10 Essential Qualities of a Business Leader
I have always considered myself a leader. Basically, it was and still is. Of course, during your stay in network marketing, these qualities have undergone revision and serious reassessment. Because, working for hire and being a leader, qualities of a slightly different category were in demand and developed.
good organizational skills;
the ability to lead a large team to achieve the goal;
the ability to motivate subordinates, ignite them with an idea, control the fulfillment of their tasks;
the ability to work with clients to increase sales and profitability of the company;
the ability to complete the task at any cost;
and many many others…
But! I had administrative methods of influence in my hands - dismissal, promotion, the opportunity to declare gratitude or reprimand, the opportunity to increase the bonus or deprive it. Subordinates considered me exclusively in this vein and took into account all the possible actions that I could take in relation to them, depending on the result of their work.
Yes, people followed me, but only for the reason that I am their leader, not because I am somehow special and amazing (although in fact I am special and amazing :)). In the same way, they are now following another leader who heads this organization. The rules of the game have not changed, just one screw (in their understanding) has been replaced by another. People followed me because I was their leader, whether they liked it or not.
In network marketing, the situation is completely opposite. About what qualities a leader should have, Robin Sharma wrote a lot and well in the books “The Path to Greatness”, “Leader Without Titles and Titles” and many others. Our leaders write a lot about this on their blogs, Ivan Samokhin provoked a very interesting discussion on his blog in the article “Superman or qualities of a leader.”
I'm just finishing up a course on Alpha Leadership by Mike Dillard and Ryan Angelo. Powerful thing!
But today I want to express my personal opinion about what qualities, in my opinion, a network marketing leader should have. And I have already learned the hard truth that only Leaders succeed in network marketing. If you want to be successful in MLM, then you must have Leadership Qualities or develop them in yourself.
Qualities of a Network Marketing Leader:
Responsibility for yourself and your partners. Do not blame other people and circumstances for the fact that something did not work out for you, that the team does not work smoothly and does not achieve the planned results. Only you are responsible for this. It is necessary to analyze all your actions, efforts, understand or discuss with the Mentor where there are mistakes and shortcomings, stop all excuses. Roll up your sleeves, get involved in hard work, understand and realize that this is a long time, that you constantly need to work on yourself and your team. Take responsibility!
Excellent organizational skills. This includes the ability to plan. Effective planning lies in the ability to lay the right goals in the subconscious. Yours and your team members. A lot of books have been written on this subject. It all comes down to thinking about the desired goal, then returning to the current situation, thinking about the intentions that can lead to the goal, and then starting to act. I would put the execution of the plan here. When you set intentions for true desires and start to act, you can enter a period of life when everything is fulfilled easily and as if by itself. But this is a topic for a separate post.
Desire and ability to learn. It is necessary to study not only in order to know something else additionally. You need to study in order to be more capable, richer, smarter and be able to pass it on to other people. Whoever does not go forward in his development, he inexorably moves back, because there is no standing position (dead point) in development. While you are learning, you are developing. It was only here that I realized that I am far from a perfect person, that I need to work on myself systematically and constantly. What I do with great pleasure!
Self confidence. The future is built on confidence, desires are fulfilled and life becomes predictable. If you are not confident in yourself, doubt the abilities of yourself and your team, are not confident in the company and product, then do not expect business results. If you are confident in yourself, people will follow you, because this confidence is always felt.
Charisma. Many books have been written about this. Part of it comes from self-confidence. Or is it a personal preference. A charismatic person speaks the same way with the janitor Uncle Vasya and the President of his company or country. Because he respects every person, sees in him a personality worthy of his attention. It also includes the eccentricity of the individual. If you are like everyone else, one of the gray masses, people will not follow you. You have to stand out with something very good and positive. People should feel your success and that you are able to show them their own path to success and guide them along this path.
Endurance, patience, ability to take a hit. And draw the right conclusions. The leader is ready for the fact that hundreds of people will refuse him, not everyone will believe him. Yes, he does not need everything. Moreover, he must be prepared to be attacked by those who have not succeeded in this business, who do not consider him serious from some of their own convictions, and who simply want to prick him in passing. So, all these attacks and failures make a real leader only stronger, more confident in himself and his strengths. You know that Bill Gates was called "crazy" and Steve Jobs made his first products in a garage because no one believed in him and he had no other place. Where are Bill Gates and Steve Jobs now and those who did not believe in them? There are many such examples.
Honesty and discipline. We have a serious, honest, legal, transparent business. If your income is 800 dollars, then you do not tell your partners that you have already earned 80,000. But tell how you plan to come to such an income yourself and bring your partners to it. And you will act according to the plan. Clearly, following all the rules and right on time. Because vague rules lead to vague results, and clear rules lead to clear ones.
Professionalism. If you want to achieve something, you need to be a professional. Then people will follow you, because that's how the system works. And the more you teach others, the more you hone these skills in yourself. Giving - you receive! This law always works. The Professional has excellent business results, and business tools work like clockwork, and the team is well-coordinated, and everything else is in excellent condition.
