Charismatic and distributive/democratic leadership differ vastly in a number of respects with each having its pros and cons. Hence, there is no singular leadership style that is effective in all situations. Rather, different situations call for different leadership styles.
Charismatic Leadership
Charisma, which was once seen as an inborn trait, is increasingly viewed as a function of followers’ perceptions (Howell, 1985, p179). A leader is charismatic only if followers perceive this leader to have qualities not expressed by common leaders, which inspires and motivates them to higher levels of performance.
In general, two distinguishing characteristics of charismatic leaders can be made. Firstly, the leader should be able to articulate an …show more content…
As opposed to other forms of leadership, democratic leadership involves the use of dialogue and deliberation, not just between the leader and followers, but also among all members of the entity. This communication practice encompasses authentic exchanges between members, characterized by equality of participation. Every member of the entity has the right to voice their opinion regardless of their position within an organizational bureaucracy, and every view is regarded with equal importance. (Raelin, 2012, p12)
Firstly, in this multi-party reflective conversation, surprising solutions may emerge as more alternatives are explored before a decision is made. Members are expected to be open to reflecting on the perspectives of others, entertaining the prospect that personal opinion can be changed. (Raelin, 2012, p8) This facilitates a greater flow of ideas, as members are able to voice their opinions without any inhibitions or fear of being judged. As compared to a monologue between a leader and follower, such broad discussions promote innovation, as members are able to build on the ideas of …show more content…
Hence, there is a risk that a less than optimal decision is made due to the lack of knowledge possessed by members involved.
Secondly, the process of deliberation is a long drawn one since every member has the right to voice his/her views on the matter and all the perspectives would have to be considered before a collective conclusion can be obtained. This would be detrimental in situations requiring prompt decisions to be made.
Thirdly, in a dialogue/ deliberation, no one holds more power than another. With no authority, no singular person can be held responsible for the outcome. Rather, all members are to be held responsible for the reason. As such, the slippery slope of egalitarianism emerges – If everyone is accountable, no one is truly accountable when a problem emerges. (Carter,
Charismatic Leadership
Charisma, which was once seen as an inborn trait, is increasingly viewed as a function of followers’ perceptions (Howell, 1985, p179). A leader is charismatic only if followers perceive this leader to have qualities not expressed by common leaders, which inspires and motivates them to higher levels of performance.
In general, two distinguishing characteristics of charismatic leaders can be made. Firstly, the leader should be able to articulate an …show more content…
As opposed to other forms of leadership, democratic leadership involves the use of dialogue and deliberation, not just between the leader and followers, but also among all members of the entity. This communication practice encompasses authentic exchanges between members, characterized by equality of participation. Every member of the entity has the right to voice their opinion regardless of their position within an organizational bureaucracy, and every view is regarded with equal importance. (Raelin, 2012, p12)
Firstly, in this multi-party reflective conversation, surprising solutions may emerge as more alternatives are explored before a decision is made. Members are expected to be open to reflecting on the perspectives of others, entertaining the prospect that personal opinion can be changed. (Raelin, 2012, p8) This facilitates a greater flow of ideas, as members are able to voice their opinions without any inhibitions or fear of being judged. As compared to a monologue between a leader and follower, such broad discussions promote innovation, as members are able to build on the ideas of …show more content…
Hence, there is a risk that a less than optimal decision is made due to the lack of knowledge possessed by members involved.
Secondly, the process of deliberation is a long drawn one since every member has the right to voice his/her views on the matter and all the perspectives would have to be considered before a collective conclusion can be obtained. This would be detrimental in situations requiring prompt decisions to be made.
Thirdly, in a dialogue/ deliberation, no one holds more power than another. With no authority, no singular person can be held responsible for the outcome. Rather, all members are to be held responsible for the reason. As such, the slippery slope of egalitarianism emerges – If everyone is accountable, no one is truly accountable when a problem emerges. (Carter,