Kaum etwas hat die Managementlehre in so großer Vielfalt hervorgebracht, wie Führungsstile. Transformative, transaktionale, unterstützende, partizipative, charismatische, paternalistische Führungsstile, die Liste kann fast endlos fortgesetzt werden. Einer der neuesten Führungsstile am Managementhimmel ist der charismatische Führungsstil, der neuerdings in zwei Varianten beschrieben wird:
Obviously, charismatic leadership rests on a problematic relationship between leader and follower. Since, followers follow in rather emotional than rational terms, leader can misuse followers’ trust. Accordingly, Howell (1988) suggested to review whether leaders’ motives to suggest a charismatic relationship to their followers was proper, since historical figures like Hitler, Stalin or Charles Manson showed that charismatic leadership might end in disaster for leaders and followers alike (Maccoby 2000). Accordingly, Howell (1988). distinguished the personalized charismatic leadership from the socialized charismatic leadership. However, later on, in work done together with Shamir, Howell amended the concepts of socialized and personalized charismatic leadership and viewed it more in relationship terms that describe not just the motives for offering charismatic leadership, but for demanding it as well (Shamir & Howell, 2005). This section of the paper will look into the resulting concept, and it will do so, based on the view of charismatic leadership as “residing in the relationship between leaders who exhibit certain charismatic qualities and behaviors and those followers who have certain perceptions, emotions and attitudes toward the leader, the group led by the leader, and the vision advocated by the leader” (Howell & Shamir, 2005: 98). Accordingly, for a charismatic relationship to become established, leaders must offer something followers demand. It is here, that the distinction between personalized and socialized charismatic leadership has its starting point.
(Wir schreiben Texte auch in englischer Sprache!)