# data[].attributes.body
Module 1 article
McClellan, J.L. (2007). The advisor as servant: The theoretical and philosophical relevance of servant leadership to academic advising. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 41–49. doi:10.12930/0271-9517-27.2.41

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1 article
Hawkins, M. (2017). Leaders who attract followers. College & University, 92(4), 61–64. Retrieved from https://www.aacrao.org/research-publications/quarterly-journals/college-university-journal

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1 article
Hoover, K., & Douglas, M. (2018). Learning servant leadership and identifying community-based strategies in times of divide: A student, faculty, community partner interfaith collaboration. Journal of Leadership Education, 17(2), 83–91. doi:10.12806/V17/I2/A1

# data[].attributes.body
Module 1 article
Allen, S.J., Shankman, M.L., & Haber, C.P. (2016). Developing emotionally intelligent leadership: The need for deliberate practice and collaboration across disciplines. New Directions for Higher Education, 2016(174), 79–91. doi:10.1002/he.20191

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2 article
Goleman, D. (2004). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 1. 82-91. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2004/01/what-makes-a-leader

# data[].attributes.headline
How Emotional Intelligence Became a Key Leadership Skill

# data[].attributes.subject
How Emotional Intelligence Became a Key Leadership Skill

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2 website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anyone trying to come up to speed on emotional intelligence would have a pretty easy time of it since the concept is remarkably recent, and its application to business newer still. The term was coined in 1990 in a research paper by two psychology professors, John D. Mayer of UNH and Peter Salovey of Yale. Some years later, Mayer defined it in HBR this way:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Emotional Intelligence Became a Key Leadership Skill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A reading list to bring you up to speed.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2 website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The more that you, as a leader, manage each of these areas, the higher your emotional intelligence. So, let's look at each element in more detail and examine how you can grow as a leader.

Emotional Intelligence in Leadership

1. Self-awareness

If you're self-aware, you always know how you feel, and you know how your emotions and your actions can affect the people around you. Being self-aware when you're in a leadership position also means having a clear picture of your strengths and weaknesses, and it means behaving with humility.

So, what can you do to improve your self-awareness?

Keep a journal. Journals help you improve your self-awareness. If you spend just a few minutes each day writing down your thoughts, this can move you to a higher degree of self-awareness.

2. Self-regulation

Leaders who regulate themselves effectively rarely verbally attack others, make rushed or emotional decisions, stereotype people, or compromise their values. Self-regulation is all about staying in control.

This element of emotional intelligence, according to Goleman, also covers a leader's flexibility and commitment to personal accountability.

So, how can you improve your ability to self-regulate?

Hold yourself accountable. If you tend to blame others when something goes wrong, stop. Make a commitment to admit to your mistakes and to face the consequences, whatever they are. You'll probably sleep better at night, and you'll quickly earn the respect of those around you.

Practice being calm. The next time you're in a challenging situation, be very aware of how you act. Do you relieve your stress by shouting at someone else? Practice deep-breathing exercises to calm yourself. Also, try to write down all of the negative things you want to say, and then rip it up and throw it away. Expressing these emotions on paper (and not showing them to anyone!) is better than speaking them aloud to your team. What's more, this helps you challenge your reactions to ensure that they're fair!

3. Motivation

Self-motivated leaders work consistently toward their goals, and they have extremely high standards for the quality of their work.

How can you improve your motivation?

Re-examine why you're doing your job. It's easy to forget what you really love about your career. So, take some time to remember why you wanted this job. If you're unhappy in your role and you're struggling to remember why you wanted it, try the Five Whys technique to find the root of the problem. Starting at the root often helps you look at your situation in a new way. And make sure that your goal statements are fresh and energizing. For more on this, see our article on Goal Setting.

4. Empathy

For leaders, having empathy is critical to managing a successful team or organization. Leaders with empathy have the ability to put themselves in someone else's situation. They help develop the people on their team, challenge others who are acting unfairly, give constructive feedback, and listen to those who need it.

If you want to earn the respect and loyalty of your team, then show them you care by being empathic.

How can you improve your empathy?

Respond to feelings. You ask your assistant to work late - again. And although he agrees, you can hear the disappointment in his voice. So, respond by addressing his feelings. Tell him you appreciate how willing he is to work extra hours, and that you're just as frustrated about working late. If possible, figure out a way for future late nights to be less of an issue (for example, give him Monday mornings off).

5. Social Skills

Leaders who do well in the social skills element of emotional intelligence are great communicators. They're just as open to hearing bad news as good news, and they're experts at getting their team to support them and be excited about a new mission or project.

Leaders who have good social skills are also good at managing change and resolving conflicts diplomatically. They're rarely satisfied with leaving things as they are, but they don't sit back and make everyone else do the work: they set an example with their own behavior.

So, how can you build social skills?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Intelligence in Leadership - Learning How to Be More Aware

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Relating to others is vital in today's workplace. Learn how to build your emotional intelligence (EI) with this article.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2 website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In some jobs, being in touch with emotions is essential. In others, it seems to be a detriment. And like any skill, being able to read people can be used for good or evil.

Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr. presented his dream, he chose language that would stir the hearts of his audience. "Instead of honoring this sacred obligation" to liberty, King thundered, "America has given the Negro people a bad check." He promised that a land "sweltering with the heat of oppression" could be "transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice," and envisioned a future in which "on the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

Delivering this electrifying message required emotional intelligence-the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Dr. King demonstrated remarkable skill in managing his own emotions and in sparking emotions that moved his audience to action. As his speechwriter Clarence Jones reflected, King delivered "a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope. His tone of pained indignation matched that note for note."
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side.
Recognizing the power of emotions, another one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century spent years studying the emotional effects of his body language. Practicing his hand gestures and analyzing images of his movements allowed him to become "an absolutely spellbinding public speaker," says the historian Roger Moorhouse-"it was something he worked very hard on." His name was Adolf Hitler.

Since the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman's bestseller, emotional intelligence has been touted by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. If we can teach our children to manage emotions, the argument goes, we'll have less bullying and more cooperation. If we can cultivate emotional intelligence among leaders and doctors, we'll have more caring workplaces and more compassionate healthcare. As a result, emotional intelligence is now taught widely in secondary schools, business schools, and medical schools.

Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you're good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.

Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In emerging research led by University of Cambridge professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remembered less of the content. Ironically, audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.

The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler's persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions-he would "tear open his heart"-and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would "stop thinking critically and just emote."
"Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts."
Leaders who master emotions can rob us of our capacities to reason. If their values are out of step with our own, the results can be devastating. New evidence suggests that when people have self-serving motives, emotional intelligence becomes a weapon for manipulating others. In a study led by the University of Toronto psychologist Stéphane Côté, university employees filled out a survey about their Machiavellian tendencies, and took a test measuring their knowledge about effective strategies for managing emotions. Then, Cote's team assessed how often the employees deliberately undermined their colleagues. The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence. They used their emotional skills to demean and embarrass their peers for personal gain. In one computer company studied by Tel-Aviv University professor Gideon Kunda, a manager admitted to telling a colleague "how excited we all are with what he is doing," but at the same time, "distancing my organization from the project," so "when it blows up," the company's founder would blame the colleague.

Shining a light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Emotionally intelligent people "intentionally shape their emotions to fabricate favorable impressions of themselves," Professor Kilduff's team writes. "The strategic disguise of one's own emotions and the manipulation of others' emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare's stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded."

Of course, people aren't always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, emotional skills are simply instrumental tools for goal accomplishment. In a study of emotions at the Body Shop, a research team led by Stanford professor Joanne Martin discovered that founder Anita Roddick leveraged emotions to inspire her employees to fundraise for charity. As Roddick explained, "Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts." However, Roddick also encouraged employees to be strategic in the timing of their emotion expressions. In one case, after noticing that an employee often "breaks down in tears with frustration," Roddick said it was acceptable to cry, but "I told her it has to be used. I said, 'Here, cry at this point in the ... meeting." When viewing Roddick as an exemplar of an emotionally intelligent leader, it becomes clear that there's a fine line between motivation and manipulation. Walking that tightrope is no easy task.
In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. In jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed.
In settings where emotions aren't running high, emotional intelligence may have hidden costs. Recently, psychologists Dana Joseph of the University of Central Florida and Daniel Newman of the University of Illinois comprehensively analyzed every study that has ever examined the link between emotional intelligence and job performance. Across hundreds of studies of thousands of employees in 191 different jobs, emotional intelligence wasn't consistently linked with better performance. In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. Salespeople, real-estate agents, call-center representatives, and counselors all excelled at their jobs when they knew how to read and regulate emotions-they were able to deal more effectively with stressful situations and provide service with a smile.