Positive attitude and attitude towards life. Have you ever seen a leader whining and complaining about life? Even if something did not turn out the way he wanted, he sees this as a great opportunity for his own growth. He knows how to see wonderful moments and events around him and in his life that allow him to feel like a happy person. He always smiles, and this smile is sincere, because it comes from the very depths of his soul.
Oratory, influence and persuasion skills. You can't build a business in silence :) A leader must be able to speak, build his speech competently, conduct dialogues with his partners and candidates and be very persuasive. He conducts his speeches, presentations, trainings in such a way that people want to return to them, because they are very effective, help them to better understand themselves and achieve good success in business. Of course, for this you need to read a lot, work on yourself a lot and improve.
Probably, for me today these are the main qualities of a Leader. This list will be adjusted and supplemented in accordance with how I will continue to grow and develop in business.
But the main difference between the Leader in Network Marketing, who has a large team of distributors, and the Leader in hired work, who has a large team of subordinates, is the following. They follow the boss because he is the boss, and if you want to work in this company, then you have no other choice. And, as a rule, no one is interested in what qualities this boss possesses. People follow a Leader in Network Marketing because he has an excellent set of qualities and see him as their path to success and prosperity. It is impossible to go under compulsion for the Leader in network marketing, and they will not go. They will follow you if they believe that you are the Leader! In this I was convinced by my own example.
And there are very few people who were born with the qualities of a Leader or absorbed these qualities with their mother's milk. Moreover, we lived and still continue to live in such conditions where bright leaders are not really needed, but what is needed is a gray mass, performers, cogs. Unfortunately. But I hasten to please you that you can become a Leader, you can learn all the qualities of a Leader!
The most effective style of leadership in business is the so-called "transformational leadership". T
transformational leaders tend to be honest, they inspire people to be optimistic about the future, they set goals and motivate people to achieve those goals, they are friendly with their team (a more detailed description of transformational leadership can be found at the end of the article).
However, leadership is a very complex and multifaceted concept. Very often it is necessary to select the necessary leadership style in accordance with different situations. That is why it is important to know which leadership style will be most relevant for your business. The more you learn about the different types of leadership, the easier it will be for you to run your business.
Let's take a look at some common leadership styles that can be followed (styles are presented in alphabetical order):
1. Autocratic leadership
Autocratic leadership is transformational leadership in its extreme form, in which leaders retain power over other people. Team members and other employees do not have the opportunity to put forward proposals, even if these proposals turn out to be very useful for both the team and the company as a whole.
The advantage of autocratic leadership is that it is very effective. Decisions are made quickly and work is done efficiently.
The disadvantage of such a system is that people do not like to be "under the yoke". Therefore, with this leadership style, the likelihood of frequent absenteeism on the part of employees and workforce turnover is very high. However, this style will be very effective in situations involving routine work and work that does not require special qualifications. In such situations, the advantages of total control are more noticeable against the background of disadvantages.
Autocratic leadership is often resorted to in moments of crisis, when it is necessary to make decisions very quickly, without taking into account disagreements. For example, in the military industry, an autocratic leadership style is very common; the commanders-in-chief are responsible for the wards and for making difficult decisions, which allows the soldiers to focus solely on the execution of orders and assignments.
2. Bureaucratic leadership
Bureaucratic leaders work on a piece of paper. They impeccably follow the rules and make sure that everyone else follows all the procedures as expected.
This type of leadership is ideal for those whose jobs involve high risks (working with machinery, toxic substances, or working at heights) or with large sums of money. Also, bureaucratic leadership is well suited for organizations with routine activities (for example, industry).
The disadvantage of this kind of leadership is that it is not suitable for organizations that are built on flexibility, creativity or innovation.
Most bureaucratic leaders reach their desired position by adapting and sticking to rules, not by skill or experience. This can negatively affect the leader's authority, as team members will no longer value his advice and himself as a leader in general.
3. Business leadership
This leadership style occurs when team members agree to obey a certain leader only to complete a specific task. Such "deals" usually occur when an organization pays its team for their efforts and quality work. But the leader also has the right to “punish” team members if their work does not meet the stated standard.
It may seem strange, but business leadership also has its benefits. For example, with this leadership style, all roles and responsibilities are predetermined. In addition, ambitious employees, motivated by any awards, will always be successful and financially prosperous.
The downside to this style is that team members may not like this kind of control. They may feel disadvantaged, which can lead to staff turnover.
Business leadership is sometimes viewed more as a type of management than a style of leadership because it involves a short-term interaction between the leader and the team. It is also not suitable for situations where creativity and specific knowledge are welcome. However, this leadership style has been applied quite successfully in other situations.
4. Democratic/compassionate leadership
The democratic leader allows his team to take an active part in the decision, but the final decision is his. He encourages creativity and his team members are often involved in project work and decision making.
There are many benefits to democratic leadership. The team of such a leader is very satisfied with the working conditions, which increases the productivity of their work, because they have the right to participate in the life of the organization. This leadership style also helps develop some skills. Team members do not feel pressure from outside or from above, so they strive to work hard, not so much for financial rewards, but out of enthusiasm.
