charismatic leadership case study

• Browse Topics
• Executive Committee
• Affiliated Faculty
• Harvard Negotiation Project
• Great Negotiator
• American Secretaries of State Project
• Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
• Negotiation Programs
• Mediation Programs
• One-Day Programs
• In-House Training – Inquiry Form
• In-Person Programs
• Online Programs
• Advanced Materials Search
• Contact Information
• The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Negotiation Journal
• Harvard Negotiation Law Review
• Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
• 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Event Series
• Our Mission
• Keyword Index

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.

Charismatic Leadership: Weighing the Pros and Cons

Charismatic leadership was once promoted as a cure-all for struggling organizations. but recent research and theory suggest potential downsides to putting a charismatic leader in charge..

By Katie Shonk — on August 8th, 2024 / Leadership Skills

Jack Welch. Lee Iacocca. Ronald Reagan. Steve Jobs. Sam Walton.

These prominent leaders from the 1980s embodied a leadership style held up at the time as highly desirable and effective: charismatic leadership.

Leadership trends wax and wane, and charismatic leadership has more recently taken a back seat to less hierarchical and paternalistic leadership styles , such as participative leadership and facilitative leadership . But as long as charismatic leaders such as Elon Musk and Donald Trump continue to hold and seek power, the benefits and pitfalls of charismatic leadership deserve consideration.

Claim your FREE copy: Real Leaders Negotiate

If you aspire to be a great leader, not just a boss, start here: Download our FREE Special Report, Real Leaders Negotiate: Understanding the Difference between Leadership and Management , from Harvard Law School.

What Is Charismatic Leadership?

In his 1947 book, Theory of Social and Economic Organization , German sociologist Max Weber defined charisma as a “gift” that leads a person to be “treated as a leader” based on their perceived “supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities” that are “not accessible to the ordinary person.”

In the 1970s, management scholar Robert House developed his charismatic leadership theory , which describes leaders who “by force of their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers.” These effects, he wrote, include “commanding loyalty and devotion” and “inspiring followers to accept and execute the will of the leader without hesitation or question or regard to one’s self-interest.” Charismatic leaders, House wrote, are often enlisted to “break with the established order” and to accomplish “major social change.”

Early writings on charismatic leadership, House noted, described the charismatic leader as prompting an emotional response in followers that inspires them to “enthusiastically give unquestioned obedience, loyalty, commitment and devotion to the leader and to the cause that the leader represents.” Through their self-confidence, charismatic leaders were thought to motivate followers to pursue organizational goals more confidently.

The Downside of Charismatic Leadership

By 1996, charismatic leadership had become the “predominant paradigm in organizational leadership theory and research,” wrote University of Alabama researcher J. Bryan Fuller and his coauthors in a research review of the topic for Psychological Reports . But although everyone seems to know charisma when they see it, “the ambiguity of the phenomenon and the difficulty of its measure have hindered researchers from firmly comprehending it,” they wrote.

As a result, pitfalls of charismatic leadership may have been overlooked. Anecdotal evidence from business, government, and beyond suggest charismatic leadership can trigger both the best and worst of humankind. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, drew on his charisma to encourage his followers to push for needed social change, while Adolf Hitler used his charisma to motivate his followers to scapegoat others and commit evil acts.

Because charisma is rooted in emotional manipulation, it can lead followers to abandon rational thought and accept ideas uncritically, writes organizational psychologist Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic in a 2012 Harvard Business Review article . In addition, he writes, charismatic leaders tend to become “addicted” to the unquestioning approval of their followers, which distorts their judgment and distracts them from their goals. Followers, in turn, “become addicted to the leader’s charisma.” The result is a “reciprocal dependence” that leads both parties to “distort reality,” according to Chamorro-Premuzic.

Is Charismatic Leadership Effective?

In 2017, Jasmine Vergauwe of Gent University and her colleagues tried to quantify the overall effectiveness of charismatic leadership by conducting three studies on a total of 800 business leaders and about 7,500 of their superiors, peers, and subordinates. In one study, they gave leaders a personality assessment that measured four indicators of charisma (namely, how bold, colorful, mischievous, and imaginative they were). Those who scored as more charismatic were also perceived as highly charismatic by their subordinates, the researchers found.

In a second study, leaders’ charisma was assessed, and their coworkers rated their overall effectiveness on a 10-point scale. “As charisma increased, so did perceived effectiveness—but only up to a certain point,” write Vergauwe and her team in Harvard Business Review . When leaders scored above the 60th percentile on charisma (just above average for the general population of working adults), their effectiveness began to decline in the eyes of their subordinates, peers, and supervisors. (Perhaps not surprisingly, the more charismatic leaders were, the higher they rated their own effectiveness.)

In a third study, the researchers found that highly charismatic leaders were strategically ambitious but had difficulty realizing their vision due to difficulties managing day-to-day operations. The opposite was true for those lower in charisma: They may have been competent at execution but didn’t spend enough time on long-term planning and promoting innovation.

The Bottom Line on Charismatic Leadership

Charisma in a leader can be linked to innovation and breakthroughs. Yet highly charismatic leaders are prone to overconfidence; eccentricity; and attention-seeking, manipulative behavior, Vergauwe and colleagues conclude. Coaching, training, and feedback from coworkers might help these leaders more accurately assess their strengths and weaknesses, they suggest.

Chamorro-Premuzic, meanwhile, advises organizations to avoid the “charisma trap” by choosing leaders based on unbiased assessment tools and by considering “hidden talent”—those who may not self-nominate themselves for leadership roles.

What pros and/or cons of charismatic leadership have you observed on the job?

Related Posts

• How Collaborative Leadership Helped Former Competitors Profit
• Directive Leadership: When It Does—and Doesn’t—Work
• Counteracting Negotiation Biases Like Race and Gender in the Workplace
• What Is Collective Leadership?
• The Trait Theory of Leadership

Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Negotiation and Leadership

• Download Program Guide: Fall 2024 Spring 2025
• Register Online: Fall 2024 Spring 2025
• Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

• Download Program Guide: November 2024
• Register Online: November 2024
• Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

• Download Program Guide: December 2024 and June 2025
• Register Online: December 2024 June 2025
• Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

• Download Program Guide: February 2025
• Register Online: February 2025
• Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Select Your Free Special Report

• Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) December 2024 and June 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation Essentials In-House Program Guide
• Negotiation Master Class November 2024 Program Guide
• Beyond the Back Table February 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
• Make the Most of Online Negotiations
• Managing Multiparty Negotiations
• Getting the Deal Done
• Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

• Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

• Michael Scott, Negotiation Genius? Lessons from TV Negotiations
• BATNA and Other Sources of Power at the Negotiation Table
• BATNA Strategy: Should You Reveal Your BATNA?
• Take your BATNA to the Next Level
• Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
• Negotiation Advice for Buying a Car: Tips for Improving Your Negotiating Position
• 10 Great Examples of Negotiation in Business
• Top 10 Notable Negotiations of 2022
• Negotiation Preparation Strategies
• Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations
• Case Study of Conflict Management: To Resolve Disputes and Manage Conflicts, Assume a Neutral 3rd Party Role
• Pros and Cons of Email Communication
• 3 Types of Conflict and How to Address Them
• What is Conflict Resolution, and How Does It Work?
• How to Manage Conflict at Work
• Crisis Negotiation Lessons: The U.S.-Russia Prisoner Swap
• What is Crisis Management in Negotiation?
• Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
• Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
• AI Negotiation in the News
• Trust and Honesty in Negotiations: Dealing with Dishonest Negotiators
• Bargaining in Bad Faith: Dealing with “False Negotiators”
• How to Renegotiate a Bad Deal
• Consensus-Building Techniques
• How to Manage Difficult Staff: Gen Z Edition
• 7 Tips for Closing the Deal in Negotiations
• MESO Negotiation: The Benefits of Making Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers in Business Negotiations
• What Leads to Renegotiation?
• Does Your Negotiation Process Need Improvement?
• 5 Dealmaking Tips for Closing the Deal
• Cultural Barriers and Conflict Negotiation Strategies: Apple’s Apology in China
• What is Dispute System Design?
• Settling Out of Court: Negotiating in the Shadow of the Law
• What are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? What to Know About Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation
• Four Conflict Negotiation Strategies for Resolving Value-Based Disputes
• Political Negotiation: Negotiating with Bureaucrats
• International Arbitration: What it is and How it Works
• Diplomatic Negotiations: The Surprising Benefits of Conflict and Teamwork at the Negotiation Table
• The Importance of Relationship Building in China
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations and the Importance of Communication in International Business Deals
• Why is Negotiation Important: Mediation in Transactional Negotiations
• How Mediation Can Help Resolve Pro Sports Disputes
• The Mediation Process and Dispute Resolution
• What Makes a Good Mediator?
• AI Mediation: Using AI to Help Mediate Disputes
• Top 10 Negotiation Skills You Must Learn to Succeed
• Chatbot Negotiations: What Can AI Do for You?
• Identify Your Negotiation Style: Advanced Negotiation Strategies and Concepts
• The Benefits of Coalitions at the Bargaining Table
• Dear Negotiation Coach: Dealing with an Exploding Offer
• 10 Negotiation Training Skills Every Organization Needs
• 3-D Negotiation Strategy
• Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
• The Importance of a Relationship in Negotiation
• Collaborative Negotiation Examples: Tenants and Landlords
• How to Ask for a Salary Increase
• Negotiating a Salary When Compensation Is Public
• Salary Negotiation: How to Ask for a Higher Salary
• How to Counter a Job Offer: Avoid Common Mistakes
• Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage
• Negotiation Journal Now Open Access, New Issue Just Released!
• Teaching the Fundamentals: The Best Introductory Negotiation Role Play Simulations
• Teach Your Students to Negotiate a Management Crisis
• Learn from the Best with the Great Negotiator Case Studies
• The Best New Simulations
• For NFL Players, a Win-Win Negotiation Contract Only in Retrospect?
• Streaming Toward Win-Win Negotiation: Spotify Upgrades Its Negotiating Strategy
• What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
• How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
• Labor Negotiation Strategies

PON Publications

• Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
• New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
• Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
• Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
• Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
• Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

Copyright © 2024 Negotiation Daily. All rights reserved.