However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we've put the cart before the horse.

Instead of assuming that emotional intelligence is always useful, we need to think more carefully about where and when it matters. In a recent study at a healthcare company, I asked employees to complete a test about managing and regulating emotions, and then asked managers to evaluate how much time employees spent helping their colleagues and customers. There was no relationship whatsoever between emotional intelligence and helping: Helping is driven by our motivations and values, not by our abilities to understand and manage emotions. However, emotional intelligence was consequential when examining a different behavior: challenging the status quo by speaking up with ideas and suggestions for improvement.

Emotionally intelligent employees spoke up more often and more effectively. When colleagues were treated unjustly, they felt the righteous indignation to speak up, but were able to keep their anger in check and reason with their colleagues. When they went out on a limb to advocate for gender equity, emotional intelligence helped them keep their fear at bay. When they brought ideas for innovation to senior leaders, their ability to express enthusiasm helped them avoid threatening leaders. On a much smaller scale, they were able to follow Martin Luther King Jr.'s lead in rocking the boat while keeping it steady.

More than two decades have passed since psychologists Peter Salovey at Yale and John Mayer at the University of New Hampshire introduced the concept of emotional intelligence in 1990. Why has it taken us so long to develop a more nuanced view? After Daniel Goleman popularized the idea in 1995, many researchers-perhaps awestruck themselves by enthusiasm for the concept of emotional intelligence-proceeded to conduct studies that were fatally flawed. As University of Lausanne professor John Antonakis observed, "practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research."

One of the most persistent problems was the use of self-report measures, which asked employees to rate their own emotional abilities on items like "I can tell how people are feeling even if they never tell me" and "I am generally very good at calming someone down when he or she is upset." Abilities cannot be accurately measured with self-reports. As emotion experts Sigal Barsade of Wharton and Donald Gibson of Fairfield University lament, "One might compare this approach to assessing mathematical skills by asking respondents, 'How good are you at solving algebraic equations?' rather than asking the person to actually solve an algebraic equation."

Thanks to more rigorous research methods, there is growing recognition that emotional intelligence-like any skill-can be used for good or evil. So if we're going to teach emotional intelligence in schools and develop it at work, we need to consider the values that go along with it and where it's actually useful. As Professor Kilduff and colleagues put it, it is high time that emotional intelligence is "pried away from its association with desirable moral qualities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In some jobs, being in touch with emotions is essential. In others, it seems to be a detriment. And like any skill, being able to read people can be used for good or evil. Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Aspects of Emotional Intelligence Required for Effective Leadership

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Aspects of Emotional Intelligence Required for Effective Leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2 website

# data[].attributes.body
Module 2 website - EI Assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Global Emotional Intelligence Test uses 40 questions which are derived from, the Global instrument, which contains 158 items. These are based on Goleman's four quadrant Emotional Intelligence Competency Model (2002). Click EI Capability Assessment here for more details. Short EI quizzes such as this are meant to be fun, and to give you a guide to which EI areas you are doing well in and those which perhaps you need to focus on for development.

This Test, is a forced-choice psychological test which requires you to choose Instructions for the FREE EI Test one statement in each pair of statements that describes you best. For each pair of statements, select the statement that best applies to you. Do not over-analyse the questions, or try to think of "exceptions to the rule." Be spontaneous and choose the statement that comes closest to the way you are.

Occasionally there will be questions that ask you to make a close call between two choices. This is because the Test is trying to distinguish between specific areas. If a question is very close and you can't decide which statement applies to you best, you can come back to it after you have completed the other questions.

The Test usually takes about 10 minutes to complete. At the end of the test, click on the Score Test button, and wait for the computer to generate an EI profile of your scores. If you have answered honestly and accurately, your scores will reflect your capability level within each of the EI quadrants.

We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the results of this Test - only that it can help you begin your journey of self-development!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Intelligence Test - Global Leadership Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free emotional intelligence test developed by Global Leadership Foundation

# data[].attributes.body
Module 3 article
Luenendonk, M. (2016, December 16). Charismatic leadership guide: Definition, qualities, pros & cons, examples. Cleverism. Retrieved from https://www.cleverism.com/charismatic-leadership-guide/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Motivation is everything. You can do the work of two people, but you can't be two people. Instead you have to inspire the next guy down the line and get him to inspire his people." - Lee Iacocca

You've probably met a person who oozed of charisma. The almost-indescribable characteristic is something we associate with other leaders, while we consider some people simply lacking it. More often than not, charismatic leaders are considered powerful orators with a clear vision.

But what is charismatic leadership about? In this guide, we'll explore the theories that gave birth to this leadership style from Weber to House. We'll also look at the core elements of charismatic leadership theory and analyze the characteristics leaders need to possess in order to be considered charismatic. Finally, we'll explore the advantages and disadvantages of the style before examining a few examples of the style.

UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENT CONTEXT OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Charisma is a trait often associated with leaders and the world is full of examples of people being described as charismatic leaders. The term charismatic comes from the ancient Greek word charis, which means grace, kindness and life. Charismatic people are considered as graceful and virtuous. The idea of using one's charisma and influence in order to lead is not a new way of looking at leadership, although the theories around it are rather recent.

In this section, we'll explore the idea of charismatic leadership through its past and present contexts.

The historical context

The idea of a strong and noble leader, who relies on personal characteristics, has been present in history. People have attributed and associated great personalities with the ability to rule in a good manner ever since the dawn of time.

In terms of crafting a proper leadership theory, the two biggest influencing theories behind charismatic theory have been developed by Max Weber and Robert J. House.

Max Weber's charismatic leadership

The charismatic theory's driving force is Max Weber's study on political obligation. The German sociologist explored the reasons people follow authority and the findings were published posthumously in 1922 in Economy and Society.

Weber moved away from the classical thinking that authority is achieved through the three routes:

Self-interest - You obey for material or economic gain

Fear - You follow the rules because you don't want the punishment

Habit - You obey simply out of the socialization of authority

Instead, Weber thought people follow a leader or a state because they evaluate the authority and perceive it good, right or just form of power. Therefore, the leader's legitimacy is subjective to each subordinate.

From the above ideas, Weber distinguished three models of legitimate leadership, summed up in the below image:

Weber's idea of charisma was value-free and more about the appearance of charisma rather than making specific value judgments. He writes in the book how charisma " knows no formal and regulated appointment or dismissal, no career, advancement, or salary, no supervisory or appeals body, no local or purely technical jurisdiction, and no permanent institutions in the manner of bureaucratic agencies ". Charismatic leaders are almost savior like and people follow them as they are perceived to put things right.

Charismatic leadership relies on three components in Weber's theory. There is the psychological dimension, which refers to the inner qualities of the leader. Weber talks about the trait being a "gift" of the leader, claiming it could be either a divine trait or a specific physical or mental state of being. But since charisma to Weber, is value-free and created by the subordinates' assumptions, there is no detailed explanation on the origins of charisma.

The second dimension is about the social aspect. Charismatic leadership might not stem purely out of one's inner being, but have a social source. This could be the cultural influence of society, family, work or even education. Charisma essentially takes on a traditional form and legitimizes its source. The impersonal nature of charisma implies that it can be taught, according to Weber.

Finally, Weber's theory also has a relational dimension between the leader and the subordinate. According to Weber, charisma is the " affectual relationship between leader and followers developing as the historical product of the interaction between person and situation ". A leader has to prove his or her worth and the charisma in order to continue to enjoy legitimacy. Charismatic leadership is therefore relational because the subordinates can withdraw their support, leading the leader without legitimacy to rule.