Since the whole team is involved in the decision-making process, it is a little delayed, but the result always lives up to expectations. This approach is used in business when teamwork is simply necessary, and when the quality of the work performed is important.
The disadvantage of democratic leadership is that in situations where speed of decision-making or efficiency of work is important, such leadership can only hurt. For example, during crisis situations, the team spends valuable time considering the opinion of each member. Another disadvantage of this style is that not all team members are able to give reasonable and valuable advice due to their lack of experience.
5. Personnel/Relationship Oriented Leadership
Leaders in this area are completely focused on organizing, supporting and developing people in the team. This kind of leadership is very similar to democratic leadership, which encourages teamwork and creative collaboration, and is inversely related to problem-based leadership.
A relationship-oriented leader treats all team members equally. He is friendly and always ready to help, pays attention to each member of the team, who knows that in case of need the leader can be relied upon.
The advantage of such leadership is that everyone aspires to such a leader, everyone wants to be part of his team. His team members are very productive and are not afraid to take risks, because they know that their leader will certainly help them in case of need.
Disadvantage of this kind of leadership: Some leaders can become too obsessed with the development of their team, not paying due attention to project work.
6. Service Leadership
The term "serving leadership" was introduced in the 1970s by Robert Greenleaf. Such leadership presupposes the presence of a leader, who is often not even perceived as such. When someone in your organization manages people through routine assistance, that person can be described as a "service leader."
A serving leader is always a good example for everyone. He is always honest and manages with prudence. At some points, service leadership is somewhat reminiscent of democratic leadership, because the whole team is involved in decision making. However, the service leader prefers to stay on the sidelines, out of the spotlight, and let his team make their own decisions about their work.
Supporters of service leadership argue that this is a good way to do business in a world where there is great emphasis on human merit, and where a service leader can achieve power through their virtues, ideas, and ethics. This approach helps to create a good corporate culture and lead to an increase in the morale of each team member.
However, some people believe that in a competitive environment, people who practice service leadership may be far behind those who have chosen a different leadership style. Serving leadership takes time to implement adequately, and it is not suitable for situations where you need to make quick decisions or get something done in the shortest possible time.
However, service leadership can be found in areas of life such as politics and in societies where a leader is elected to lead a group, committee, organization, or community.
7. Disinterested leadership
The name comes from the French Laissez-Faire, which means "to give freedom of action." This style involves a leader who allows his team to work at their own discretion. This leadership style can also arise naturally when a manager is unable to supervise the work of his people at the proper level (besides performing his duties).
Disinterested leaders can give their team complete freedom of action, as well as the right to set their own deadlines for the completion of work. However, if necessary, he can help the team with advice, while not interfering in the process of their work.
This kind of leadership can be effective when the leader monitors the work of people and maintains regular communication with members of his team. Also, such leadership is effective if the individual members of your team are experienced, independent and proactive people.
The main advantage of non-participatory leadership is that team members are more satisfied with their work due to their freedom and autonomy, which increases productivity.
The disadvantage of this leadership style can be the disorganization of team members, their inexperience and lack of motivation to work, which can harm the effectiveness of work.
8. Problem-Based Leadership
Problem-oriented leaders are focused on getting the job done, which is similar to autocratic leadership. They actively designate the scope of work, distribute responsibilities, structure work, plan, organize and control its implementation. Such leaders also perform other tasks, such as creating and maintaining performance standards.
The advantage of problem-based leadership is that it ensures that work is completed on time, and it is especially needed when your team members are not able to rationally plan their time.
However, with problem-based leadership, very little attention is paid to the team itself, which entails the same problems as in autocratic leadership: a decrease in motivation and staff turnover.
Advice:
In practice, most leaders combine problem-based and person-based leadership.
9. Charismatic leadership
Charismatic leadership is somewhat similar to transformational leadership, because such leaders inspire and energize their team, arouse enthusiasm for work. This ability to arouse desire and enthusiasm is a great advantage.
The difference between charismatic and transformational leadership lies in the role of the leader. Transformational leaders seek to transform their team and organization as a whole. A charismatic leader focuses on himself. He may not want to change anything in the team or organization.
The disadvantage of such a leader is that he believes more in himself than in his team. In addition, with the departure of such a leader, the entire organization may suffer. A charismatic leader is confident that he always does everything right, even if other employees point out his shortcomings. Such overconfidence can harm both the team and the organization as a whole.
In the eyes of everyone around, the success of an organization depends entirely on the presence of a charismatic leader. Therefore, charismatic leadership involves great responsibility and requires continued cooperation from the leader.
10. Transformational Leadership
As discussed earlier in this article, transformational leadership is the best way to run a business.
Transformational leaders expect 100% return from each team member and themselves in particular, and also motivate their colleagues. With this leadership style, high productivity and the involvement of each team member are very common phenomena.
The downside of transformational leadership is that not only does the team need support, but it's also important for the leader to have someone they can rely on.
Therefore, it is very common to combine business and transformational leadership. Business leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done to a high standard, while transformational leaders support the initiative of employees and bring variety to work.