Charismatic Leadership: The Magnetic Pull of Influence

By GGI Insights | September 9, 2024

Table of contents

In this article, we will unravel the intricacies of charismatic leadership , examining its definition, psychological profile, historical examples, and impact on teams, as well as its dark side, relevance in the corporate world, crisis management, and future prospects. We will also explore how one can develop charismatic traits through cultivation, communication techniques, and personal branding. Additionally, we will delve into the intersection of charisma and technology, its role in driving innovation, global charismatic movements, and ways to measure the impact of charismatic development. Let us embark on this journey to understand and appreciate the enigmatic allure of charismatic leadership.

Unpacking Charisma in Leadership

At the heart of charismatic leadership lies a unique set of qualities that set it apart from traditional models of leadership, including types of leadership such as autocratic leadership . Charismatic leaders possess an extraordinary ability to inspire and motivate others, drawing them towards a shared vision. Their magnetic presence, communication skills, and confidence create an indelible impact on their followers. These leadership qualities are fundamental to charismatic leadership and significantly contribute to the effectiveness and appeal of leaders who embody this style.

But what exactly defines charismatic leadership? It goes beyond just being a captivating speaker or having a magnetic personality. Charismatic leadership can be defined as a leadership style that involves a leader's ability to attract and influence others through their personal charm, appeal, and persuasive communication . It is not just about what they say, but how they say it.

When we think of charismatic leaders, names like Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Steve Jobs often come to mind. These individuals possessed a strong presence and exuded confidence, captivating their audience and fostering followership. But what is it about their psychological profile that made them so influential?

Unlock your business's full potential with gardenpatch. Their team of strategists specializes in transforming your operations for maximum efficiency and growth. Click here to drive growth through efficient operations!

Defining Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic leadership can be defined as a leadership style that involves a leader's ability to attract and influence others through their personal charm, appeal, and persuasive communication. A charismatic leader possesses a strong presence and exudes confidence, captivating their audience and fostering followership. These individuals often embody leadership qualities that enable them to connect deeply with people, create a strong sense of community, and inspire a shared vision for the future. Additionally, these leaders often engage in thought leadership , sharing innovative ideas and perspectives that challenge conventional thinking and inspire new ways of approaching problems and opportunities. Their ability to articulate visionary concepts and lead the way in intellectual thinking contributes significantly to their charismatic appeal.

Charismatic leaders have a unique ability to connect with people on a deep emotional level. They possess a natural charm that draws others towards them, making people feel seen, heard, and understood. Their communication style is not just about conveying information, but about creating a sense of belonging and shared purpose.

When charismatic leaders speak, they have a way of making their audience feel inspired and motivated. They are able to paint a vivid picture of the future they envision, igniting a sense of passion and excitement in their followers. Their words have the power to move people to action, to make them believe that they can be part of something greater than themselves.

Psychological Profile of Charismatic Leaders

What makes charismatic leaders so influential? Research suggests that charismatic leaders often possess a unique blend of innate personal qualities, including high self-esteem, strong self-efficacy, and a magnetic personality. In addition to these qualities, the concept of servant leadership is increasingly recognized as a significant aspect of their psychological profile. It is not just about their external charisma, but also their internal beliefs and mindset.

Charismatic leaders have a strong sense of self-belief. They have high levels of self-esteem, which allows them to project confidence and inspire confidence in others. They believe in their own abilities and have a deep conviction in the vision they are pursuing. This unwavering belief is contagious, spreading to those around them and motivating them to strive for greatness.

In addition to their self-belief, charismatic leaders are skilled at reading and understanding others. They have a keen sense of empathy and emotional intelligence, which enables them to connect with people on a deeper level. They are able to sense the needs and desires of their followers, tailoring their communication to resonate with their audience.

Charismatic leaders possess excellent communication skills. They are able to articulate their ideas clearly and passionately, using persuasive language and storytelling techniques to engage their audience. They have a natural ability to captivate and hold the attention of others, making them effective communicators and influencers.

Charismatic leadership is a powerful style of leadership that goes beyond traditional models. It is characterized by a leader's ability to attract and influence others through their personal charm, appeal, and persuasive communication. Charismatic leaders possess a unique blend of innate personal qualities, including high self-esteem, strong self-efficacy, and a magnetic personality. They are skilled at reading and understanding others, tailoring their communication to connect deeply with their audience. Through their presence and communication skills, charismatic leaders create an indelible impact on their followers, inspiring and motivating them towards a shared vision.

Historical Examples of Charismatic Leaders

Throughout history, charismatic leaders have emerged, leaving an indelible mark on the world. Their influence has shaped nations, inspired movements, and brought about significant change. Let us explore a few key examples of charismatic leaders and their impact.

One such charismatic leader who made a profound impact on the world stage was Nelson Mandela. Mandela, the former President of South Africa, dedicated his life to fighting against apartheid and advocating for equality and justice. His charismatic leadership style, characterized by his ability to connect with people on a deep emotional level, allowed him to unite a divided nation and bring about the end of apartheid. Mandela's unwavering commitment to his cause and his ability to inspire hope and resilience in others have made him an iconic figure in the fight against oppression.

Mahatma Gandhi, another charismatic leader, played a pivotal role in India's struggle for independence from British rule. Gandhi's nonviolent resistance and his ability to mobilize millions of people through his charismatic speeches and actions made him a symbol of peaceful protest. His leadership style emphasized the power of unity and the importance of moral and ethical principles in achieving social and political change. Gandhi's legacy continues to inspire movements for justice and freedom around the world.

Martin Luther King Jr., a charismatic leader in the Civil Rights Movement, fought tirelessly for racial equality and justice in the United States. King's powerful speeches, such as his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, resonated with people across the nation and galvanized the Civil Rights Movement. His charismatic leadership style, characterized by his ability to articulate a compelling vision for a better future and his unwavering commitment to nonviolent protest, played a significant role in advancing the cause of civil rights in America.

Charismatic Leaders Who Shaped History

Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. are among the iconic figures who displayed charismatic leadership traits. These leaders mobilized masses, challenged oppression, and fought for justice, leaving an enduring legacy that continues to inspire generations.

Another example of a charismatic leader who left an indelible mark on history is Winston Churchill. As the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during World War II, Churchill's charismatic leadership style played a crucial role in rallying the British people and leading them through the darkest days of the war. His powerful speeches, such as his famous "We Shall Fight on the Beaches" address, inspired courage and determination in the face of adversity. Churchill's unwavering resolve and his ability to instill confidence in the nation made him a symbol of resilience and leadership.

Another charismatic leader who shaped history is Joan of Arc. Born in the 15th century, Joan of Arc was a French military leader who played a pivotal role in the Hundred Years' War. Her unwavering faith, courage, and ability to inspire others with her vision of a united France made her a charismatic figure. Despite facing numerous challenges and ultimately being captured and executed, Joan of Arc's leadership and bravery continue to inspire people around the world.

Case Studies of Charisma in Action

Examining specific case studies of charismatic leaders can provide valuable insights into the nuances of their leadership style. One such example is the transformational leadership of Steve Jobs at Apple Inc. His vision, passionate delivery, and ability to inspire a sense of purpose among his team propelled Apple into becoming one of the most influential companies in the world.

Steve Jobs' charismatic leadership style was characterized by his ability to think differently and challenge the status quo. His captivating product launches, such as the unveiling of the iPhone and iPad, captured the imagination of consumers and revolutionized the technology industry. Jobs' attention to detail, his relentless pursuit of perfection, and his ability to inspire his team to push boundaries and innovate set Apple apart from its competitors.

Another case study of charisma in action is the leadership of Oprah Winfrey. As a media mogul and philanthropist, Winfrey's charismatic presence and ability to connect with her audience have made her one of the most influential figures in the world. Her authentic and relatable style, combined with her passion for empowering others, have allowed her to build a media empire and create positive change through her various philanthropic endeavors.

These case studies highlight the diverse ways in which charismatic leaders can make a significant impact on their organizations and society as a whole. By examining their leadership styles and the strategies they employed, we can gain valuable insights into the power of charisma and its role in inspiring and mobilizing others towards a common goal.

Developing Charismatic Traits

While charisma may come naturally to some leaders, it is a skill that can be cultivated and nurtured. By developing personal leadership traits, individuals can enhance their ability to influence and inspire others.

Charismatic leaders possess a certain magnetism that draws people towards them. This personal magnetism is not something that is solely innate, but rather, it can be developed and strengthened over time. Cultivating personal magnetism involves a combination of self-confidence, effective communication skills, and the ability to connect with others on an emotional level.

Cultivating Personal Magnetism

Personal magnetism lies at the core of charismatic leadership. Developing self-confidence is a crucial step in enhancing one's personal magnetism. When leaders exude self-assurance, it instills trust and inspires others to follow their lead. Building self-confidence can be achieved through various means, such as setting and achieving goals, seeking feedback and constructive criticism, and continuously learning and growing.

In addition to self-confidence, improving communication skills is another key aspect of cultivating personal magnetism. Charismatic leaders are adept at expressing their thoughts and ideas clearly and persuasively. They possess the ability to captivate their audience through compelling storytelling, engaging rhetoric, and the power of their words. By honing their communication skills, individuals can enhance their personal magnetism and effectively convey their message to others.

Connecting with others on an emotional level is an essential component of personal magnetism. Charismatic leaders have the ability to empathize with the thoughts and feelings of those around them. They actively listen, show genuine interest, and make others feel valued and understood. By developing empathy and emotional intelligence, individuals can establish deeper connections with others, thereby enhancing their personal magnetism.

