Charismatic Leadership - Theoretical Propositions

Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership
Boas Shamir, Jane M. Howell
The Leadership Quarterly
Volume 10, Issue 2, Summer 1999, Pages 257–283

The research propositions in this paper were developed out of the argument or premise that while charismatic leadership principles and processes potentially apply across a wide variety of situations, the emergence and effectiveness of such leadership may be facilitated by some contexts and inhibited by others

Proposition 1: Charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge under conditions of turbulence and crisis than under conditions of stability and continuity. However, crisis is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for the emergence of charismatic leaders.

Proposition 2: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective in psychologically weak situations than in psychologically strong situations.


Proposition 3: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective in dynamic organizational environments that require and enable the introduction of new strategies, markets, products and technologies.

Proposition 4: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective at the early (entrepreneurial) stage, and the late stages (collaboration stage and renewal crisis) than in the middle stages of the organizational life-cycle.

Proposition 5: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective the lower the analyzability of the organizational or departmental technology.

Proposition 6: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective when the tasks of organizational members are challenging and complex, and require individual and group initiative, responsibility, creativity and intense effort.

Proposition 7: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective when performance goals are ambiguous and extrinsic rewards cannot be strongly linked to performance.

Proposition 8: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective in organic organizations than in mechanistic organizations.

Proposition 9: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective in organizations with a clan mode of governance than in organizations with either a market or bureaucratic mode of governance.

Proposition 10: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective in adaptive than in non-adaptive organizational cultures.

Proposition 11: New leaders are more likely than established leaders to emerge as charismatic and have a charismatic influence on organizational members.

Proposition 12: New charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge and be effective when they succeed non-charismatic leaders than when they succeed charismatic former leaders.

Proposition 13: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge at the top level of the organization than at lower levels. However, charismatic leadership is not restricted to the top organizational level.

Proposition 14: Charismatic leadership at higher organizational levels will rely on image building, articulation of a strategic vision, rhetorical skills and symbolic activities to produce charismatic effects on followers, while charismatic leadership at lower organizational levels will rely on personal role modeling, building a collective identity within the team, and conveying confidence in followers' capabilities.

Proposition 15: Charismatic leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective when the organizational goals and primary tasks are consistent with dominant social values, and offer both leader and followers an opportunity for moral involvement.

The paper quoted D.A. Waldman, F.J. Yammarino,  "CEO charismatic leadership: Levels of management and levels of analysis effects"
Academy of Management Review, 2 (1999), pp. 266–285

This paper also contains theoretical propositions above charismatic leadership at CEO level.