn to this sort of approach. It’s good - I like it!

Thanks so much for stopping by. I appreciate especially the link to your excellent writing about your intriguing perspective on leadership; I am a happy subscriber now - thanks again!

I too, am concerned about those who imply a relationship between charisma and leadership. Nice post.

I generally don’t see the relationship between leadership and charisma unless you mean care-isma, a clever play on the concept by consultant Rhett Laubach that I described in an earlier Lead Quietly post, What do you mean by charisma?

Thanks for raising this topic.
Don Frederiksen