Communication Techniques of Influential Leaders

Effective communication is a cornerstone of charismatic leadership. Leaders who possess charisma have mastered the art of captivating storytelling, persuasive rhetoric, and empathetic listening. These communication techniques enable them to connect with their audience on a profound level and leave a lasting impact.

Storytelling is a powerful tool that charismatic leaders utilize to engage and inspire others. Through storytelling, leaders can convey their vision, values, and experiences in a way that resonates with their audience. By sharing personal anecdotes and narratives, they create a sense of connection and authenticity, making their message more relatable and memorable.

Persuasive rhetoric is another communication technique employed by influential leaders. Charismatic leaders have the ability to articulate their ideas and arguments in a compelling manner, persuading others to adopt their viewpoint. They use rhetorical devices, such as metaphors, analogies, and vivid language, to make their message more persuasive and impactful.

Empathetic listening is a crucial skill that charismatic leaders possess. They actively listen to others, seeking to understand their perspectives and emotions. By demonstrating genuine empathy, leaders make others feel heard and valued, fostering trust and collaboration. This empathetic approach to communication allows charismatic leaders to build strong relationships and inspire loyalty among their followers.

Developing charismatic traits is a journey that requires self-reflection, practice, and continuous growth. By cultivating personal magnetism through self-confidence, effective communication skills, and emotional connection, individuals can enhance their ability to influence and inspire others. Understanding and utilizing the communication techniques employed by influential leaders, such as captivating storytelling, persuasive rhetoric, and empathetic listening, further amplifies their impact. Charisma is not solely reserved for a select few; it is a skill that can be developed by anyone willing to invest the time and effort.

The Dynamics of Charisma in Teams

Charismatic leadership doesn't operate in isolation but extends to the realm of teams and organizations , much like holacratic leadership . By fostering a charismatic culture and understanding the role of charisma in team cohesion, leaders can unlock the full potential of their teams.

Fostering a Charismatic Culture

A charismatic culture is one that promotes open communication, trust, and collaboration. By establishing an environment where individual voices are heard, ideas are valued, and creativity thrives, leaders can foster a charismatic culture that encourages growth and innovation.

The Role of Charisma in Team Cohesion

Charismatic leaders have the ability to create a sense of unity and purpose among team members. They inspire loyalty, build strong relationships, and motivate individuals to work towards a common goal. By leveraging charisma, leaders can enhance team cohesion and drive collective success.

The Dark Side of Charisma

While charisma can be a powerful tool for positive leadership, it is not without its risks. When charisma becomes toxic, it can lead to detrimental outcomes for both leaders and their followers.

When Charisma Becomes Toxic

Charismatic leaders who use their influence for self-serving purposes or manipulate their followers can create a toxic environment. When unchecked, this toxicity can erode trust, stifle dissent, and breed an unhealthy power dynamic within organizations.

Balancing Charm with Accountability

To prevent charisma from veering into the negative territory, leaders must balance their charm with a strong sense of accountability. Holding themselves and their team members to high ethical standards ensures that charisma is utilized as a force for positive impact.

Charismatic Leadership in the Corporate World

Business leaders such as Richard Branson, Elon Musk, and Oprah Winfrey exemplify charismatic leadership in the corporate world. Their vision, passion, and ability to connect with stakeholders have propelled their organizations to new heights of success and influence.

Corporate Titans with Charisma

Leaders such as Richard Branson, Elon Musk, and Oprah Winfrey exemplify charismatic leadership in the corporate world. Their vision, passion, and ability to connect with stakeholders have propelled their organizations to new heights of success and influence.

Charisma's Impact on Corporate Success

Research suggests that charismatic leadership positively influences employee satisfaction, engagement, and performance. By creating a sense of purpose, instilling confidence, and fostering trust, charismatic leaders can drive corporate success and establish a competitive edge.

Charisma in Crisis Management

In times of crisis and uncertainty, charismatic leadership can provide the beacon of hope and guidance that organizations and communities require. Leaders who possess charisma are well-positioned to navigate turbulent waters and inspire collective resilience.

Leading Through Turbulence

Charismatic leaders excel in leading through difficult times. Their ability to remain calm under pressure, communicate effectively, and inspire confidence in their teams allows them to navigate crises while instilling a sense of trust and purpose.

Case Studies: Charismatic Leadership During Crises

Examining real-life case studies of charismatic leaders during times of crisis offers valuable lessons and insights. Leaders like Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, demonstrated exceptional charismatic leadership during the Christchurch mosque shootings, offering empathy, unity, and decisive action.

The Future of Charismatic Leadership

As the world continues to evolve, so too must charismatic leadership. Understanding the future prospects of charisma is crucial for leaders who aspire to sustain their influence in an ever-changing landscape.

Sustaining Influence in a Changing World

Charismatic leaders must adapt and evolve to remain relevant in the face of technological advancements, globalization, and shifting societal values. Continuously learning, staying attuned to emerging trends, and embracing new modes of communication are essential for sustaining charismatic influence.

The Evolution of Charismatic Authority

As societies become more diverse and inclusive, the traditional notion of charismatic authority is undergoing transformation. Leaders must embrace an inclusive and participatory approach, blending charisma with authenticity and empathy, to connect with a broader range of followers.

Training for Charismatic Leadership

While charisma may possess an element of natural talent, it is a skill that can be developed through targeted training and practice.

Programs and Practices

Various leadership development programs and practices exist to cultivate charismatic traits. These programs typically focus on enhancing self-awareness, communication skills, presence, and emotional intelligence, providing individuals with the tools to harness their charisma effectively.

Measuring the Impact of Charismatic Development

Assessing the effectiveness of charismatic development programs is crucial for organizations and individuals seeking to enhance their leadership abilities. Metrics such as employee engagement, team performance, and 360-degree feedback can provide valuable insights into the impact of charismatic development initiatives.

Personal Branding and Charisma

Personal branding and charisma are interwoven elements that leaders can leverage to enhance their influence and reputation.

Crafting a Compelling Leader Identity

A strong personal brand is built on authenticity, uniqueness, and a clear message. Charismatic leaders , often regarded as thought leaders , can shape their image by aligning their values, actions, and communication to create a compelling leader identity that resonates with their audience.

The Power of Personal Storytelling in Leadership

Storytelling serves as a powerful tool for charismatic leaders to connect emotionally with their audience. By sharing personal anecdotes, conveying a compelling vision, and inspiring others with their journey, leaders can forge a deeper connection and inspire action.

The Intersection of Charisma and Technology

In the digital age, charismatic leadership has adapted to incorporate technology as a platform for influence and connection.

Charisma in the Digital Age

Social media platforms and digital communication channels offer charismatic leaders new avenues to reach and engage with a global audience. By employing engaging content, authentic messaging, and leveraging the power of storytelling, leaders can harness technology to amplify their charismatic impact.

Social Media as a Platform for Charismatic Leaders

Charismatic leaders who master the art of social media can cultivate a loyal following, expand their reach, and build meaningful connections. By embracing social media platforms strategically, leaders can leverage their charisma to inspire, educate, and mobilize audiences on a scale never before possible.

Charismatic Leadership and Innovation

Innovation thrives in environments where charismatic leaders inspire and empower their teams to think creatively and drive change.

Inspiring Change and Creativity

Charismatic leaders inspire innovative thinking by fostering a culture that encourages curiosity, risk-taking, and experimentation. By instilling a shared purpose and exciting vision, they create an environment where unconventional ideas are embraced and barriers are overcome.

Charisma as a Catalyst for Innovation

Charismatic leadership can act as a catalyst for innovation by empowering teams, provoking new perspectives, and motivating individuals to challenge the status quo. By harnessing the power of charisma, leaders can create an innovation ecosystem that drives organizational growth and adaptation.

Global Charismatic Movements

Charismatic leadership transcends borders, with leaders from various countries leaving an indelible impact on their nations and the world.

International Leaders of Charisma

Leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Winston Churchill demonstrated charisma on an international stage, captivating the global community and effecting change. Their ability to rally support, bridge divides, and inspire unity showcases the profound influence of charismatic leadership.

Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Charismatic Leadership

The perception of charismatic leadership varies across cultures, influenced by cultural values, historical context, and societal norms. Understanding and appreciating these cultural nuances facilitates effective cross-cultural leadership and enhances the impact of charismatic influence.

Charismatic leadership holds an undeniable allure, drawing individuals towards a common vision and inspiring them to action. Leaders who possess charisma have the power to shape history, drive innovation, and transform organizations.

As we have explored the intricacies of charismatic leadership, one thing is clear: charisma is not solely an innate quality but a skill that can be developed and honed. By cultivating personal magnetism, enhancing communication techniques, and fostering a charismatic culture, leaders can unlock their full potential and inspire those around them.

It is essential to recognize the potential risks of charisma and ensure that it is harnessed ethically and responsibly. Balancing charm with accountability, leaders can prevent charisma from becoming toxic and navigate the challenges that come with wielding influence.

Looking ahead, the future of charismatic leadership lies in its ability to adapt and evolve in a rapidly changing world. Sustaining influence requires continuous learning, embracing new technologies, and adapting to shifting societal dynamics.

Ultimately, charismatic leadership is a force for positive change. By training for charismatic leadership, embracing personal branding, leveraging technology, driving innovation, and appreciating global charismatic movements, leaders can harness the magnetic pull of influence and leave a lasting legacy in their wake.

Popular Insights:

Shop with purpose at impact mart your purchase empowers positive change. thanks for being the difference.

Prospecting Strategies: Maximize Lead Generation and Sales Performance

What do retinoids do: skin benefits, uses, and potential side effects, sales prospecting: effective techniques for boosting lead generation, retinoids: benefits, uses, and side effects for skin care, face masks for acne: top solutions for clearer skin, acne scars: effective treatments and prevention tips for clearer skin, aloe vera for acne: effective uses and benefits for clear skin, acne scar removal: effective treatments and proven home remedies, rice mask: benefits, application tips, and recipes for glowing skin, acne scarring: effective treatments and prevention techniques.