Interestingly, Weber's charismatic leader carried its own demise and the legitimate authority of a charismatic leader was something he didn't think could last. This was because it changed the system it was operating in and removed the traditional justification of authority around it. According to Weber, charismatic leadership would be hard to routinize and therefore, it created succession issues in organizations or the state.

Interested in learning why we as humans are prone to falling for charismatic leaders? Watch this TED talk.

Robert J. House's charismatic leadership

Weber's ideas of charismatic leadership were theoretical and the conversation that followed around the topic tended to be speculative in nature. In 1976, Robert J. House published his working paper A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership, which aimed to move the theory to a more testable concept. House moved the charismatic leadership theory more towards a psychological explanation, rather than a sociological or political science theory of power.

House's main argument was that charismatic leadership is rooted in personal and behavioral characteristics and the leaders with these qualities can inspire subordinates through appropriate articulation of the organizational vision. Therefore, it follows the similar notion of Weber that charismatic leaders don't receive authority out of fear or financial gain, but out of emotional excitement.

To communicate the vision to subordinates, charismatic leaders need to showcase high levels of self-confidence, dominance, influence and strong conviction. Furthermore, certain situational and organization factors can help boost the leadership's appearance. These assumptions and characteristics will be discussed further in the following sections.

The main takeaway from House's theory is that charismatic leadership should not be defined solely in terms of the effects it has on followers. Instead, House looked more towards the behaviors and the situational factors that influence the effectiveness of charismatic leaders.

The modern context

The above two theories have largely shaped the conversation around charismatic leadership, providing the theory with context and testable characteristics. The two theories, along with other research on the leadership model, have revived the trait-based approach to leadership.

Since charismatic leadership is linked with personal traits and the transformation of subordinates, the current conversation around the model often links it with transformational leadership theory. Both of these theories seek radical changes around the organizational structure they operate in, yet there are certain important differences between the two.

While charisma can improve the effectiveness of leadership, transformational leaders don't necessarily have to be perceived as charismatic in order to rule efficiently. Furthermore, transformational leadership always has change at the heart of it, whereas charismatic leadership might not be interested in changing the operational structure of the organization.

Nonetheless, in current literature, charismatic leadership has assumed a more benevolent approach to leadership. Instead of focusing on a strong moral conviction and the personality traits of the leader, the inclusion of transformational elements has added a behavior element to the theory.

Aside from linking charismatic leadership with other leadership styles, such as transformational and inspirational leadership, the focus has also moved even more towards the emotional, inspirational and symbolic aspects of the leadership's ability to influence. In 2007, J. C. Pastor, M. Mayo and B. Shamir's research found the emotional responses of the subordinates influence the perception of the leader as charismatic. Furthermore, it isn't purely about the leader's apparent qualities, but the characteristics of the subordinates can influence how effective charismatic leaders are.

Ronald E. Riggio, PhD and professor of leadership and organizational psychology, summed up the current idea of charismatic leadership well in his 2012 article. Riggio defined charismatic leaders as " individuals who are both verbally eloquent, but also able to communicate to followers on a deep, emotional level. " Charismatic leadership is about creating a vision and captivating people emotionally with the message.

THE CORE ELEMENTS OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

The above touched on the context and approach to charismatic leadership. It's now time to consider the core elements of the leadership model and how they drive the above ideas forward.

Organizational and situational assumptions

House's 1976 essay on charismatic leadership outlined key assumptions regarding the leadership model. The assumptions rely on the idea that charismatic leadership relies on the behavioral, situational and organizational factors.

First, charismatic leadership requires the leader to showcase behaviors, which create an impression of competence and success. In short, the leadership requires a strong goal articulation. D. Berlew wrote in Leadership and Organization Excitement in 1974 that, " The first requirement for...charismatic leadership is a common or shared vision for what the future could be." A good example of this would be Martin Luther Kings, " I have a dream ". The speech and idea provided subordinates a vision of the future, the leader would want them to accomplish together. According to House, the goal articulation is more often about ideology rather than pragmatism.

For successful goal articulation to appear, a charismatic leadership theory requires the use of motive arousal. This means the goal and vision put forward by the leader must create an emotional appeal and spark off the right type of motivational response. House points out to the example of military leaders, who use authoritarian symbolism and images of the enemy in order to excite the followers. He gives the example of the US military leader, Patton, who addressed recruits " against the background of a large American flag, and dressed with medals of his accomplishments and wearing a shining helmet displaying the four stars indicating the status of general. "

The motive arousal aspect of charismatic leadership requires an understanding and an analysis of the task and the subordinates' need for achievement, affiliation and power. The effectiveness to accomplish tasks can therefore be manipulated by the leader's ability to arouse the right motives. House summarized studies, which had found the following assumptions:

Assumption of calculated risks

Achievement oriented initiative

Assumption of personal responsibility

Persistence toward challenging goals

The need for achievement

Being persuasive

Asserting influence

Exercising control over others

Being competitive or combative

The need for power

Affiliative behavior

Cohesiveness

Team work

Peer support

The need for affiliation

Finally, charismatic leadership requires specific situational determinants. For Weber, charismatic leadership is born out of a stressful situation. The vision outlined by the leader is likely something difficult or impossible to achieve, yet which creates the right motive arousal in leaders, enforcing the idea of the charismatic leader as the 'savior'. An example could be Mahatma Ghandi in India during the Indian independence movement. In a business environment a failing company might benefit from a charismatic leader who creates a vision of a better future for subordinates.

But stressful disasters are not the only situational determinant charismatic leadership can use as an advantage. Edward Shils' 1965 paper Charisma, Order, and Status identified the formal institutions of society, with large amounts of power, being something that could be perceived charismatic. In essence, the idea of the "awe-inspiring quality of power" can integrate a vision and therefore, become seen as charismatic.

Behavioral assumptions

For the above characteristics of charismatic leadership to work efficiently, the behavior of the leader must be aligned with the assumptions. Charismatic leadership model emphasizes the behavioral assumptions as the key.

As mentioned in the previous section, House outlined the four qualities of a charismatic leader. These were:

Dominant

Strong desire to influence others.

Self-confident.

Strong sense of one's own moral values.

Interestingly, charismatic leaders are not just interested or relying on showcasing the above qualities themselves, but rather they behave in a way that supports role-modeling behavior. Essentially this means charismatic leadership wants subordinates to adopt the behaviour of the leader.

Role-modeling has been shown by studies to have a strong effect on influencing other people. An authoritative figure can get subjects to administer pain to other people and people can adopt biased or racist attitudes from leaders. But naturally, role-modeling could be used for positive change and behavior as well. In a corporate environment, role-modeling could work as a method of improving employee motivation. According to House's analysis, " leaders can have an effect on the values (or valences) subordinates' attach to the outcomes of their effort as well as their expectations ".

From the above idea follows another crucial behavioral aspect of the charismatic leader. The leader should focus on engaging in behaviors, which create the impression of competence and success. Weber mentioned in his book how charismatic leaders are required to prove their power to the subordinates. While accomplishments are generally the easiest way to do this, the idea of appearance will also help charismatic leaders. This appearance assumption links closely with the above idea of goal articulation.

A very nice chat around how to become a better leader.

The best way to create the impression is often through high expectations and strong self-confidence. Studies have shown your self-esteem level and the expectation of being able to achieve a goal relate to motivation and goal attainment. In charismatic leadership, the leader has a role of improving the subordinate's self-esteem in order to improve organizational effectiveness.

A leader must not only set high-expectations, but also show confidence in the subordinate's ability to get things done. The behavioral assumption is associated with the above motive arousal. As shown earlier, specific tasks require the leader to use specific motivational influences in order to get the best out of subordinates. Furthermore, House drew two hypotheses out of the assumptions:

If leaders set specific and high expectations, then the goals of subordinates are clearer.

If the leader shows more confidence in the subordinate's ability to achieve those goals, then the person will perceive them more attainable.

