Charisma or character: re-thinking leadership’s true nature

For too long we’ve referred to leadership in the context of a role, a title, or a position. As such we’ve come to attribute “leadership” to individuals who are simply not worthy of having the title or the accolades. It conveys a false sense of what it means to lead and who gets the praise.  Secondarily, we assign a value or qualifier around how leadership is operationalized.  For example, we frequently see or hear phrases or statements like, “she such a good leader,” or he is has an awful leadership style.  

Bad or good. Neither are leadership qualifiers, period, full stop.  Leadership is leadership. You are either a leader or you’re not. Leadership is a set of behaviors that anyone at anytime can exhibit. Putting a qualifier on management style is fine and fitting. Leadership not so much.

In a recent conversation about this very thing with my husband, he said we should call it “pseudo-leadership.”  The moment that stopped me in my dinner preparation. Of course we should, and he was not the first to say it.  It was borne out of an academic conversation by two of the leading scholars in transformational leadership in the 1970s and 80s.

Before we get to that, lets first have a “transformational leadership” refresher…

Transformational leadership was first coined by Downton in 1973 where it was later expanded upon by Burns in 1978.  Transformational leadership is the opposite of transactional approach which uses positional and sometimes coercive power as a basis of compliance. Whereas transformational leadership uses influence.  By definition, transformational leadership uses four key factors, as expanded on by Bass (1985):

1.      Idealized influence

2.      Inspirational motivation

3.      Intellectual stimulation

4.      Individualized consideration

Originally Bass included charisma as a part of idealized influence factor, but it was heavily criticized by Burns because of the idea that charismatic leaders have the ability to negatively influence the behavior of team members.  This includes an obedience of feedback –often including conformation bias or groupthink, gas-lighting, cult of personality, using charm for personal gain, and/or contributing to moral or ethical questions.  In a seminal academic treatise, he labeled this “pseudo-transformational” leadership.

Pseudo-transformational leaders mimic the look and language of real leadership but serve self-interest, disrupt team trust, and fosters a culture where ends justify the means. Authentic leaders, instead, prioritize ethical behavior, true empathy, and transparent collaboration This idea has been at the center of my own definition of leadership:

A healthy influence-based relationship that is interactive, reciprocal, and non-coercive. 

Lets break this down:

Healthy influence: relies on the influence base of power rather than position or coercive. Healthy is an important addition because it reminds us that influence can be used in a manipulative way.  Transformational factor: Idealized influence

Interactive and reciprocal: leadership is a relationship. In order to have a relationship all communication must be a conversation based on trust and two-way dialogue.  Transformational factor: Intellectual stimulation and individuated consideration.

Non-coercive: based on mutual respect and recognition that our employees are humans with need for thought-inclusion and respect.  Transformational factor: Inspirational motivation.

Based on what we know to be transformational leadership style, part of what is referred to more broadly as participatory leadership, we can see that there is no room nor need for any qualifier. It is leadership, or it is not. 

Leadership is not about authority, accolades, or charisma -- it is about authentic influence rooted in values, trust, and reciprocal relationships. When organizations and teams look beyond the surface, they discover that genuine leadership is not measured by style or performance, but by the consistent pursuit of the common good. In redefining leadership, we challenge ourselves to recognize the difference between those who inspire for collective benefit and those who manipulate for personal gain. The future demands leaders who foster empowerment, dialogue, and mutual respect --not the distractions of pseudo-transformational charisma.