Charismatic Leaders

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 28 May 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Mara Del Baldo 7  

38 Accesses

Effective leadership ; Positive leadership ; Transformational leadership

There are several approaches to leadership and management, based on different assumptions and styles. The latter can be grounded on a combination of personal and organizational attributes of tangible and intangible nature, such as charisma. Visioning, empathy, and empowerment are all components of charismatic leadership.

Charisma is a unique type of influence in which followers believe their leader possesses exceptional qualities, such as effective communication, vision, trust, and impression management (Bell, 2013 ). Personal responsibility, integrity, responsibility, and solidarity are typical characteristics of charismatic leaders (Becker, 1998 ) who help organizations foster a virtuous corporate culture in organizations (Bruni & Sena, 2013 ; Cardona, 2000 ).

Charisma has been identified as an essential component of transformational leadership (Jacobsen & House, 2001 ). Transformational leadership...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1987). Charisma and Beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas (pp. 29–49). MA: D. C. Heath and Company.: Lexington.

Google Scholar  

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72 , 441–462.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Becker, T. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review, 23 (1), 154–161.

Bell, M. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar. In Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6(1), 66-74 . Leadership: Regent University School of Business &.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge . New York: Harper & Row.

Brown, J. B. (2011). The Building of a Virtuous Transformational Leader. The Journal of Virtues and Leadership, 2 (1), 6–14.

Bruni, L., & Sena, B. (Eds.). (2013). The Charismatic Principle in Social Life . New York: Routledge.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership . New York: Harper & Row.

Cardona, P. (2000). Transcendental leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21 (4), 201–206.

Choi, J. (2006). A motivational Theory of Charismatic Leadership: Envisioning, Empathy and Empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13 (1), 24–43.

Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (7), 747–767.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ Preferences for Charismatic Leadership: The Influence of follower Values and Personality. The leadership Quarterly, 12 , 153–179.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Jacobsen, C., & House, R. C. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. Leadership Quarterly, 12 (1), 75–112.

Martin, R. L. (2002). The virtue matrix: Calculating the return on corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 80 (3), 68–75.

Olsen, O. K. (2010). Are good leaders moral leaders? The relationship between effective military operational leadership and morals Dissertation for the philosophiae doctor degree (PhD) at the University of Bergen.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4 (4), 577–594.

Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43 , 1703–1725.

Weber, M. (1922). Gesammeltze aufsaetxe zur wissenschafslehre . Tuebinge: Morh.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10 , 285–305.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, Society and Politics, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy

Mara Del Baldo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mara Del Baldo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

London Metropolitan University, Guildhall Faculty of Business and Law London Metropolitan University, London, UK

Samuel Idowu

Cologne Business School, Ingolstadt, Germany

René Schmidpeter

College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA

Nicholas Capaldi

International Training Centre of the IL, International Labor Organization, Turin, Italy

Liangrong Zu

Instituto Politécnico da Guarda, Guarda, Portugal

Section Editor information

Department of Quality Management and Standardization, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia

Ivana Mijatovic

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Del Baldo, M. (2023). Charismatic Leaders. In: Idowu, S., Schmidpeter, R., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Del Baldo, M., Abreu, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02006-4_1040-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02006-4_1040-1

Received : 11 March 2023

Accepted : 03 April 2023

Published : 28 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-02006-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-02006-4

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Business and Management Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, the rhetoric of charismatic leadership: a theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research.

Leadership Now: Reflections on the Legacy of Boas Shamir

ISBN : 978-1-78743-201-7 , eISBN : 978-1-78743-200-0

Publication date: 5 October 2018

Despite apparent consensus about the importance of leader rhetoric, the topic has not received systematic attention from leadership scholars. The purpose of this article is to advance the study of the relationship between rhetorical behavior and charismatic leadership in three ways: first, by presenting theoretically derived propositions about the expected contents of charismatic leaders’ speeches; second, by offering a thematic content analysis of a representative speech by a charismatic orator, in order to demonstrate the content themes suggested by the propositions; and third, by specifying the requirements for more systematic studies of the relationship between speech content and charisma.

Shamir, B. , Arthur, M.B. and House, R.J. (2018), "The Rhetoric of Charismatic Leadership: A Theoretical Extension, a Case Study, and Implications for Research", Katz, I. , Eilam-Shamir, G. , Kark, R. and Berson, Y. (Ed.) Leadership Now: Reflections on the Legacy of Boas Shamir ( Monographs in Leadership and Management, Vol. 9 ), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-357120180000009016

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2018 Emerald Publishing Limited

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Learning Charisma

• John Antonakis,
• Marika Fenley,
• Sue Liechti

Transform yourself into the person others want to follow.

Reprint: R1206K

Many believe that charisma, the ability to captivate and inspire an audience, is innate. But through research in the laboratory and in the field, the authors, who all work at the University of Lausanne, have identified 12 tactics that help managers become more influential, trustworthy, and “leaderlike” in the eyes of others. Great orators and politicians employ these techniques instinctively, but anyone can learn how to use them.

Nine of the tactics are verbal: metaphors, similes, and analogies; stories and anecdotes; contrasts; rhetorical questions; expressions of moral conviction; reflections of the group’s sentiments; three-part lists; the setting of high goals; and conveying confidence that they can be achieved. Three are nonverbal: animated voice, facial expressions, and gestures. Though there are other tactics that leaders can use—repetition, humor, talking about sacrifice—the 12 singled out by the authors have the greatest effect and can work in almost any context. And the research shows that they also have a larger impact than strong presentation skills and speech structure.

This article explores the 12 tactics in detail, providing examples from business and politics, and offers guidance on how to start implementing them. A manager’s goal should be to incorporate them not only into public speaking but also into everyday interactions. They work because they help you create an emotional connection with your audience, even as they make you appear more powerful, competent, and worthy of respect. People who use them effectively will be able to unite their followers around a vision in a way that others can’t. And in the authors’ study, executives who practiced them saw the leadership scores that their audience gave them rise by about 60%.

Jana stands at the podium, palms sweaty, looking out at hundreds of colleagues who are waiting to hear about her new initiative. Bill walks into a meeting after a failed product launch to greet an exhausted and demotivated team that desperately needs his direction. Robin gets ready to confront a brilliant but underperforming subordinate who needs to be put back on track.

• JA John Antonakis is a full professor on the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Lausanne; he consults regularly to companies on leadership development.
• MF Marika Fenley has a Ph.D. in management focusing on gender and leadership from the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Lausanne.
• SL Sue Liechti has master’s degree in psychology from the University of Lausanne and is an organizational development consultant.

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

What’s charisma got to do with it? Three faces of charismatic leadership and corporate social responsibility engagement

In response to both internal and external expectations and pressures, companies increasingly consider corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an essential factor in their strategic planning, but in a very diverse manner. To help synthesize the flourishing research in CSR variation across firms, we propose a three-orientation framework to map out a wide range of CSR strategies in current literature. Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of executive leadership and suggest that differences in leader’s values are the key drivers of CSR heterogeneity. This study offers a parsimonious model that maps out three primary pathways between leadership values and CSR strategic configurations. Drawing from charismatic leadership theory, we argue that three distinct types of leader power motives define three modes of leader’s strategic decision frames, which, in turn, influence corresponding CSR orientations. Specifically, socialized charismatic leaders favor prosocial decision frame that results in integrative CSR orientation; neutralized charismatic leaders embrace instrumental decision frame leading to strategic CSR mode; and personalized charismatic leaders tend to adopt self-serving CSR strategies driven by the self-serving decision frame. This holistic view advances the knowledge about the micro-foundations of CSR drivers and the essential role of leader values.

Introduction

Companies and their leaders increasingly acknowledge the critical role businesses play in addressing environmental and societal issues ( Barney and Rangan, 2019 ) and allocate resources for CSR programs ( Jamali and Karam, 2018 ). In 2019, chief executive officers (CEOs) of 181 major companies in the U.S. issued a statement reevaluating the purpose of a corporation to include a fundamental commitment to all stakeholders. These reimagined corporate objectives also highlight the inextricable tensions between firm’s pursuit of doing well and doing good by delivering values to diverse stakeholders. In seeking to balance among the complex and sometime competing expectations from various stakeholders, organizations often adopt very different CSR strategies ( Godfrey et al., 2009 ; Bundy et al., 2018 ).

Such diversity in CSR engagement and its complex performance implications pose challenging questions for strategy scholars. We witness an increasing research effort in investigating the heterogeneity in company’s CSR engagement ( Wang et al., 2016 ; Vishwanathan et al., 2020 ; Zhao et al., 2022 ). This line of inquiry tends to focus on two key questions: how firms are different in their CSR investments and, more recently, why firms adopt such diverse engagement strategies. For the questions of how firms differ, multiple CSR typologies (i.e., internal-external; Farooq et al., 2017 ; technical-institutional CSR; Mattingly and Berman, 2006 ) have emerged. These frameworks depict the differences in CSR postures in terms of various subgroups of stakeholders or CSR dimensions targeted by organizations’ social investment ( Chang et al., 2014 ). In turn, these different CSR types have varying implications related to firm’s risk, social evaluation, and performance ( Godfrey et al., 2009 ). For instance, Tang et al.’s (2015) study shows that a strategy focusing more on internal than external CSR leads to better performance than one engaging more external CSR. This is a useful lens and steps forward from using an aggregated CSR score for understanding how firms differ in their CSR activities. In the meantime, the typology approach also presents two limitations. One has to do with the potential typology proliferation in order to capture the full scope of combinations of stakeholder sub-groups or CSR dimensions that different firms choose to include in their CSR portfolios. In addition, CSR typology literature has yet to fully address the critical question of why organizations strategically prioritize some stakeholders over others and the conversations have predominantly focused on the macro and institutional drivers. As a result, such an effort to understand the heterogeneity in CSR engagement has mostly ignored the role of human decision-makers and thus almost remains “faceless.” With the voice of the key decision-makers muted, the understanding of why companies opt for dissimilar CSR strategies remains incomplete. Thus, an overarching configuration framework can be helpful to organize widely diverse CSR postures and shed light on underlying drivers.