It is also important to resort to other leadership styles when necessary. The choice of style, in this case, will depend on the people with whom you work and the situation as a whole.
- Leadership, Management, Company management
The Business Insider portal has compiled a ranking of 100 leaders of the modern business era who actually create business and advanced technologies. The full list can be found. We have selected for you 20 business leaders of our time, ranked from 20th to 1st.
20. Jeff Bezos, creator and CEO of Amazon
Bezos started his company in a garage in 1994. Since then, it has grown from a small online book retailer to an international trading platform. The success of the brainchild of Bezos guaranteed a unique approach to work, improvement of logistics and delivery systems. To date, the Amazon site sells almost everything, and its annual sales have reached $100 billion.
19. Alex Lasky, Daniel Yates, founders of Opower
Alex and Daniel introduced their Opower service in 2007. Opower is a user-friendly, cloud-based software designed for use in the energy sector. Today, this development is used by half of the world's leading energy companies. The company engages customers (both companies and individuals) in the process of energy consumption through the presence of a digital platform that implements the analysis of data and behavioral factors. Opower employs 500 people.
18. Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway
As an investor, Warren Buffett needs no introduction. He is the third richest person in the world. Buffett acquired his company Berkshire Hathaway in 1969, and after that he became the owner of shares in many well-known companies. In addition, Warren Buffett is also a well-known philanthropist.
17. Rose Marcaria, CEO of Patagonia
Rose took over Patagonia in 2014 and tripled her profits during her tenure. First of all, she introduced cost savings and reduced the number of expenses. In addition, Marcaria's approach to management is known for its loyalty to employees.
16. Kristen Richmond and Kirsten Tobey, CEO and CIO Revolution Foods
The company of Kristen Richmond and Kirsten Tobey aims to improve the nutrition of American students and schoolchildren, who very often opt for unhealthy snacks. Food from Revolution Foods contains no dyes and is always served fresh. Revolution Foods provides food to over 200,000 schools.
15. Neil Blumenthal and David Gilboa, creators of Warby Parker
When Neil and David launched their Warby Parker designer glasses online store, no one believed in the success of this venture. However, the sale of accessories at a discount and an active social position brought success to the company.
14. Cyrus Punawalla, Founder and Chairman, Serum Institute of India
The institute, established by Punavalla, is developing vaccines for various diseases - tetanus, polio, measles, hepatitis B, etc. Serums are sold in 140 countries around the world. In 2015, Cyrus Punawalla intended to sell a 10% stake in the Serum Institute of India in order to donate the proceeds to charity.
13. Peder Holk Nielsen, CEO Novozymes
The global population will reach 9 billion by 2050. That is why the industry now needs to increase the pace of production. This is what the Danish biotechnology company Novozymes is doing, offering solutions for several industries, including households, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and more.
12. Kim Jordan, founder of New Belgium Brewing Company
Kim founded the company that brought her success 25 years ago with her husband. New Belgium Brewing Company specializes in the production of craft beer. Employees of the company own 100% of the shares and, in addition, receive gifts from the management, the right to go on sabbaticals and other "goodies".
11. Blake Mykosky, Founder of Toms
Toms is known not only for its footwear production, but also for its deep social mission. Blake Mycoskie, by selling one pair of shoes, giving the other free to children, funds the provision of clinics and families with clean water. At the same time, his company remains profitable.
10. Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever
After Paul Polman took over as CEO of Unilever in 2009, he turned his attention to the company's social initiatives. The main goal of the corporation is to help people improve their health and reduce the harmful effects on the environment. "Green initiatives" help the company not only fulfill its mission, but also increase the number of loyal customers
9. Paul Tudor Jones, founder of Tudor Investment Corporation
When it comes to money, Paul Tudor Jones knows exactly what to do. He became famous throughout the world for his accurate prediction of the stock market crash in 1987, and later founded an investment company. Each year, under the leadership of Jones, a list of 1,000 non-profit organizations is compiled, based not on profit, but on values.
8. Salman Khan, founder of Khan Academy
Salman Khan never thought he would become an educator, but in 2009 he founded a non-profit organization offering free online video lessons. Khan's main goal is to close the gap between the rich and the poor in the right to education.
7. Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX
Musk is an entrepreneur who is revolutionizing life and technology. He has created a machine that can run without gasoline, and is already considering flights to Mars.
6. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google
Prior to its worldwide fame, Google was a research project of two students. 20 years later, Brin and Page's company became the most valuable company in the world and acquired the status of a Silicon Valley legend.
5. Bill and Melinda Gates, founders of Microsoft
Bill Gates became successful and famous thanks to the creation of Microsoft Corporation. However, in addition to business, he and his wife Melinda are actively involved in charitable activities, fund funds to combat various diseases, etc.
4. Marc Benioff, founder of Salesforce
In addition to his commercial activities, Marc Benioff donates a lot of money to the construction of educational institutions. In addition, he defends the rights of his own employees. When the company discovered in 2015 that male employees were making more money than women, Benioff spent $3 million to make up the difference.