Therefore, charismatic leadership works most efficiently when leaders are able to instill confidence and self-esteem to subordinates, which means subordinates are more inclined to achieve objectives and thus trust the leader further.

THE QUALITIES OF CHARISMATIC LEADER

Since charismatic leadership is heavily focused on the behaviour and personality of the leader, it comes as no surprise that the qualities and traits required of a charismatic leader are at the centre of the theory. We've already touched upon some of the traits through House's theory (dominant, self-confident, self-assured and strong conviction), but further research has identified other characteristics as well.

After examining the key traits of a charismatic leader, we'll also consider the steps you should take if you'd like to use this leadership model.

The key characteristics

In 1988, Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo published Charismatic Leadership, which outlined the key characteristics of a charismatic leader. The findings have been repeatedly shown to be accurate in a number of other similar studies, such as Robert House and Jane Howell's 1992 paper Personality and Charismatic Leadership.

One thing charismatic leadership emphasizes is the nature of your charisma. While it might seem charisma is a 'natural' quality you either have or don't have, the reality is that many charismatic qualities can be learned and reinforced.

#1 Visionary

Martin Luther King dreamt of a society where everyone is equal, Gandhi wanted different religions to live in peace in India and Sir Winston Churchill wanted the British to stay resilient during the war. Every charismatic leader has a vision - they are able to look beyond the horizon and imagine a different way of doing things. Obviously, it doesn't mean everyone has to imagine a society-wide change or movement, but you have to have a vision of what you want to achieve or what you want the organization you lead to accomplish.

Being a visionary means being open to chance and understanding that constant improvement is required for progress. You need to embark on a road of self-improvement, where you are constantly looking to expand your skills and learning things beyond your comfort zone. In addition, you need to listen to other people and understand how their experiences have shaped them. If you can combine your understanding of the world, with the experiences of others, you can visualise new solutions and approaches to solving things.

Visionary people are both dreamers and doers. You want to spend enough time thinking about the world and the problems you face. But you don't want to be caught daydreaming, while other people fix the problems.

This video shows you how to develop your vision statement and inspire your subordinates.

#2 Articulate

Charismatic people are good communicators. In order to get people on your side - to understand your vision and to believe in it - you have to be able to share the message loud and clear. If you aren't articulate, your subordinates won't be able to understand what you are envisioning.

There are two key aspects of articulation in terms of charismatic leadership. First, it simply means being a better communicator and being able to talk about complex issues to people in a way they understand. In the business world, the key is to explain the why, the how, and the when. You need to explain the reason or the vision behind the action, clarify what is needed in order to get to the objective and ensure people know how fast this all should be accomplished.

But the second aspect of articulation and communication relates to the understanding of your subordinates. Charismatic leadership requires you to be able to read people and select the right motivations for inspiring them. Therefore, you need to be able to analyze your audience and select the right communication style for each occasion.

If you'd like to improve your own communication abilities, especially in terms of getting your message across, watch the below YouTube clip. On it, Julian Treasure explains how to speak in a way that ensures people listen.

#3 Sensitive

Charismatic leaders must be sensitive, both in reading people's emotions and ambitions, but also in showing them compassion and empathy. As mentioned above, you must be able to sense the other person's expectations and needs in order to properly approach them with your vision. In short, you need to be able to sense the mood and be able to adjust to it.

In addition, you must also show humility and compassion. When you listen to people, you need to convince them you are there to help and you understand what the person is saying. Even if you can't do what the person might want you to do, you need to be able to convince them to work in a specific way and make them feel like its their best interest as well.

The charismatic leader who can show compassion towards subordinates is the leader that gets people on his or her side. Since you require subordinates to buy into your vision, you need to show respect and empathy towards them. People follow leaders who make them feel good and important, instead of someone who doesn't listen to them.

#4 Risk-taker

Just as you need to be a visionary, you must be willing to take risks as well. Because you are trying to obtain a visionary goal, something transformative and different, you won't have a paved out road ahead of you. In order to accomplish great things, charismatic leadership requires you to put yourself on the line.

Risk-taking means two things. First, as a leader, you are accountable for any problems that might arise. You aren't afraid to step out of the way if things don't work out and you won't try to place the blame elsewhere.

But in addition, you aren't afraid of challenges either. You understand that each challenge will bring about positive things, whether or not you accomplish what you set out to do. You are ready to give it your best shot because you can see the rewards of accomplishing things, while realizing failure isn't the end of the world.

In business, risk-taking isn't the same as gambling. Risk-takers don't just rush into things and hope for the best and neither do charismatic leaders. You understand the importance of analyzing tasks and the options ahead of you, but you are willing to take calculated risks if the situation calls for it.

Listen to Stephen Kelly (CEO of Sage) on what he has to say on taking smart risks.

#5 Creative

Finally, charismatic leaders tend to be creative. In order to be more visionary, you naturally need a healthy dose of creativity. You must be able to think outside of the box in order to create meaningful change in the organization.

Creativity is further linked to the charismatic leadership's idea of strong conviction. You need to be able to speak with conviction - meaning that you need to use creative images, rhetoric and messaging in order to get others to buy into your vision.

If you'd like to improve your ability to be more creative and to stand out from the crowd, you should try these five scientifically proven tips ( BBC Science):

Change how you do things - Altering your daily routines can help you because more innovative.

Removing distractions - You should try to create an environment around you which doesn't have distractions - visual or audio -.

Spend time on mundane tasks - You can spark your creative mind by engaging in tasks, which require less thinking.

Improvising and taking risks - Risk-taking can boost creativity together with improvisation. If you can play an instrument or you like drawing, spend some time doing it without an objective in mind.

Allowing your mind to wander - You shouldn't be afraid to just sit around and allow your mind to think freely.

How to become a charismatic leader

One thing charismatic leadership emphasizes is the nature of your charisma. While it might seem charisma is a 'natural' quality you either have or don't have, the reality is that many charismatic qualities can be learned and reinforced. Joyce Newman, president of the Newman Group, told in a Forbes interview, " We are not born charismatic - we cultivate it in many ways". Furthermore, Joyce pointed out that becoming charismatic is a "trial and error process" and " once you have your charismatic status, you can lose it ".

In his 1989 book The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership, Jay Conger proposed a four-step model for charismatic leadership. The model is a good guide for anyone looking to improve his or her charismatic leader characteristics.

Step 1: Regularly assessing your vision and the environment for achieving it

First, you need to create a vision, which fits the current environment. If you are working in an organization, you want to understand where the company is heading and where it could be heading with a new vision. You must understand the different parts making the vision a reality, such as what type of employees do you need, what must the organization focus on and who might be able to help you out.

Once you have formulated a vision and a framework for achieving the vision, you need to outline to others. But even after the vision is out in the open, you need to have the clarity to keep assessing your environment to ensure the vision is attainable. While you might not change the end objective, you might need to adjust the framework on how you get to the goal

Step 2: Improving your ability to communicate this vision

You need to be able to articulate your vision to the subordinates and other stakeholders in a clear and concise manner. The above points on characteristics should give you tips on improving your communication skills. But there are two other strategies you need to focus on: motive arousal and persuasive language.

In order for subordinates to buy into your vision, you need to find what motivates them to perform the required tasks. Notice that in an organization, different people might find different motives appealing. For example, the idea of more power might appeal to middle management who are driven and ambitious. On the other hand, employees with less motivation and ambition might find a vision of financial gain as motivating

Your language must be persuasive. Again, understanding the person's motivations help, but you also need to utilize role-modeling for inspiring the person to act. Setting an example can act as a powerful motivator for subordinates.

Step 3: Creating a trustworthy and committed environment

Coercion is not an effective part of charismatic leadership. Instead, you should focus on building relationships that are based on trust. This can lead to the creation of a committed environment where subordinates are inspired to work hard towards the goals.

You need to be able to ensure the vision you've set out is viable. This means you need to be accountable for the actions the organization takes, you must be willing to take risks and you need to showcase high levels of expertise. These will help you create more trust, not only in your vision, but also on yourself as a leader.