To better understand CSR heterogeneity, strategy scholars argue that it is essential to examine the question of why , i.e., organization’s motivation underlying their CSR participation ( Doh and Stumpf, 2005 ; Maak and Pless, 2006 ; Waldman, 2011 ; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012 ). A recent stream of research in strategy shifts the conversation to highlight the strategic role of CEOs and top management team (TMT) in CSR engagement. Drawing from upper echelons theory (UET; Hambrick and Mason, 1984 ; Hambrick, 2007 ), these studies portray strategic decision-makers being responsible for the diversity in CSR strategic choices ( Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Wowak et al., 2016 ). Scholars stipulate that strategic leaders’ (CEOs and TMTs are referred as strategic leaders throughout the rest of the paper) individual attributes and psychological orientations have profound effect on organization’s strategic actions and performance. In many ways, an organization’s strategic choices are often a reflection of managerial personal values. In the case of CSR engagement, studies have shown that CEO’s personal characteristics such as political ideology (e.g., Chin et al., 2013 ), self-regulatory focus ( Perez-Batres et al., 2012 ), and narcissistic personality ( Petrenko et al., 2016 ) have a meaningful influence on CEO’s interpretation of environmental factors and choices of CSR strategies. Evidence has supported the links between certain styles of leadership and firm’s CSR engagement (e.g., authentic leadership-CSR, Kim et al., 2018 ; ethical leadership-CSR, Saha et al., 2020 ). This line of inquiry provides critical insight into the role of decision-maker’s personal values in firm’s CSR diversity. However, current leader-CSR research has a similar limitation as the CSR typology literature. These studies primarily focus on piecemealed CEO-CSR links (i.e., one attribute-one type of CSR, one leader style-one type of CSR). While acknowledging the research effort in exploring a wide range of leader style-CSR links, we also see a need for an overarching framework to address the more encompassing research question: What are the core leadership principles underlying various leadership styles that drive different CSR choices ?

Taken together, we see rich but fragmented research streams in both the how -literature (CSR typology with stakeholder lens) and the why -literature (CSR drivers with UET lens). Time is ripe for developing a more holistic understanding of why and how companies manage CSR differently. Our study addresses the research gap discussed above by proposing an overarching framework to coherently synthesize the leadership-CSR literature. The central premise is that firm’s CSR activities are executive leader’s strategic choices influenced by leader’s personal values. Leaders have different value systems, particularly those associated with power and sense of responsibilities for others. As a result, we see different modes of CSR engagement.

There are two main objectives here. One is to develop an encompassing framework to synthesize the wide range of leader behaviors and CSR strategies in the literature. An impressive number of studies have provided enormous insights into the Leader-CSR phenomena ( Zhao et al., 2022 ). A number of systematic review pieces have done the field a great service by summarizing the leadership-CSR literature with grand details and breadth (e.g., Pless et al., 2012 ; Miska and Mendenhall, 2018 ; Ashrafi et al., 2020 ; Saha et al., 2020 ; Zhao et al., 2022 ). This is also where our paper departs from these studies. Thus, our second objective is to build an overarching conceptual model to integrate the extant literature on leader-CSR. The unique contribution of this study is the parsimonious synthesizing theme: we address the question of how leadership impacts CSR strategies by identifying the CSR-related value principles underpinning various leader styles (opp. Specific leader style in relation to particular CSR tactic). Similarly, we identify three high-order families of CSR orientations to represent the principal characteristics of diverse CSR portfolios. Furthermore, we highlight the CSR decision frame as an underlying mechanism and develop the pathway model linking leadership to CSR. Specifically, leader’s power motives are translated into his or her CSR decision frame, which in turn defines leader’s interpretations of the environment and assessment of various stakeholders ( Mitchell et al., 1997 ) and ultimately firm’s CSR preferences.

To achieve such encompassing yet parsimonious dual objective, we adopt a spectrum approach to conceptualize leadership values, CSR decision frames, and CSR orientations as three continuums, respectively, (as shown in Figures 1 , ​ ,2). 2 ). We then define three focal points along each spectrum to articulate the key distinctions among core principles. Along the leader-value spectrum, there are three types of power motives (three “faces”), altruism value, converging value, and self-serving value. Similarly, along the spectrum for leader decision frame and CSR orientation, there are three types of foci including societal focus, firm focus, and personal focus. These focal points provide a parsimonious structure along the encompassing spectrum. In essence, diverse leadership styles can be synthesized into three CSR-related value systems, while diverse CSR strategies are summarized into three primary orientations.

Leader value continuum.

Stakeholder value continuum.

To build a coherent pathway model, we draw from the following theoretical lenses: charismatic leadership theory ( House, 1977 ; House and Howell, 1992 ; Shamir and Howell, 2018 ), which defines leader values, and CSR strategic modes (e.g., Aguilera et al., 2007 ; Pless et al., 2012 ; Carter and Greer, 2013 ; Miska et al., 2014 ; Waldman, 2014 ; Maak et al., 2016 ; Gond et al., 2017 ), a foundation for the concept of CSR orientation. Charismatic leadership theory is an influential value-based leadership framework popular in the micro-discipline (organizational behavior). There are two compelling reasons for the adoption. First, this is one of the few leadership theories that emphasizes the role of values (particularly related to power motives and responsibility for others; Pless and Maak, 2011 ; Miska et al., 2014 ). This aligns with the essence of CSR strategic choice, which is about how leaders perceive their responsibility, through the lens of personal values, toward various stakeholders ( Mitchell et al., 1997 ). In addition, charismatic leadership is also the only leadership theory that articulates a full range of values covering both the self-serving and prosocial ends of the spectrum. This multi-dimensional feature enables us to coherently synthesize diverse leader value systems, particularly those related to CSR beliefs on one continuum ( Howell and Shamir, 2005 ; Watts et al., 2018 ). Thus, instead of considering charismatic leadership theory as a framework of leader styles (e.g., authentic leadership, servant leadership), we adopt it as a model of leader value systems, which provides a parsimonious structure to compare and contrast the good, the bad, and the ugly of diverse leaders’ power motives ( Devinney, 2009 ). We suggest that strategic leaders with different power motives are likely to adopt different CSR decision frames ( Hu et al., 2022 ). As a result, firm’s CSR strategies fall under one of the three orientations: integrative CSR mode (S), strategic CSR mode (s), and self-serving CSR mode (I; Figure 3 ).

Three-pathway model of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

In summary, with this three-pathway model, we contribute to the research on the important role of executive leaders in CSR heterogeneity in the following ways.

First, this study provides a parsimonious framework to synthesize the rich literature on leader-CSR links. Particularly, we identify three types of leader power motives and three CSR orientations representing the primary attributes underlying a wide range of leader styles and CSR modes, respectively. Furthermore, three key focal points are placed along each spectrum to mark the prominent distinctions across different types of principles (“three faces”: Figures 1 , ​ ,2). 2 ). These focal points also illustrate the “gray-zones” in-between focal points, which differ in terms of degrees. Thus, with a spectrum approach, we are not scarifying the complexity and nuances of the wide range of leader styles and CSR strategies.

Secondly, we conceptualize the CSR decision frame as the cognitive lens strategic leaders are likely to adopt to guide their strategic decision-making process ( Hu et al., 2022 ). This idea provides an important mechanism underlying leader’s CSR preferences and helps us build a pathway model. Specifically, we identify three fundamental questions associated with CSR (i.e., purpose of firm, utility of CSR, and leader responsibility). Different leader power motive drives different answers to these three principal questions, which, in turn, defines three focal points along the continuum for CSR decision frame orientations. CSR decision frames define shareholder values and salience for leaders and guide leader’s attention in strategy formulation and priorities in resource allocation. We believe that this CSR decision framing idea ( Hu et al., 2022 ) contributes to the call for a better understanding of CEO’s CSR decision deliberations ( Zhao et al., 2022 ) and the underlying mechanisms of CSR ( Aguinis and Glavas, 2012 ). It explicitly addresses the question of how executives make CSR decisions.

Thirdly, in responding to the voice of prominent scholars ( Aguinis and Glavas, 2012 ), this study bridges the micro- and macro-focused development in CSR research. We place a human face to business’ CSR strategic choices by illuminating the role of their power motives and decision frames. This micro-conceptualization fits well with the overarching assumptions of the UET ( Hambrick and Mason, 1984 ; Hambrick, 2007 ), which emphasizes the critical role of executive psychological orientation. Leader’s power motive and decision frame concepts expand current proxies for executive’s psychological orientation in UET research on CSR.

Lastly, as an alternative to existing stakeholder-based CSR typologies ( Pless et al., 2012 ; Maak et al., 2016 ), we propose a consolidatory S-s-I framework that depicts the heterogeneity in CSR strategic configurations. Specifically, three types of power motives (socialized, neutral, and personalized power motives) predict three corresponding decision frames (integrative/S, instrumental/s, and self-serving/I decision frames), and consequently, three CSR orientations (integrative/S, Strategic/s, and Self-serving/I CSR configurations). These three sets of typologies are a complementary expansion of current CSR typology literature with an emphasis on the dynamic and multifaceted nature of stakeholder relationship management.

In the following sections, we will first outline the theoretical assumptions of charismatic leadership theory ( Table 1 ), followed by articulating three types of power motives and corresponding strategic decision frames. We then build the three pathways linking the S-s-I value profiles with the corresponding S-s-I CSR strategic orientations ( Figure 1 ).

Distinction between socialized and personalized charismatic leadership.

Theoretical development

Charismatic leadership and its three faces.