3. Michael Josef, Head of Mobile Money, Vodafone
When Josef got a job at Vodafone in 2000, the company had 18,000 subscribers, and ten years later this figure reached 17 million. A key factor in increasing the subscriber base was the development of the M-Pesa payment system under Josef's leadership.
2. Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks
Howard managed to create a company that for more than three decades held the leadership in the coffee market. In addition, Starbucks, under Schultz's leadership, was actively involved in resolving social issues.
1. Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook
Zuckerberg managed to launch a service that turned from a simple university application into a global communication platform. Facebook is one of the most sought after places to work. And Zuckerberg himself, after the birth of his daughter, promised to give 99% of his fortune to charity.
What is a charismatic leader...
"Charisma", "charismatic leader", "charismatic leadership" - these extremely popular concepts are overgrown with the most outlandish interpretations. It is known that in translation from ancient Greek, "charisma" is "mercy, divine gift, grace." The expression "charismatic personality" or "he has charisma" means that a person is endowed with a special ability to lead and even inspire people to exploits. However, authoritative researchers are skeptical about the term "charismatic leader". James McGregor Burns, for example, avoided it, considering it too abstract. He preferred to speak of "heroic leadership", defining it as faith in the leader's personality, regardless of his abilities, experience and position. Consider specific examples of charismatic leadership in business and politics.
...in business
There are several names in corporate history that cause, if not awe, then special reverence. Among them is the name of Henry Ford, one of the founders of the US automobile industry. According to Boris Shpotov, a biographer of the magnate, "Ford was a master of organizing public opinion in favor of his business", he "before many businessmen realized the importance of good relations with the press and targeted influence on public opinion." To this end, he was friends with journalists, published a corporate newspaper, made documentaries about the company, and organized tours of the plant. Henry Ford wrote several books that are rightfully included in the golden fund of business literature. And most importantly, people liked him, he knew how to present himself in such a way that his shortcomings looked like virtues.
However, just because Henry Ford was a good publicist doesn't mean he was a good leader. Apparently, he did not understand the meaning of the word "manager". Ford was one of the pioneers of big business who strove, if not to do everything with their own hands, then to completely control everything. Peter Drucker and John Kenneth Galbraith independently investigated the causes of the actual bankruptcy of the Ford Corporation during World War II and came to a joint conclusion: Henry Ford, the founder and owner of the corporation, sought to "make billions by running the company alone, without the help of managers."
To do this, he fired the best managers, and removed the rest from decision-making. As a result, things went so badly that the government seriously considered nationalizing the corporation. Henry Ford died in 1947, leaving his grandson and heir, Henry Ford II, a near-bankrupt corporation that needed to be rescued urgently.
This case is also interesting because it reveals the meaning of the concept of "managerial revolution". When people talk about it, they usually have in mind two phenomena: the transfer of power in large corporations from owners to hired managers, and the increased influence of large corporations on government decisions. Viewed in this context, the managerial revolution in the West began in the first decades of the 20th century, although it was not recognized until the 1940s. It was at the beginning of the 20th century that the transfer of power in corporations from the hands of a charismatic owner (Ford, Morgan, Carnegie, Krupp, Siemens, Daimler) into the hands of a professional, but not always charismatic manager took place.
An extensive literature is devoted to the problem of leadership in management. For example, Edwards Deming believed that leadership should be established "at all levels of the corporate hierarchy". But the purpose of leadership, in his understanding, is to "help people do better work with less effort." Does the manager performing this task also need to be a charismatic leader? Most likely, this is optional. He must be an innovator and a good organizer, enjoy the authority of his subordinates.
There are cases when a manager who does not stand out from the general mass is forced to become a leader of public opinion. This happened, for example, with Lee Iacocca, who rose to prominence during the financial crisis of the Crysler Corporation. Thanks to his charisma and ability to negotiate, he managed to convince bankers and officials to delay the fulfillment of the corporation's financial obligations. True, it is not known what helped him more - charisma or the ability to negotiate.
The need to combine leadership in public opinion with real management sometimes leads to a tandem of leaders, one of whom becomes the leader of public opinion, and the other is engaged in operational management. It was the same at Ford Corporation. Henry Ford worked with public opinion, and his partner James Cousins was in charge of operational management. Cusins was a talented manager, a true professional. It was he who introduced fixed wages in the company and saved it from staff turnover. In 1917, Henry Ford, who was striving for sole control of the company, fired an associate.
It should be recognized that most managers, including very talented and even outstanding ones, do not possess and do not strive to possess charismatic qualities. Jack Welch, a former director of General Electric, defined the role of a business leader as follows: "leaders work harder than others, enjoy it, although not immediately, and ultimately cultivate self-esteem and self-confidence by doing more than ever thought possible."
This is the definition of leadership in the competitive struggle, at the sprint distance, and not charismatic leadership. Charisma for such a leader can become a complementary, but not a defining quality.
...in politics
The desire of political leaders to make a favorable impression is understandable. However, the most effective of them are able to distinguish between the spheres of public policy and the real management of political and social processes. One of the clearest examples of charismatic leadership in politics is the 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. There was even a recently published book, The Kennedy Effect, which, of course, is all about charisma and how to develop it.