Step 4: Achieving the objectives

The final step is about achieving the vision you have set out using the chore tactics of charismatic leadership. This includes role-modeling and empowering your subordinates with motive arousal. Charismatic leadership provides the ideas and tools to lead people, but it also understands the differences in the situations. Therefore, achieving the vision is the key, not following a rigid set of rules in order to get there.

Finally, watch the below TEDx talk by John Antonakis on the topic of why charisma matters in today's world.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Charismatic leadership is among the leadership theories that can be both a blessing and a curse to an organization. A strong vision with emotional influences can be a force for positive change, such as the example of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement, but it can lead to darkness as well.

Advantages of charismatic leadership

As mentioned above, charismatic leadership can at its best, be an inspirational style to lead. A successful, charismatic leader is able to create a vision, which attract subordinates to the cause. The ability to motivate and empower people through this vision can eventually lead to more success.

Consider an example of a failing business. A charismatic leader can utilize the tools of charismatic leadership and create a vision of an organization that leads the industry. The message of the better future, and the confidence the leader shows towards subordinates can guarantee the employers are motivated to work together towards these goals. As the examples and research data above shows, the right type of motivation and vision can boost people's ability to get the job done more effectively.

Furthermore, the shared vision provides another big advantage of the theory: better workplace cohesion. Since everyone in the organization is aware of the same mission and objectives, everyone is essentially working to achieve the same goal. No one is gaining anything more, as the motivation isn't about punishments or financial gains - rather; the whole company shares the same objective. Knowing that everyone is essentially looking forward to the same achievement can create a stronger sense of togetherness and unity.

The visionary way to lead can lead to better results because it ignites people's passion. It's hard to be a charismatic leader without strong convictions and therefore, the leader is passionate about getting things done. As many entrepreneurs tend to say, "it's the passion that gets you up every morning". In addition to the passionate approach to doing things, charismatic leadership also encourages risk-taking and thinking outside of the box. Together, these qualities can drive change in an organization and have a meaningful impact on the operational efficiency of the company.

Since the emphasis is on achieving the objectives and working towards the shared goal, charismatic leadership tends to flourish learning behavior. Mistakes are not used for punishment and disasters are not shrugged under the carpet. Instead, charismatic leaders and therefore the subordinates examine the mistakes and learn from them in order to move forward. For a business, learning from past mistakes is a crucial part of avoiding the issue second time around.

The clarity in the objectives and vision are especially beneficial in situations where a company might be facing a crisis. As House and Weber argued in their theories, charismatic leadership works especially well in crises. If work morale is low and the company is lacking direction, a strong, charismatic leader can provide the organization a needed boost and positive vision for the future. The focus on individuals and their self-esteem will also provide an instant boost in employee morale.

Overall, the above can boost employee moral and productivity. The workplace can become a more invigorating and exciting place to be, with the possibility of larger social change on the horizon. The company's profitability, productivity and longevity can therefore improve.

Disadvantages of charismatic leadership

But as we briefly mentioned at the start of the section, charismatic leadership is not always transformational in a positive manner. The vision, envisaged by the charismatic leader, is not always universally positive and in the darkest examples of the human history, it can be deadly. If you consider the essence of charismatic leadership - dominance, confidence, strong convictions and the ability to get followers on your side - then one example of charismatic leader from history could be Adolf Hitler. He was able to paint a vision of a future for people, which they took at face value.

Unlike ethical leadership, charismatic leadership doesn't make judgments on whether the vision is good or sustainable. Therefore, there isn't much room for inner moral conflicts within the leadership theory. The problem is that a charismatic leader might be driven by self-interest or poor judgment, instead of showcasing values that cherish other people's wellbeing.

In a less-sinister manner, charismatic leadership can slip into arrogance or tunnel vision. The leader, along with his or her followers, can simply focus on the vision, without re-evaluating or re-examining its validity or attainability. For an organisation, this could be devastating, as resources might be better spent in a different manner.

Since charismatic leadership doesn't work without the support of subordinates, the obedience levels of subordinates can go on unchallenged. In essence, this means the leadership model's apparent strength can simply be down to "yes-men" around the leader. Instead of questioning or challenging the leader's ideas, subordinates merely follow the orders.

Finally, charismatic leadership is based on the relationship between the leader and his or her subordinates. If, and when, the leader moves on from the organization, the company might suffer consequently because a strong leadership base disappears with him or her. The organization either needs a new charismatic leader, who has to spend time establishing his or her relationship with the subordinates, or implement a wholly new leadership structure into the organization. As the subordinates have based their trust in the vision of the charismatic leader, there is no leadership development within the organization to guarantee the next generation of leaders are able to take over.

EXAMPLES OF CHARISMATIC LEADERS

As mentioned in the previous sections, charismatic leadership has plenty of historic examples in a range of fields. There are the political examples of Martin Luther King and the other extreme example of Hitler. But you also have charismatic leaders in the field of social justice and business.

The below examples will hopefully outline the characteristics of charismatic leaders and the ideas of the model in a tangible manner.

Mother Theresa

Mother Theresa might not be a conventional example of a leader, but she perfectly fits the definition of a charismatic leader. Mother Theresa, who was born in Macedonia, became a Roman Catholic nun and started working with the poor.

She left her teaching position at the St. Mary's School for Girls in 1946 in order to start serving the poor in the slums of Calcutta. In the 1950s and 1960s, she established different facilities in the slums to help the poor survive disease and malnutrition. Later, she also opened charities elsewhere in the world - all helping the poor.

Mother Theresa was dedicated to a single cause and she had a vision to help the lives of those that don't have much. She inspired others to follow her example and she dedicated her life to empowering the less fortunate. In essence, she showed what good charismatic leadership could achieve.

Mother Theresa once said, " I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples. " This highlights one of the important parts of charismatic leadership: having others following you. Without the followers buying into your vision, you won't succeed as a leader.

Charles Manson

But as we've mentioned above, charismatic leadership is not always a force for good. For all the world's Mother Theresas, there are examples of leaders who've used their charisma for doing bad. Charles Manson is one such example.

In 1969, the US uncovered a cult called The Family, when the police found nine bodies in Los Angeles. The cult's leader was a charismatic Charles Mansion who had managed to captivate the attention of young girls, only to end up killing them.

Interestingly, Manson's leadership skills and charismatic nature wasn't just natural characteristics. He did, in fact, take a course on leadership and self-improvement during his time in prison. His ability to manipulate and influence people came from a highly popular book: How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Manson used the learned techniques of promising people things, boosting their confidence just slightly and creating a vision of the better future, where he was the only saviour. Unfortunately for the world, his vision was dark and involved taking the lives of innocent people. He took proven leadership qualities and turned them into a sinister manipulation. Yet, his example shows how charismatic leadership works when it's efficient.

To find out more about Dale Carnegie's book and its message, check out the below Slideshare presentation, which summarizes the ideas in the book. Despite the bad press, the book is still one of the best in the field of leadership and worth reading if you'd like to improve your communication with other people.

Jack Welch / General Electric

Charismatic leaders have also appeared in the business world. General Electric's (GE) CEO Jack Welch is a good example of a charismatic leader. Welch had a sporting background and he used the lessons he learned as an athlete during his time in business.

After graduating from college, Welch found himself working as a chemical engineer at GE in 1960. In 1981, he became the company's youngest CEO. His approach to his position as a CEO was about creating personal and meaningful relationships. He met with the employees and the customers, talking with them to create a positive atmosphere.

Nonetheless, his charismatic leadership style didn't mean he avoided working towards the vision. He didn't hesitate to cut costs, even if it meant laying off employees, because his ultimate vision was about creating a valuable and respectful business. He wanted to create an organization that would beat its rivals and in order to do this, he had to weed out mediocrity from his company. While this meant certain people had to go, it also improved the company's communication, its development and ultimately its bottom line.

In a telling quote, Jack Welch once said, " The essence of competitiveness is liberated when we make people believe that what they think and do is important - and then get out of their way while they do it. " The idea sums nicely the essence of charismatic leadership and especially the idea of the motive arousal.

Steve Jobs / Apple

Finally, another example of a highly charismatic leader in the business world is the late Steve Jobs. Whilst Jobs was not universally liked as a leader, he was effective and persuasive - he even got the people who didn't really like him to continue working for him.