Charismatic leaders are often considered “visionary” and “exceptional” and are capable of influencing others by “engendering excitement towards a common cause” ( Wowak et al., 2016 , p. 586). Such extraordinary influence is derived from their personal charisma, defined as a value-laded individual characteristic and a personal quality, which enables them to have a profound social influence on others ( House, 1977 ; Antonakis et al., 2016 ). The evidenced effectiveness of this leadership style can be credited to individual’s ability to promote their ideology with often unconventional means to achieve changes ( Banks et al., 2017 ). According to the charisma literature, a charismatic leader’s strategic decisions are shaped by the underlying individual values trademarked as boldness, resistance to the status quo, and high self-confidence ( Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Wowak et al., 2016 ). Numerous studies have found that charismatic CEOs are more likely to engage in strategic initiatives associated with novelty, change, and CSR ( Waldman et al., 2001 ; Luque et al., 2008 ; Wowak et al., 2016 ; Banks et al., 2017 ).

A principal feature of the charismatic leadership theory is that charisma is considered a double-edged sword ( Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Vergauwe et al., 2018 ). Howell and Avolio (1992) pioneered the concepts of personalized and socialized charismatic leadership (SCL) to differentiate between the good or moral side and the evil or immoral side of value-laded power motives. Socialized charismatic leaders are motivated by a “socialized power orientation” and inspire people to strive for prosocial goals by sacrificing personal interest ( O’Connor et al., 1995 ; Walter and Bruch, 2008 ; Varella et al., 2012 ), while personalized charismatic leaders are driven by a “personalized power orientation” that focuses on personal ambitions at the expense of collective interests ( Howell and Shamir, 2005 ; Watts et al., 2018 ). Depending on where it falls on the value spectrum, charismatic leaders can mobilize people to pursuing either socially destructive or constructive objectives ( Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Watts et al., 2018 ).

Along the charismatic leadership value continuum ( Figure 1 ), we identify three focal points, SCL, NCL, and PCL, to articulate the key differences in various leader power motive orientations.

Socialized charismatic leadership

The essence of SCL lies in their high moral standards and integrity ( Avolio et al., 2004 ; Waldman, 2014 ). Our characterization of socialized charismatic leader values is largely drawn from the accumulated work on SCL (e.g., House and Howell, 1992 ; Waldman and Yammarino, 1999 ; Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Antonakis et al., 2016 ; Wowak et al., 2016 ; Shamir and Howell, 2018 ). According to this stream of research, socialized charismatic leaders are guided by ethicality and morally altruistic principles. Prior research has drawn an association between moral altruism and prosocial values ( Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Varella et al., 2012 ). In fact, such association is manifest in the overall outlook of socialized charismatic leaders which is shaped by their prosocial values .

Humility appears to be strongly correlated with socialized leader behavior ( Maccoby, 2004 ; Humphreys et al., 2010 ; Nielsen et al., 2010 ; Ou et al., 2018 ). Comte-Spoonville (2001) suggested that humility should be thought of as the science of the self because it signifies the propensity to develop a thorough understanding of the self. Discovery of individual strengths and weaknesses accompanies the process of gaining such understanding guided by the search for the ultimate truth.

Built upon current literature on SCL, we summarize the major distinction between personalized and socialized leaders in Table 1 and emphasize how they create and articulate their vision differently. Unlike personalized charismatic leaders who are guided by their self-interest, socialized charismatic leaders serve collective interests and are genuinely concerned about societal good ( Wowak et al., 2016 ). As a result, they express an inspirational vision that is aligned with the interests and desires of the followers ( Howell and Avolio, 1992 ; Shamir and Howell, 2018 ).

Additionally, the differences between personalized and socialized charismatic leaders are also observable in light of the nature of their power motives . Socialized charismatic leaders have a socialized power motive that is concomitantly shaped by the level of their need for power and activity inhibition. According to the Leader Motive Profile theory (LMP; McClelland, 1985 , 1992 ; Miner, 1993 ; Winter, 2001 ; Fodor, 2010 ), “effective leaders will both enjoy the process of exerting a social influence (need for power) and avoid using power in an exploitive manner through coercion or manipulation ( activity inhibition )” ( House and Howell, 1992 , p. 90). The major implication of these two forces is the manner in which the leader satisfies the need for power ( Waldman et al., 2006 ; Weinberger et al., 2010 ). Whether such need is satisfied in a prosocial way or antisocial way, depends on the leader’s (un)willingness to take responsibility for his actions and for the consequences of such actions on others ( Winter, 2001 ; Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Watts et al., 2018 ). To that end, we conclude that socialized charismatic leaders have a high need for power and a high level of activity inhibition. In other words, a high need for power combined with a high level of activity inhibition drives socialized charismatic leaders to seek power for serving the greater good for society. With a self-controlled power motive, these leaders apply restraint in the use of their power and direct it toward social responsibility instead of personal gain ( House and Howell, 1992 ; Vergauwe et al., 2018 ).

Furthermore, contrary to personalized charismatic leaders, socialized charismatic leaders are humble because they do not feel the need to project a grandiose image to their followers. Current research also shows that humble leaders are willing to assimilate new ideas and encourage others to express their opinions ( Tangney, 2000 ; Ou et al., 2018 ). This is another way of saying that humility allows socialized charismatic leaders to transcend the self and consider the world and the larger reality ( Nielsen et al., 2010 ).

In a nutshell, socialized charismatic leaders espouse egalitarianism and genuine concern for a wide array of stakeholders. Driven by a compelling vision which is responsive to the stakeholder’s needs, they endeavor to cognitively connect and engender an inspirational impact ( Waldman and Yammarino, 1999 ; Wowak et al., 2022 ). Additionally, by using power in socially constructive ways, they contribute to the welfare of the organization and beyond ( Waldman et al., 2006 ; Waldman, 2014 ).

Personalized charismatic leadership

As mentioned earlier, there is a potential immoral and wicked aspect of charismatic leadership which is represented by the personalized charismatic leadership (SCL) values. Unlike socialized charismatic leaders, personalized charismatic leaders’ values are based on personal dominance and authoritative behavior ( Winter, 2001 ; Watts et al., 2018 ). They are self-aggrandizing and promote their personal agenda by engaging in one-way communication with their followers. They pursue goals in congruence with their self-interest and manipulate the needs of the followers and the organization to fulfill those interests ( Braun, 2017 ).

Researchers have also studied SCL in the context of the vision of such leaders ( House et al., 1991 ; Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Boone et al., 2020 ). The fundamental characteristic of their vision is the development of such vision from their personal self. As a result, there is no alignment of their personal vision with the needs and aspirations of employees and stakeholders, and the vision stresses on the leaders’ self-interest, personal gain, and impact.

Research on charisma has shown that personalized power motive , which is the essence of personalized charismatic leaders, is shaped by their high need for power and a low level of activity inhibition ( House and Howell, 1992 ; Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ). In this case, this type of leaders has a voracious hunger for power and influence. Equipped with a low activity inhibition which is indicative of low self-control, they direct power toward their personal benefit only and show a lack of genuine concern for the greater good. Therefore, it is unlikely that personalized charismatic leaders will appeal to prosocial values which form the crux of most CSR initiatives ( Petrenko et al., 2016 ; Braun, 2017 ). Instead, they are guided by antisocial values which influence them to act in a self-serving manner ( Petrenko et al., 2016 ). Thus, even if they express any interest in the pursuit of seemingly prosocial activities, their commitment toward such activities will be “marginal and purely calculative” ( Waldman et al., 2006 , p. 1719).

The literature on personalized charisma reveals narcissism as a core personality aspect of such leaders ( Popper, 2002 ; Humphreys et al., 2010 ). Narcissism is associated with individual self-confidence, aggression, and managerial and autocratic tendencies ( Chatterjee and Hambrick, 2011 ; O’Reilly et al., 2014 ). The fact that personalized charismatic leaders have disregard for their followers’ needs signifies a lack of empathy which is also associated with narcissism ( Tang et al., 2018 ). Moreover, personalized charismatic leaders exhibit a morally righteous “image” to enhance their influence and elevate their social status ( Chen et al., 2021 ). Such behavioral characteristics of exhibitionism and social assertiveness further corroborate their narcissistic tendencies.

In summary, personalized charismatic leaders exhibit self-serving and autocratic style in their approach to leading. Pursuit of wealth, power, and winning at all costs signify their heightened insensitivity to employees’ needs and aspirations ( Van Scotter, 2020 ). Given that personalized leaders induce employees and other organizational members to comply with their personal wishes, it is unlikely that they empower employees or encourage them to think in novel ways.

Neutral charismatic leadership

Recent writing on charismatic leadership has extended beyond the traditional dichotomous conceptualization of personalized versus socialized power motive ( Howell and Avolio, 1992 ; Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ) and favors a continuous spectrum view (e.g., Miska and Mendenhall, 2018 ; Watts et al., 2018 ). It suggests that the distinctions between personalized and SCL are unlikely a simplistic clear-cut. Rather, leaders reside along a continuum and are affected by these power motives to varying degrees ( Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Watts et al., 2018 ). Leaders may demonstrate PCL behaviors sometimes while SCL other times. Incorporating this perspective, we introduce a “neutral” position on the personalized-socialized charisma continuum to capture the middle of the road power-motive orientations and associated behaviors.

The mid-point between socialized and personalized values represents a converging or blend of the two more extreme cases. This type of power motive is less altruistic but also less self-interest driven as well relative to SCL and PCL, respectively. Such a value system can be captured well by the traditional strategic management concept where leaders consider themselves as the agent of the principles (business owners and shareholders). They view themselves to be powerful owning to their job title and their control over resources. But, they are also aware of the boundaries of such power, which is to function within the laws and comply with regulations and social norms to serve organizational goals. NCL is driven by optimizing individual goals, which are aligned with the bottom line and success of the organization by design (e.g., corporate governance and reward structures). In this sense, NCL has limited self-interest due to the fact that, as an agent of shareholders, their success is judged and fulfilled by how well they can deliver the economic performance for the firm ( Friedman, 2007 ). NCL sees their job beginning and ending with the organization ( Waldman and Galvin, 2008 ) and their fundamental responsibilities as balancing tradeoffs and reconciling competing demands on organization resources ( Waldman et al., 2020 ).