John F. Kennedy was indeed a charismatic leader. It is not known whether he would have become the President of the United States if not for the phenomenon of television. By the way, then, during the 1960 election campaign, the first televised debate between the presidential candidates, the young Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon, took place. Marshall McLuhan noted that Kennedy looked like "a shy young sheriff" and that Nixon "with his very dark eyes, which tend to fixate on something, looked more like a railroad lawyer signing leases that did not suit the interests of ordinary people in a small town." In the presidential election in 1960, John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon by a narrow margin of 119,000 votes, despite the fact that 69 million voters took part in the elections.
Kennedy's reign is considered by Americans to be one of the most unfortunate of the 20th century. He never succeeded in getting Congress to pass two key bills of his program: to reduce income tax rates and to protect civil rights. The John F. Kennedy administration failed to achieve any real results in both foreign and domestic policy. Only the resolution of the Caribbean crisis is recognized as the only real achievement of this administration. Some observers argue that the crisis was overcome not because of, but in spite of, the administration's actions. In other words, President Kennedy did not / could not become / was not allowed to become (in politics they are the same thing) change leader. Be that as it may, the 35th President of the United States began to enjoy popular love only after his tragic death.
Many have probably forgotten that the "father of perestroika" Mikhail Gorbachev, after being appointed First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1985, had incredible popularity in all sectors of society. The young smiling public politician, who easily (so it seemed) communicated with people in the squares, impressed the general public. But the growing criticism and the catastrophic situation in the economy did their job - from a charismatic leader, Mikhail Gorbachev quickly turned into a functionary hated by everyone. Former chairman of the KGB of the USSR and one of the leaders of the State Emergency Committee Vladimir Kryuchkov recalled: “I happened to be present more than once during conversations in Gorbachev’s narrow circle, including with those who actively supported him in perestroika, which usually disposed to frankness. The thought took possession of me more and more, and over time I came to the conclusion that Gorbachev was only pretending that he knew what the state was leading to. A firm opinion was created that Gorbachev was acting at random at best. And the more I was convinced of this, the more uneasy I became. Such an opinion about the head of state was formed not only by his associates, but also by opponents, obvious friends and secret enemies. Is it any wonder that the President of the USSR got rid of as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
Mythopoeic concept
In Rome, in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli, there is the famous sculpture of Moses by Michelangelo. In terms of popularity, it is second only to the Florentine David. “In every muscle of the body, in every fold of clothing, the stern, primitive strength character of the great shepherd of the peoples is inscribed. The double glow of rays around the head, the indelible mark left by the vision of Jehovah on the forehead of the prophet, is striking in its resemblance to the double pointed horns of a goat. This emblem of wild energy and animal strength gives a formidable, striking expression to the face of a colossus” – this is how the art critic S. M. Brilliant describes this work. In this sense, Moses is a true charismatic leader, a mediator between divine revelation and the people. But most importantly, Moses leans on the tablet with his right hand. As you know, he not only led the Jewish people out of Egypt, but also handed them the Law, the religious code, which, with slight variations, is still valid today. In other words, Moses was not just a charismatic leader, he became, as they would say today, leader of change. He was able not only to change the life of his people, but also to predetermine their history for many centuries to come. This is an example, as they say, for all time. A charismatic leader achieves a goal only if he can use his charisma as a means of change.
Joan of Arc (c. 1412-1431) is considered a classic example of heroic (charismatic) leadership. Her story is incredibly complicated due to the lack of reliable information. Many documents and evidence of that time have been destroyed, many are still classified. Therefore, we are dealing here rather than with a real historical heroine, but with a character from a legend. Jeanne was an extraordinary personality and could inspire people to exploits. She won her first victory at the head of a seven thousandth army near Orleans and therefore she began to be called the Maid of Orleans. After a series of brilliant military victories and (oh than it is customary to mention in the official biography), a series of defeats, the king began to consider Joan as a threat to his rule. Through intrigue and direct betrayal, she was extradited to the British, who (then it was customary) accused her of witchcraft and burned her at the stake. However, there are versions that Joan of Arc survived. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Catholic Church canonized the Virgin of Orleans as a saint.
For centuries, disputes about the personality and historical role of Joan of Arc did not stop. For example, Voltaire dedicated the satirical poem “The Virgin of Orleans” to his compatriot, where he awarded her with such epithets, of which “harlot” is perhaps the most acceptable for the style of this publication .In the opinion James McGregor Burns, Joan of Arc "remains more the heroine of history than its creator." And this is the most severe assessment of her activities, which is worth all the insults of Voltaire. Joan of Arc could not, did not want and probably did not set herself the goal of changing society or overestimate its value. She could not stop the war, drive the invaders out of France, turn the tide of history. All she could do was inspire, but this was not enough to win.
In this article, Joan of Arc could have been dispensed with if modern women politicians had not been so intrusively compared with her. It is unlikely that anyone would think of likening German Chancellor Angela Merkel to her, but Yulia Tymoshenko is quite compared with her often For example, theater director Anatoly Khostikoev promised to stage the rock opera Joan of Arc, the prototype of which should be Lady Yu. which parallels are drawn between Joan of Arc and the leader of the BYuT.