Jobs clearly highlighted strong conviction and vision. He wanted particularly designed products, often forcing the designing team to great lengths to achieve it. He kept mentioning his key objectives and ideas in almost all of his speeches and ensured everyone in the company knew what the vision was.

Furthermore, Jobs didn't just apply a single communication tactic with his subordinates. He changed his rhetoric and figurative language according to the audience. Just as a charismatic leader would in order to find the right motive for his or her followers to participate in the vision, he was able to sense what his crowd wanted and needed from him. A study into Jobs' use of rhetoric, Loizos Heracleous and Laura Klaering from the Warwick Business School found leaders could take advantage of Jobs' skills and " employ them to increase followers' belief in their charisma as well as their effectiveness as a persuasive speaker ".

Jobs used different images and examples as part of his discussion. For example, IBM was the evil player in the game, while Apple would come and save the day - you can see the charismatic vision and motive arousal working for his favour.

Below is a clip of Steve Jobs' biographer, Walter Isaacson, talking about Jobs' leadership style:

FINAL THOUGHTS

Charismatic leadership is another trait-based leadership theory, which emphasizes the leader's ability to convince the subordinates to work towards a specific vision. It's often related to other leadership theories, especially since it relies on personal characteristics of the leader. But it is a powerful theory on its own and charismatic leaders can help create lasting changes in an organization.

The framework for charismatic leadership focuses on conviction, communication and commitment. You need to develop a strong vision and be able to motivate other people to follow you. Your qualities as a leader and your ability to create meaningful relationships with your subordinates are the carrying forces of charismatic leadership, not any specific process or structure of the organization.

Since charismatic leaders are willing to take risks and look beyond the horizon, they can have a positive impact on an organization or society. Unfortunately, the leader doesn't necessarily need to follow a strong moral or ethical vision. History has shown us that charismatic leaders can lead subordinates astray and cause havoc while working towards their vision.

Nonetheless, the leadership theory can be an effective way to motivate people and improve the way an organization operates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charismatic Leadership Guide: Definition, Qualities, Pros & Cons, Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Motivation is everything. You can do the work of two people, but you can't be two people. Instead you have to inspire the next guy down the line and get him to inspire his people." - Lee Iacocca You've probably met a person who oozed of charisma.

# data[].attributes.headline
Charismatic, Transformational, and Servant Leadership in the US, Mexico, and Croatia

# data[].attributes.subject
Charismatic, Transformational, and Servant Leadership in the US, Mexico, and Croatia

# data[].attributes.body
Module 3 article
Viess, S.D. (2016). Charismatic, transformational, and servant leadership in the United States, Mexico, and Croatia. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 6(12), 25-34. doi:10.18533/ijbsr.v6i12.1003

# data[].attributes.body
Module 3
Perks, B. (2019, July 15). 6 Traits to look for in a political campaign manager [Image]. The Campaign Manager. Retrieved from https://www.thecampaignworkshop.com/blogs/political_campaign_manager_traits

# data[].attributes.headline
Charismatic Leadership Behavior and Leadership Effectiveness

# data[].attributes.subject
Charismatic Leadership Behavior and Leadership Effectiveness

# data[].attributes.body
Module 3 article
Yang, Z., & Zhu, J. (2016). Charismatic leadership behavior and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of subordinates’ emotional intelligence and the mediating role of psychological empowerment. Revista de Cercetare Si Interventie Sociala, 55, 158–184. Retrieved from https://www.rcis.ro/ro/section1/143-volumul-552016decembrie/2320-charismatic-leadership-behavior-and-leadership-effectiveness-the-moderating-role-of-subordinates-emotional-intelligence-and-the-mediating-role-of-psychological-empowerment.html

# data[].attributes.body
Module 4 article
Pettit, E. (2019, November 22). The professor’s views are loathsome, stupid, and ignorant, the provost said. But he won’t be fired. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Professor-s-Views-Are/247606

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The provost didn't equivocate. The professor's views on race, gender, and sexuality, she said, are loathsome. Stunningly ignorant. Stupid.

But he won't be fired, she said. The First Amendment forbids it. The constitutional right to free speech "is strong medicine," she said, "and works both ways."

Instead, no student will be forced to take a class from Eric B. Rasmusen, a professor of business economics and public policy at Indiana University at Bloomington, who this semester taught a required course for the public-policy degree. He will use "double-blind grading" on assignments, the provost, Lauren Robel, wrote in a message to the business school. If that's not possible, another faculty member will "ensure that the grades are not subject to Professor Rasmusen's prejudices."

The force of Robel's condemnation stunned many observers. It managed to balance a university's duty to protect the principles of free speech, they said, while not shrinking away from naming bigoted ideology for what it is. (On his personal website, where he is writing about the incident, Rasmusen said that "insults" calling his views sexist, racist, and homophobic no longer "have much meaning.") Robel's clarity was a departure from the vague and measured speech of most administrators, her supporters say. Others were more skeptical of the line that the institution is trying to walk. The chances that Rasmusen's views have not already affected his work are "very close to 0," a graduate student wrote on Twitter.

The controversy started on November 7, when Rasmusen wrote a tweet in which he quoted an article with the headline "Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably." He shared the article and added, in quotes, "geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness." A day later, he called a woman being covered in the news a "slut." On his website, Rasmusen said he does not think it is misogynistic "to speak strongly against women who steal other women's husbands."

After the tweet spread this week, the university was inundated with calls for Rasmusen's ouster. "It just came to a point where there was no way that we could not respond," Chuck Carney, the director of media relations, said.

Discussions among the university's top officials started earlier this week, he said. Robel wrote that Rasmusen cannot be fired for his posts, "as vile and stupid as they are."

"That is not a close call," she added.

However, the university wanted to assure students that they'd get "a fair shake" in his courses, Carney said. When students turn in an assignment to Rasmusen, their identities will be anonymized, he said. For assignments where it's not possible for those identities to be concealed - for example, an essay that might include personal information - another faculty member will grade that work, Carney said.

After declining a phone interview, Rasmusen said in an email that he plans to comply with the university's restrictions, and that he had volunteered to do blind grading this fall and this coming spring. He has no plans to apologize, which would be "ridiculous," he said. On his website, he is excerpting some of the emails of support that he said he had received.
'Racist, Sexist, and Homophobic'
While the university's sanctions against Rasmusen are new, the views that gave rise to them don't appear to be.

For many years, Robel said, the professor has used his social-media accounts to disseminate "racist, sexist, and homophobic views." Rasmusen said that his views "expand the diversity of views that are heard in academic circles."

In the past he has promoted stereotypes, such as that black students are generally unqualified to attend elite institutions, that they're generally inferior academically to white students, and that gay men should not be allowed in academe because they will abuse students, the provost wrote. (To those claims, Rasmusen wrote on his website that "the whole idea of affirmative action is that too few black students wouldn't get in without racial preferences." He does not think gay people should teach grade school or high school, but in academe, there is more reason to accept the risk of hiring "a brilliant but immoral teacher.")

The Chronicle wrote about Rasmusen more than 15 years ago, in 2003, after he wrote on his blog that "Male homosexuals, at least, like boys and are generally promiscuous" and "should not be given the opportunity to satisfy their desires." Then, as well as now, observers questioned whether a gay student could ever feel comfortable in his classroom, knowing his personal beliefs.

Robel made it clear that if Rasmusen acted upon his expressed views in the workplace to judge his students or colleagues based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation to their detriment, he'd be acting illegally and in violation of university policies. "We would investigate," she wrote, "and address those allegations according to our processes." The university has already heard from some of Rasmusen's former students about concerns they had, Carney said.
'As Neutral as Possible'
Some scholars saw that portion of Robel's statement as a dodge. If he can't be trusted to teach a class without extraordinary "safeguards," Kevin Gannon, a professor of history at Grand View University, asked on Twitter, then how can the university claim there's no evidence that he's put his views into action?