SCL, NCL, and PCL

In summary, CSR represents the pinnacle of the increasing complexity confronted by organizations, where leaders seek to balance between economic goals and environmental and social interests. Organizations rely on how well strategic leaders are equipped to manage these often-ill-defined situations, uncertainties, and potential chaos ( Uhl-Bien et al., 2007 ; Samimi et al., 2022 ; Zhao et al., 2022 ). Thus, understanding leaders and their driving principles is essential. We argue that charismatic leadership theory ( House, 1977 ; House and Howell, 1992 ) is well suited to investigate leader motivations. Studies have consistently shown that charismatic leaders influence firm strategy to the extent that the leaders’ values and motives determine the leadership styles ( Waldman et al., 2006 ; Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Wowak et al., 2022 ). Thus, the three-faced (PCL/NCL/SCL) charismatic leadership framework provides a parsimonious organizing framework to capture a wide range of leadership behaviors along the social-self-serving value spectrum.

Furthermore, we argue that personal values function through guiding information processing and decision-making ( Kurucz et al., 2008 ; Fabrizi et al., 2014 ). In the following section, we introduce the concept of leader CSR decision frame as the key mechanisms underlying the link between leader values and CSR choices.

Leader’s decision frame

Throughout this study, we define CSR as the “actions on the part of the firm that appear to advance or acquiesce in the promotion of some social good, beyond the immediate interests of the firm and its shareholders and beyond that which is required by law” ( Davis, 1973 , p. 312; Waldman et al., 2006 , p. 1703). We will focus on CSR as those voluntary activities that are not legally required. These discretionary CSR choices require strategic leaders to go above and beyond legal compliance. Being confronted with accountability toward both internal and external stakeholders, executives’ choices made to deal with intricacy, complexity, and uncertainty are more likely the expression of their personal characters and conviction. Further, we propose that these personal values will likely be translated into leaders’ decision frames, a cognitive lens or mental model that, in turn, guides how leaders interpret information and assign primacy scores to various issues and interest groups ( Hambrick and Wowak, 2021 ; Hu et al., 2022 ; Samimi et al., 2022 ).

Decision frame has its root in Tversky and Kahneman’s (1981) work and refers to the “mental states primed by situational factors that influence how people evaluate and make complex decisions” ( Watts et al., 2018 , p. 277). In the context of CSR, the decision frame captures leaders’ mental model specifically related to CSR strategic decisions ( Windsor, 2012 ; Hu et al., 2022 ). CSR decision frame is defined by the answers to these three fundamental questions relevant to CSR: the purpose of an organization, utility of CSR, and the responsibility and accountability of strategic leaders. Different answers lead to different CSR decision frames ( Hu et al., 2022 ). In line with the spectrum approach, these diverse leader CSR decision frames are thought to reside along a continuum. We identify three focal points on the spectrum to represent three main types of CSR decision frames (S-s-I): integrative decision frame (S), instrumental decision frame (s), and self-serving decision frame (I). This decision frame typology captures leaders’ varied understandings of the principal issues associated with CSR, which will influence how strategic leaders see and interpret the challenges and demands of CSR and the salience and priority of shareholders (i.e., shareholder values; Voegtlin et al., 2012 ; Hu et al., 2022 ).

In the meantime, we stipulate that leader’s principal belief contributes to the development of decision frame, which, in turn, influences how leaders interpret key information related to CSR issues ( Boone et al., 2020 ; Zhao et al., 2022 ). In other words, CSR decision frames are expression of leaders’ personal values, beliefs, and attitudes (e.g., SCL, NCL, and PCL). Ultimately, this CSR decision frame serves as the mechanisms underpinning the pathway from leader values to company’s CSR strategy.

In the following sections, we elaborate on the concepts and effects of each of the three CSR strategic decision frames; and present three unique pathways to link the three faces of charismatic strategic leaders with the three shades of CSR orientations ( Figure 1 ).

Three pathways of CSR

Pathway 1: scl, integrative decision frame, and integrative csr (“s”), scl: socialized power motives and integrative decision frame.

As we have previously noted, SCL is a combination of a high need for power and extraordinary ability to exercise their influence and mobilize people for socially constructive causes ( House and Howell, 1992 ; Boone et al., 2020 ). Driven by socialized power motives, SCL will be more likely to adopt an integrative strategic decision frame, which addresses the three fundamental questions about the responsibilities of the organization, value about CSR, and responsibility of corporate leaders as follows. First, SCL sees organizations as corporate citizens and the fiduciary of the people, plants, and communities ( Watts et al., 2018 ). An integrative view of the relationship between a business and its stakeholders is the defining aspect of an integrative decision frame ( Aguilera et al., 2007 ; Marcy, 2020 ). Thus, SCL understands that organizational objectives go beyond economic and legal concerns and are not only about profit-maximization. Rather, business is responsible for and should be held accountable to all stakeholders; and create value for the broader society ( Dmytriyev et al., 2021 ). In fact, SCL sees profits as a result from doing business in a purposeful and responsible way ( Pless et al., 2012 ; Maak et al., 2016 ). Secondly, SCL considers organizations as social actor that bears a moral obligation of doing business responsibly including playing a critical role in solving environmental and social problems (CSR; King et al., 2010 ). Lastly, leaders have the ultimate moral duty to proactively formulate and execute multi-dimensional CSR strategies ( Pless et al., 2012 ; Saha et al., 2020 ) and bring business interest to align with those of society ( Preston, 1975 ; Marcy, 2020 ).

SCL: Integrative decision frame and integrative CSR

As a direct result of the socialized strategic decision frame, SCLs are multifaceted thinkers and highly sensitive to social goals. They can recognize the needs and diverse demands from complex and interconnected business environment ( Pless et al., 2012 ; Maak et al., 2016 ). They appeal to prosocial and moral values that make them more likely to consider multiple stakeholders and serve collective interests when making strategic decisions ( Luque et al., 2008 ; King et al., 2010 ). They will embrace a broad approach to CSR, an integrative CSR orientation (S). This type of cause-serving CSR represents “a genuine manifestation of the firm’s underlying intentions, vision and character” ( Donia et al., 2017 ). These CSR activities are executed with sufficient resource and expertise commitment and focus on realizing true social benefits ( Christensen et al., 2014 ). As a result, this CSR type resonates organization’s responsibility, social justice, and compassion ( Devinney, 2009 ; Chaudhary, 2021 ). SCL adopts an integrative CSR mode as an ethical conviction and is likely to be construed by stakeholders as a giver working toward making a genuine contribution to the society ( Donia et al., 2019 ; Saha et al., 2020 ).

SCL: Integrative CSR, trust-based stakeholder relationship, and triple bottom line performance

An integrative CSR portfolio, in turn, generates multi-dimensional outcomes including stakeholder relationship built on trust and triple bottom line sustainable performance ( Elkington, 1997 ; Devinney, 2009 ; Christensen et al., 2014 ). SCL advocates prosocial values and connects with the larger audience ( Antonakis et al., 2016 ) and is also likely to be transparent with not only internal employees but also stakeholders. Organizations’ commitment to a common cause earns public trust and helps build sustainable relationships with stakeholders. SCL’s unconventional perspective and boldness help shape innovative culture and deploy resources to achieve synergies with multiple stakeholders ( Pless et al., 2012 ; Wowak et al., 2022 ). Thus, an organization can achieve business integration by building flexible business models.

In summary, socialized charismatic leaders are moral-value driven and have a strong sense of accountability toward broader constituents and stakeholders, who commit to deliver values to diverse interest groups. Thus, our first pathway stipulates that,

Pathway 1: the “S” path (1a). SCLs are more likely to adopt integrative decision frame (S). (1b). Leaders with an integrative decision frame (S) are more likely to engage in an integrative CSR strategy (S). (1c). An integrative CSR (S) will generate stakeholder integration and achieve triple bottom line sustainable performance.

Pathway 2: NCL, instrumental decision frame, and strategic CSR (“s”)

SCL and PCL are the two ends of a continuum, in our view. SCL is the representation of the ideal and altruistic end, while PCL indicates the end that is highly driven by self-interest without concerns for others. We suspect many of the strategic leaders reside along the section that falls in-between these two ends, as neutral charismatic leadership (NCL) with converging power motives.

NCL: Neutral power motives and instrumental decision frame

At a converging point between the prosocial and self-serving values, NCL serves as an agent of the owners/shareholders and controllers of the organization resources, thus derives power from its legitimate role and authority within the organization. Comparing with SCL, NCL tends to have a narrower lens when it comes to social betterment and considers it to be at the service of the organizational goals ( Miska et al., 2014 ). NCL likely demonstrates a transactional and calculative cognitive style primed by cost–benefit analysis ( Waldman and Galvin, 2008 ; Pless et al., 2012 ). NCL sees their personal objectives to be a perfect alignment with company effectiveness. Doing the right thing for NCL is defined by doing their job to create values for shareholders within the boundaries of laws and industry norms ( Carter and Greer, 2013 ). Comparing with PCL who strives for personal gain at the expense of others NCL is other-regarding and places the highest concerns on the organization they lead ( Miska et al., 2014 ; Waldman, 2014 ). Thus, we label it as an instrumental decision fram e with a small “s,” a mental model that emphasizes strategic focus for the company and narrower scope for social welfare.