What do they want to emphasize with these comparisons? Well-wishers, obviously, point to Tymoshenko's charisma, her symbolic role on the Ukrainian political scene, her ability to lead, sacrifice, while ill-wishers point to her doom. It should be noted that none of these qualities has anything to do with transformational leadership, much less effective leadership.
A few additional notes
What is "charismatic leadership" really? A concept from the popular psychological literature? PR training agencies, many of which have made "charisma building" training their calling card? Or is it really a mythopoetic concept?
The term "charismatic domination" first appeared in sociological texts and is especially fully developed in the works Max Weber. He believed that "a charismatic leader is considered to be an internally 'called' leader of the people, and the latter obey him not by virtue of custom or institution, but because they believe in him." Historically, Weber associated such leaders with the figures of "the magician and the prophet, the elected prince-commander, the leader of the gang, the condottiere (mercenary knight)." Thus, the concept of "charisma" and everything that goes with it, including charismatic leadership, is a sociological concept at the service of political and business consulting. For many years, this topic has been actively exploited by the authors of popular psychological texts. Recently, there has been a tendency to use the expressions “passionary” or “passionary leader” instead of the words “charismatic leader”. This is facilitated by the popularity of Lev Gumilyov's books. But if you carefully analyze what he wrote about passionaries, it becomes clear that passionarity is a quality that is at a greater distance from efficiency than charisma. “The impulse of passionarity can be so strong,” wrote Lev Gumilyov, - that the carriers of this sign, passionaries, cannot force themselves to calculate the consequences of their actions. In the book Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth, he gives examples of passionate personalities: Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Jan Hus, Archpriest Avvakum and the already mentioned Jeanne d "Arc. Religious leaders Jan Hus, Archpriest Avvakum and the charismatic Jeanne d" Arc were burned alive by their enemies. Napoleon died in exile (there are versions that he was poisoned). Whether the fates of the conqueror Alexander the Great and the dictator Sulla were happy, I propose to judge for the reader himself.
conclusions
In any situation, there are people who will not notice any charisma in a charismatic leader or consider that this quality is not enough for real management. Nearly half of US voters in 1960 preferred "railroad lawyer" Nixon to "young sheriff" Kennedy. And after John F. Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon Johnson, served as presidents, Nixon was not only able to return to the political scene, but also triumphantly win the presidential election in 1968.
Max Weber wrote that if a leader "has a long history of failure, and besides, his leadership ceases to benefit followers, then his charismatic dominance is likely to disappear." The example of Gorbachev is indicative in this sense.
A leader who is considered charismatic may not have power at all, despite his enormous influence. Joan of Arc, Alexander Kerensky, Hetman Skoropadsky, Georgy Zhukov, Leon Trotsky, Che Guevara - all these charismatic leaders either could not claim power, or were very quickly removed from it.
Peter Drucker said in an interview with a Russian publication: “I don't believe in leaders. All this hype around them is dangerous nonsense. This is empty talk. Forget about it. It saddens me to see that after the 20th century with its Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who were considered leaders (perhaps the greatest leaders of the last centuries), people are still striving to find leaders, knowing about such terrible examples of "false" leaders. It is worth asking questions: “What are their ideals? What are their values? Can we trust them? Do they have charisma? In my opinion, we have more than enough charisma over the past hundred years.
And yet, charismatic leadership objectively exists, but belief in charisma as an indispensable attribute of an effective leader or politician is a false concept, an ideological media virus that has infected the worldview of millions of people. Whether this concept will be overcome or whether it will become dominant in the science of management, the future will show.
Throughout the history of mankind, people with a strong will, as if gifted from above with some kind of charisma, decided the fate of other people, countries, the world, established their own order and power, and many of them, even after death, still continue to influence socio-political life. .
Types of power
Considering the concept of "power" as a general sociological category, it is customary to distinguish three types of management. This is legal (lawful-rational), traditional, charismatic power. In science, they are usually called ideal types. Such a division was once proposed by the famous German sociologist and historian M. Weber. It should be noted that charismatic leaders often have two sociological characteristics: they are mostly people from the periphery, and sometimes even citizens of another state, and in almost one hundred percent of cases they come to power not legally, but through usurpation or as a result of existing critical circumstances.
Charismatic power as an ideal type
Charismatic power was defined by Max Weber as one of the ideal types. In his research, he does not pay enough attention to how a particular leader becomes a ruler and remains so, preferring to explore more the relationship between citizens and leaders, that is, the so-called social factors.
Thus, M. Weber determines that traditional power is based on the fact that citizens automatically agree to this system precisely because of its existence. This means that people emotionally and often contrary to the effectiveness of the system continue to maintain the existing order. On the contrary, lawful-rational government, precisely because of its effectiveness, maintains in citizens the belief in the legitimacy of government, which gives people conviction in the justice of such power.