For Steve Sanders, a law professor at Indiana, the most recent firestorm involving Rasmusen is a perfect example of the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. If the tweet was a one-off incident, he said, the university's reaction would probably have been different. But because of Rasmusen's history, and because of the real possibility that his biases could influence his work, the provost's response "probably was a necessity," Sanders said.

Sanders said he himself is known as a staunch defender of academic freedom and First Amendment rights. While he doesn't have much respect for the ideas that Rasmusen puts forth, Sanders said he does feel quite strongly that a university has to be "as neutral as possible" in debates about free speech and ideas. Robel, he thinks, threaded that needle.

For Jessica Calarco, Rasmusen's comments and Robel's response will become a teaching moment. The associate professor of sociology plans to ask students in her "Introduction to Sociology" class to discuss, among other things, whether the First Amendment should protect all speech, and whether hate speech should be exempted. They'll talk about what it would take for a student or colleague harmed by Rasmusen to feel comfortable coming forward, she said. And they'll cover the reasons those people might be reluctant to report.

"It's a tricky situation," Calarco said. She completely understands why the university made the decision it did. She said she commends Robel for her boldness. And she understands why people would be upset with that decision and think it wasn't enough.

Some dissent is percolating on the campus. A letter to the editor of the student newspaper called Robel's statement "disappointing and harmful." Two bridges were painted in protest of Rasmusen, proclaiming in all-capital black letters, "Fire Eric Rasmusen" and "No Bigots Allowed," the newspaper reported.

Ultimately, Calarco said, she's hopeful. Hopeful that Robel's words will embolden the people who've experienced harmful treatment to file reports. And hopeful that the university will take those reports seriously.

Emma Pettit is a staff reporter at The Chronicle. Follow her on Twitter @EmmaJanePettit, or email her at emma.pettit@chronicle.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Professor's Views Are Loathsome, Stupid, and Ignorant, the Provost Said. But He Won't Be Fired.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The provost didn't equivocate. The professor's views on race, gender, and sexuality, she said, are loathsome. Stunningly ignorant. Stupid. But he won't be fired, she said. The First Amendment forbids it. The constitutional right to free speech "is strong medicine," she said, "and works both ways."

# data[].attributes.body
Module 4 article
Mind Tools Content Team. (n.d.). The Leader-member exchange theory. MindTools. Retrieved from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/leader-member-exchange.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Also known as LMX or Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory)

As a manager, it's not always right to treat everyone on your team in the same way.

For instance, you probably have team members that you've developed a great relationship with: you trust them, they work hard, and they've never let you down. To you, these team members are invaluable, and you make an extra effort to send challenging projects their way.

It's also likely that you have others on your team who you think less well of. They may not have far-reaching career goals, they're less competent, and you simply don't trust them to the same extent. These team members get everyday responsibilities, and are not considered for promotions or challenging assignments.

However, have you ever stopped to analyze why you don't trust certain team members? Rightly or wrongly, do you let that distrust, or the belief that they're unreliable, influence how you relate to them? Do you, even subconsciously, withhold opportunities that might help them grow and succeed?

This situation is at the heart of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory. This theory, also known as LMX or the Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory, explores how leaders and managers develop relationships with team members; and it explains how those relationships can either contribute to growth or hold people back.

What Is the Leader-Member Exchange Theory?

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory first emerged in the 1970s. It focuses on the relationship that develops between managers and members of their teams. The theory states that all relationships between managers and subordinates go through three stages. These are:

Let's look at each stage in greater detail.

Role-Taking

Role-taking occurs when team members first join the group. Managers use this time to assess new members' skills and abilities.

Role-Making

New team members then begin to work on projects and tasks as part of the team. In this stage, managers generally expect that new team members will work hard, be loyal and prove trustworthy as they get used to their new role.

The theory says that, during this stage, managers sort new team members (often subconsciously) into one of two groups.

In-Group: if team members prove themselves loyal, trustworthy and skilled, they're put into the In-Group. This group is made up of the team members that the manager trusts the most. Managers give this group most of their attention, providing challenging and interesting work, and offering opportunities for additional training and advancement. This group also gets more one-to-one time with the manager. Often, people in this group have a similar personality and work-ethic to their manager.

Out-Group: if team members betray the trust of the manager, or prove that they're unmotivated or incompetent, they're put into the Out-Group. This group's work is often restricted and unchallenging. Out-Group members tend to have less access to the manager, and often don't receive opportunities for growth or advancement.

Routinization

During this last phase, routines between team members and their managers are established.

In-Group team members work hard to maintain the good opinion of their managers, by showing trust, respect, empathy, patience, and persistence.

Out-Group members may start to dislike or distrust their managers. Because it's so hard to move out of the Out-Group once the perception has been established, Out-Group members may have to change departments or organizations in order to "start over."

Once team members have been classified, even subconsciously, as In-Group or Out-Group, that classification affects how their managers relate to them from then on, and it can become self-fulfilling.

For instance, In-Group team members are often seen as rising stars and the manager trusts them to work and perform at a high level. This is also the group that the manager talks to most, offering support and advice, and they're given the best opportunities to test their skills and grow. So, of course, they're more likely to develop in their roles.

This also holds true for the Out-Group. The manager spends little, if any, time trying to support and develop this group. They receive few challenging assignments or opportunities for training and advancement. And, because they're never tested, they have little chance to change the manager's opinion.

How to Use the Leader-Member Exchange Theory

You can use the Leader-Member Exchange Theory to gain awareness of how you perceive members of your own team. The following three steps will show you how you can do this by identifying the Out-Group, reestablishing your relationship with its members, and providing means and ways for team members to grow.

1. Identify Your Out-Group

Chances are, you know who's in your Out-Group already. Take a moment to note their names down.

Next, analyze why these people have fallen "out of favor." Did they do something specifically to lose your trust? Do they exhibit bad behavior at work? Are they truly incompetent, or do they have low motivation?

Analyze what they've actually done, and compare the facts with your perceptions. Do these match, or have you (perhaps subconsciously) blown things out of proportion?

2. Reestablish the Relationship

It's important that, as the leader, you make a reasonable effort to reestablish a relationship with Out-Group team members. Research published in the Leadership Quarterly journal in 1995 showed that team members who have high-quality relationships with their leader have higher morale, and are more productive than those who don't. So you, and your organization, can benefit from creating a better relationship.

Keep in mind that this group will likely be wary of any attention or support from you; after all, they may not have had it in the past.

First, meet each team member one-on-one. Take the time to find out if they're happy with their job. What are their career goals? What can you do to make their work more challenging or engaging?

A one-on-one meeting can also help you identify that person's psychological contract with you - that is, the unspoken benefits they expect from you, as their leader. If they're in the Out-Group, they may feel that the psychological contract has been broken.

You also need to discover what truly motivates them. Use McClelland's Human Motivation Theory or Herzberg's Motivators and Hygiene Factor Theory to find out what drives them to succeed.

Once you've had a chance to reconnect with your team members through one-on-one meetings, do what you sensibly can to continue to touch base with them. Practice management by walking around, or drop by their office to see if they need help on projects or tasks. Work on getting to know these team members on a personal level.

3. Provide Training and Development Opportunities

Remember, the biggest advantage to the Leader-Member Exchange Theory is that it alerts you to the preference you might unconsciously - and possibly unfairly - be showing some team members. This allows you to offer all of your team members appropriate opportunities for training, development, and advancement.

Your Out-Group team members may benefit from a mentoring or coaching relationship with you.

You may also want to provide them with low-risk opportunities to test and grow their skills. Use task allocation strategies to make sure you're assigning the right task to the right person. Also, take our Bite-Sized Training session, Setting Goals for Your Team, to learn how to set effective and realistic goals for these team members.

You can also use the Nine-Box Grid for Talent Management to re-assess their potential from time to time, and to give them the right development opportunities.

Warning:

A problem with the Leader-Member Exchange Theory is that it assumes that all team members are equally worthy of trust, prestigious projects and advancement. Although we may like to think that everyone is honest, hard-working and worthy of our esteem, the reality can be different!

Managers need to get the best possible results. This means putting the right people in the right places, and it means developing and reinforcing success. Of necessity, this means that talented people will get more interesting opportunities and may get more attention than less-talented ones.

Use the Leader-Member Exchange Theory to make sure that you're objective in the way that you deal with people, but don't be naïve in the way that you apply it.

Key Points

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory first appeared in the 1970s. It analyzes the relationship between managers and team members.

Team members typically go through three phases in their relationship with their manager: Role-Taking, Role-Making, and Routinization.

Typically, during the Role-Making phase, group members are classified into one of two groups: In-Group, and Out-Group. In-Group team members often receive more attention and support, and more opportunities, from their managers. Out-Group members get very little face-time, and few opportunities.

You can use the Leader-Member Exchange Theory to identify and validate any perceptions that you might have of people on your team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Getting the Best From all Team Members

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a manager, it's not always right to treat everyone on your team in the same way. For instance, you probably have team members that you've developed a great relationship with: you trust them, they work hard, and they've never let you down.

# data[].attributes.body
Module 4 graphic
https://blogs.baylor.edu/harmony_martz/2016/09/22/chapter-7-leader-member-exchange-theory/

# data[].attributes.headline
ACPA Statement of Ethical Principles and Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
ACPA Statement of Ethical Principles and Standards

# data[].attributes.body
Module 4 reference
American College Personnel Association. (n.d.) Statement of Ethical Principles & Standards. Retrieved from https://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/files/Ethical_Principles_Standards.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
The Dark Side of Transformational Leader Behaviors for Leaders Themselves

# data[].attributes.subject
The Dark Side of Transformational Leader Behaviors for Leaders Themselves

# data[].attributes.body
Module 5 article
Lin, S.-H., Scott, B.A., & Matta, F.K. (2019). The dark side of transformational leader behaviors for leaders themselves: A conservation of resources perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1556–1582. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.1255

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dark side of transformational leadership

# data[].attributes.headline
The Influence of Transformational Leadership and Leader Attitudes on Subordinates

# data[].attributes.subject
The Influence of Transformational Leadership and Leader Attitudes on Subordinates

# data[].attributes.body
Module 5 article
Farahnak, L.R., Ehrhart, M.G., Torres, E.M., & Aarons, G.A. (2020). The influence of transformational leadership and leader attitudes on subordinate attitudes and implementation success. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(1), 98–111. doi:10.1177/1548051818824529

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
influence of transformational leader on subordinates

# data[].attributes.headline
Transformational Leadership Theory and Exploring the Perception of Diversity

# data[].attributes.subject
Transformational Leadership Theory and Exploring the Perception of Diversity

# data[].attributes.body
Module 5 article
Brown, M., Brown, R. S., & Nandedkar, A. (2019). Transformational leadership theory and exploring the perceptions of diversity management in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 19(7), 11–21. doi:10.33423/jhetp.v19i7.2527

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transformational Leaderhsip and perceptions of diversity

# data[].attributes.body
Module 5 article
Oltean, A.-O. L. (2016). Lider versus manager, management versus leadership. Analele Universităţii Constantin Brâncuşi Din Târgu Jiu: Seria Economie, 5, 167. Retrieved from http://www.utgjiu.ro/revista/ec/pdf/2016-05/24_ANGELA-OLIMPIA%20LOBONEA%20OLTEAN.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Manager versus Leader: Why Are Both Roles Valuable?

# data[].attributes.subject
Manager versus Leader: Why Are Both Roles Valuable?

# data[].attributes.body
Module 5 article
Lucia, F. (2018). Manager versus leader: Why are both roles valuable? Ovidius University Annals: Economic Sciences Series, 2, 428. Retrieved from http://stec.univ-ovidius.ro/html/anale/RO/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/11-3.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
manager versus leader both roles valuable

# data[].attributes.body
Module 5 graphic
https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/transformational-leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Module 6 book - WorldCat link

Barr, M.J., McClellan, G.S., & Sandeen, A. (2014). Making change happen in student affairs: Challenges and strategies for professionals. Jossey-Bass.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contents:

Making Change Happen in Student Affairs: Challenges and Strategies for Professionals; Contents; Preface; Acknowledgments; About the Authors; 1. Using Foundational Documents and Ethics in Our Work; Our Foundational Documents; The Student Personnel Point of View, 1937; The Student Personnel Point of View, 1949; A Perspective on Student Affairs, 1987; Our Ethical Responsibilities; CAS Statement of Shared Ethical Principles; American College Personnel Association Ethical Principles and Standards; NASPA Standards of Professional Practice. ACPA and NASPA Professional Competencies for Student Affairs PractitionersCase Studies; The Annoying Student Athlete; Balancing Conflicting Values; To Dine or Not to Dine; Responding to an Emerging Student Population; Conclusion; Reflection Questions; 2. Applying Theory, Literature, and Data to Practice; Uses of Theory, Literature, and Data; Looking within the Discipline; Looking Across Disciplines; Looking Across the Map; Theory: Not Just for Graduate School Any More; Reading Is Fundamental-Writing, Too; Collecting, Understanding, and Using Data; Recognizing and Unpacking Boxes; Case Studies. Urban UniversitySouthwestern Desert State; We Are All in the Circle; Spiritual University; Conclusion; Reflective Questions; 3. Using Resources to Effect Change; Challenges in Securing and Using Resources; Diminished Institutional Funds; Increased Demands for Services and Programs; Increased Public Visibility and Scrutiny; Changing Patterns of Institutional Governance; Myths About How Change Occurs; Changing Students; Online Instruction and Services; Applying Insights from Organizational Change Literature; Case Studies; A New Bus System at Alpha University; Academic Advising at Beta College. Need for More Mental Health Services at Gamma UniversityA New Recreation-Union Facility at Epsilon College; A New Student Affairs Development Office; Conclusion; Reflection Questions; 4. Utilizing Technology in Search of Success; Everything All the Time; Students; Administrative and Teaching Practices; Professional Development Activities; The State of Student Affairs and Technological Innovation; A Simple Question; Beware the Junkyard of Next Big Things; Case Studies; Badlands University; Social University; Professional Presence; Conclusion; Reflective Questions. 5. Advocating for Some Students While Serving All StudentsUnderstanding How American Higher Education Became Diverse; Economic Needs of the Country; Federal Support for the Disadvantaged; The Quest for Belonging and Equality; Older Students; Changing Laws and Judicial Decisions; Access for Those with Disabilities; What Strategies Can Assist in Dealing with Diversity?; Creating Academic and Program Requirements Regarding Diversity; Sharing Research Results and Information with Others on Campus; Service Learning Opportunities; Developing Connections across the Campus; Changing the Debate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Making change happen in student affairs : challenges and strategies for professionals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get this from a library! Making change happen in student affairs : challenges and strategies for professionals. [Margaret J Barr; George S McClellan; Arthur Sandeen] -- Change is inevitable. Managing change is a choice. Authored by three esteemed leaders in the field of student affairs, Making Change Happen in Student Affairs: Challenges and Strategies for ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Contexts for Current Challenges and Opportunities in Student Affairs Leadership

# data[].attributes.subject
Contexts for Current Challenges and Opportunities in Student Affairs Leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Module 6 article
Porterfield, K. T., & Whitt, E. J. (2016). Past, present, and future: Contexts for current challenges and opportunities for student affairs leadership. New Directions for Student Services, 2016(153), 9–17. doi:10.1002/ss.20165

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploring the Boundaries of Servant Leadership

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploring the Boundaries of Servant Leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Module 7 article
Kiker, D.S., Callahan, J.S., & Kiker, M.B. (2019). Exploring the boundaries of servant leadership: A meta-analysis of the main and moderating effects of servant leadership on behavioral and affective outcomes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 31(2), 172–197. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-593918905/exploring-the-boundaries-of-servant-leadership-a

# data[].attributes.headline
Develop a Compelling Leadership Philosophy

# data[].attributes.subject
Develop a Compelling Leadership Philosophy

# data[].attributes.body
Module 7 resource

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Develop a Compelling Leadership Philosophy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your leadership philosophy is how you view yourself in the role of a leader. Here, we share how to develop your own leadership philosophy.