Leader as the basis of charismatic power
Charismatic power is based solely on the ability of the leader, and often it does not matter whether these qualities are real or imaginary. Weber in his works does not define what exactly is meant by this concept. With regard to a charismatic personality, he implies that this is a kind of leader with supernatural and superhuman qualities, or at least exceptional abilities and capabilities. Thus, religious figures fall under the concept of charismatics, but the question of whether these leaders had real power remains open. According to Weber, the main characteristic of charismatic power is the presence of an acute social crisis; in fact, the scientist does not consider that the leader's popularity can arise without this.
Subsequent researchers have significantly expanded the scope of such a concept as "charisma". If initially this concept was associated exclusively with a certain “divine gift”, then already in the works that the recognized charismatic leaders themselves left behind, the explanation of this phenomenon is not limited to a supernatural manifestation. Points of view on this issue are extremely different. For example, Marxist determinism connects the appearance of such people with the will of a society that requires change, rejecting the role of the individual himself. And vice versa, such an ideal charismatic leader as French President Charles de Gaulle fully supports the theory of the exclusive role of the individual himself in this or that crisis period, which he directly writes about in his book On the Edge of the Sword.
Characteristics of this type of power
The set of distinctive properties as a characteristic of charismatic power is manifested in the following points:
- Extremely personal character.
- Non-historical, that is, the leader often does not adhere to any stereotypes, rules and even laws that existed before.
- Alienation of charismatic power from purely practical and everyday problems, in particular from the economy. Indiscriminate methods in economic problems - often the charismatic power prefers not to collect taxes, but to take away funds, confiscate and expropriate them, trying to give these actions a legal look.
signs
Signs of charismatic power will manifest themselves in the following form:
- Public sharing of ideas, future accomplishments and support of the leader, followers connect personal plans with the activities of the organization.
- The optimism and high degree of enthusiasm of supporters, each of whom is actually trying to become a charismatic leader of the "lower order".
- The central place in any social relationship is given to the leader. Thus, it creates the feeling that the leader is everywhere and takes part in any social event.
Pros and Cons of Establishing Charismatic Authority
Legitimacy, that is, the consent of citizens to such a rule, arises as soon as a sufficiently large number of people are ready to become followers of their leader. There is no more personal form of government than the charismatic type of government. The power acquired by the leader surrounds him with a peculiar aura and helps him to believe more and more in his abilities, which, in turn, attracts an increasing number of adherents. But a charismatic leader would not be one if he did not feel the needs of people.
It is leadership power, charismatic in nature, that acquires serious significance in such conditions when radical changes are needed or in an environment that is not adapted for this, is inert due to ingrained culture and traditions, and often has been in a state of stagnation for a long time. However, it is rather unstable due to the fact that the leader must consistently demonstrate his strength and exclusivity, manage and simultaneously solve more and more new tasks, and with resounding success. Otherwise, even from a single failure, the leader in the eyes of followers may lose attractiveness, which means a loss of legitimacy.
In addition, this type of power has both positive aspects and disadvantages. The main negative parameter is that power, charismatic in its essence, is at the same time a usurpation, moreover, forcing the ruler himself to delve into and solve almost all everyday and even the smallest domestic issues of the state. However, if the leader can cope with these tasks, there is a serious positive effect associated with the fact that the government actually satisfies the majority of public interests.
Characteristics of a charismatic leader
At a minimum, a charismatic person must have a number of features that can be called basic:
- energy, that is, the ability to "radiate" and "charge" the energy of the surrounding people;
- impressive colorful appearance, which implies attractiveness, not beauty (often leaders of this type have physical defects);
- a high degree of independence, primarily from the opinions of others;
- excellent oratory skills;
- absolute and unshakable confidence in yourself and your own actions.
Examples of Charismatic Leaders
Charismatic leaders were originally characterized by Max Weber as religious personalities, but capable of changing the social life of society. There is no doubt that both Jesus Christ and the Prophet Muhammad were charismatic persons who still influence today. But being a charismatic person and being a charismatic leader are two completely different things. In the future, the sociologist George Barnes slightly corrected the concept, and at the moment for those whom we are used to calling charismatic leaders, another definition is more appropriate, namely, “heroic leader”.
Such heroic personalities were Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Lenin and Stalin, Hitler and de Gaulle. These people, who have completely different abilities, are vivid examples of charismatics who have become heroic leaders in critical events. In this context, it is very difficult to call large manufacturing leaders such as Henry Ford or Bill Gates charismatic leaders, although they certainly have charisma. In total, we can add to this some classic examples of charismatic (heroic) leaders who in reality had minimal power, showing their influence more through the support of supporters - Jeanne d, Arc, Marshal Zhukov, Che Guevara. History knows many examples when power, charismatic and legitimate, generally ended in a complete defeat of both the leader himself and his ideas, and served as an instrument for the death of states and the reorganization of the world order. This is undoubtedly Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Mikhail Gorbachev.
Of the living charismatic leaders, only one person can be fully attributed to this concept without any reservations - Fidel Castro, who, undoubtedly, even after the resignation of power, is an extremely influential leader both among his own people and in the world social environment.