Applying this perspective, NCL will address the three fundamental questions as follows. First, organizations serve the purpose of maximizing shareholder’s interest by delivering superb financial performance. A sustainable mission for a business is to generate long-term economic success while serving other stakeholders if and only if that is beneficial for the bottom line ( Pless et al., 2012 ). Second, although acknowledging businesses need to respond to the expectations of multiple stakeholders, NCL considers such diverse demands as financial burdens with competing interests for firm’s bottom line, all of which need to be balanced and efficiently managed. CSR initiatives are thought to be strategic in the sense that they have the potential for helping firm manage risk, legitimacy, and reputation. In simple words, only strategic stakeholders matter for the firm. Lastly, NCL places the obligation of executives as “limited to deploying resources as effectively as possible, based on instrumental thinking, in order to maximize the wealth of the firm” ( Waldman and Siegel, 2008 , p. 126). Ultimately, NCL is likely to formulate CSR as a reaction to external pressures and demands arising from institutional norms.

NCL: Instrumental decision frame and strategic CSR

Such instrumental decision frame will guide NCL to embrace a strategic CSR mode . Like SCL, NCL acknowledges the needs to address diverse expectations of multiple non-financial stakeholders. However, an instrumental decision frame places the constraints of firm resources at the front and center and considers CSR initiative as a cost toward the bottom line. Thus, not all stakeholders have equal importance in consideration. Rather, the preference for any particular interest group as a candidate for CSR investment will be determined by their value in serving firm’s self-interests such as legitimacy, image, and economic bottom line ( Waldman and Siegel, 2008 ). In essence, each stakeholder is assessed based on their value for generating a competitive advantage for the company.

NCL: Strategic CSR, stakeholders with complementary fit, and bottom line performance

As expected, strategic CSR (s) is economically focused and driven by organization regarding transactional motives. Put it another way, NCL invests in strategic CSR for a direct and fast return, which can be in the form of media coverage, good will, increasing demands from customer ( Elfenbein and McManus, 2010 ), loyalty from internal employees ( Flammer and Luo, 2017 ), or favorable assessments from investors ( Cheng et al., 2014 ). Strategic CSR emphasizes the profit-maximizing motives of the firm ( Baron, 2001 ; Dmytriyev et al., 2021 ). CSR activities are often conducted in the form of externally visible initiatives such as philanthropic donations, which benefit the firms’ strategic competitiveness by building a positive image among current or potential stakeholders and make a firm an attractive business partner ( Godfrey, 2005 ; Vishwanathan et al., 2020 ). Thus, firms are reaping strategic benefits by attracting a bigger pool of partners for future business operations. In addition, strategic CSR initiatives tend to focus on existing stakeholders that are a complementary fit strategically ( McWilliams and Siegel, 2001 ). In turn, these stakeholders reciprocate with cooperative relationships that ultimately lead to strategic competitiveness. Despite the multifaceted nature of strategic CSR that addresses demands from various stakeholders, the principle is likely to be driven by the business case of the CSR initiatives ( McWilliams et al., 2006 ).

In summary, NCL promotes the idea of doing well by doing good. CSR serves as the means to the end of profit maximization by achieving strategic alliance with extended stakeholders than shareholders alone, all but to gain a competitive advantage for the firm ( Porter and Kramer, 2006 ). Thus, the second pathway of CSR shows that,

Pathway 2: the “s” path (1a). NCL is more likely to adopt an instrumental decision frame (s). (1b). Leaders with instrumental decision frame (s) are more likely to engage in strategic CSR (s). (1c). A strategic CSR (s) will generate complementary strategic fit among selected stakeholders and achieve a competitive advantage for the firm.

Pathway 3: PCL, self-serving decision frame, and self-serving CSR (“I”)

Residing on the opposite end from SCL, PCL is a form of leadership that lacks concerns for the well-being and needs of others while being controlled by their inflated self-views. They often thrive by appealing to the attention and admiration of others ( Chatterjee and Hambrick, 2011 ; Petrenko et al., 2016 ).

PCL: Personalized power motives and self-serving decision frame

The personalized power motives are associated with a self-serving decision frame that addresses the three fundamental questions in the following way. First, like NCL, PCL will likely subscribe to a result-centric view of the firm. However, the key difference for PCL is the performance of the organization along with everything else is in service of their personal goals (not the organization). This leadership style emphasizes personal dominance, status, and prestige rather than serving collective interests ( Sosik, 2005 ). This further strengthens our argument that these leaders would not realize the complex interdependence among the firm’s various stakeholders and would thus have a narrow view of the instrumental value of CSR and stakeholders ( Devinney, 2009 ). Secondly, PCL tends to rely on external moral standards that fluctuate for the satisfaction of self-interests ( Petrenko et al., 2016 ; Cragun et al., 2020 ). Thus, CSR is considered an effective strategic tactic for exhibiting him or herself in a favorable light and thus protecting his/her winning, wealth, and power ( Chen et al., 2009 ; Chatterjee and Hambrick, 2011 ). These CSR practices reap potential strategic benefits in the form of greater attention and acclaim for themselves from the media and community. In other words, CSR is a means to the end for serving PCL’s personal aspirations and gains. Lastly, PCL’s primary focus is to serve self-interests, manipulate others for their personal gain, and win at all costs ( Braun, 2017 ). They tend to have a low activity inhibition, which means that they rarely exercise self-control and moral constraints. They tend to abuse power vested in them for the purpose of pursuing self-interests, and at the expense of others.

PCL: Self-serving decision frame and self-serving CSR

We propose that PCL would embrace self-serving mode of CSR . Specifically, PCLs would have the propensity to engage in reputation-enhancing CSR initiatives like philanthropic donations to garner praise and attention mostly for the leaders. This type of CSR is often designed to ingratiate and appease powerful stakeholders and garnish media attention for the leaders ( Donia et al., 2017 ). Owing to their narcissistic tendencies, PCL would constantly seek to exhibit a righteous image by engaging in visible social initiatives which resonate a moral high ground ( Petrenko et al., 2016 ). Such initiatives would provide opportunities for personalized leaders to build a grandiose image and enhance admiration, self-esteem, and legitimacy ( Al-Shammari et al., 2021 ). It is likely that PCL would not favor CSR initiatives which are internally focused with no immediate apparent benefit to their egos.

PCL: Self-serving CSR, stakeholder skepticism, and fluctuated performance

A leader who engages in such symbolic and self-serving CSR merely acts as a “taker” and attempts to protect the material resources without genuinely addressing any societal concerns ( Donia et al., 2017 ; Fox et al., 2020 ). This is a potential dark side to CSR in that these initiatives do not always fulfill a genuine social need ( Price and Sun, 2017 ; Waldman et al., 2020 ). Due to the opportunistic and exploitative nature, the self-serving CSR initiatives might be short-term and disconnected with other programs, which can also cause fluctuation in firm performance ( Braun, 2017 ). In fact, self-serving CSRs can harm internal and external stakeholders’ interests in the long-run and damage the trust among stakeholders. To summarize, we propose the pathway 3 for CSR as follows,

Pathway 3: the “I” Path (3a). PCLs are more likely to adopt a self-serving decision frame (I). (3b). Leaders with a self-serving decision frame (I) are more likely to engage in a self-serving CSR strategic mode (I). (3c). A self-serving CSR mode (I) will lead to a stakeholder relationship lack of trust and fluctuated financial performance.

Discussion and limitations

We set off to address the research questions of how and why related to the heterogeneity in CSR strategies. To this end, we have attempted to explain the impact of three faces of charismatic leadership styles on three orientations of CSR decision frames and three resulting CSR strategic modes. We suggest a spectrum approach and consider differences across various types to be more of degrees than a clear-but or black-and-white. Each type of key concept (charismatic leadership, CSR decision frames, and CSR strategic orientations) is conceptualized as a focal point on a continuum. The three pathways are suggested to be the representation of the predominant tendency and most likely alignment between values, decision frames, and strategic choices. Thus, we do not claim that cross-pathway alignment will not occur. Rather, in most cases, the more a leader demonstrates the characteristics of a particular type (fall on the focal point), the more likely he or she will adopt the corresponding CSR decision frame and make corresponding CSR choices.

Research examining the micro-foundations of CSR, especially the interaction between leadership styles and CSR is still nascent ( Rupp and Mallory, 2015 ; Farooq et al., 2017 ; Zhao et al., 2022 ). Our paper makes several theoretical contributions. First, we expand research on charismatic leadership by highlighting the three faces of charisma that have not attracted considerable scholarly attention. We provide a more nuanced understanding of the differences between the understudied personalized and SCL styles by explicating their behavior, values, and motives ( Waldman and Javidan, 2009 ; Antonakis et al., 2016 ). In addition, we offer explanations for the underlying mechanisms which justify why the three types of charismatic leaders differ in their CSR engagement. The second contribution lies in our attempt to research multidimensional CSR. We respond to the calls for disaggregating CSR ( Wang and Choi, 2013 ; Wang et al., 2016 ) and flesh out in detail the taxonomy of CSR types and their respective predictors. This configuration-based typological approach helps to illustrate the intricate nature of firm’s CSR engagement. Third, we also contribute to the growing literature on the stakeholder-based view of CSR. Our study places personalized and SCL in the context of stakeholder theory ( Freeman, 1984 ; Freeman et al., 2008 ; Samimi et al., 2022 ; Zhao et al., 2022 ) and shows that SCL is likely to foster CSR practices that focus on multiple stakeholders; other charismatic leaders are likely to exhibit personalized leadership by engaging in select CSR initiatives to target particular stakeholder groups who are beneficial for the leaders’ self-interests.

The pathway conceptualization has managerial implications as well. The focus on leader’s power motives and decision frames as drivers for CSR strategy would remind practitioners that CSR strategic transformation starts from the fundamental thinking about the objectives and purpose of the company. The recent writing on conscious capitalism and urgency of sustainability is a welcoming voice that challenges the conventional ideology of corporate objectives and encourages organizations to keep up with the time and critical issues. The configuration perspective of CSR strategic orientations can be a useful framework to holistically consider the various domains that constitute organization’s social performance.

Moving on to the limitations of this study, we proposed that, driven by their values and motives, SCL, NCL, and PCL are likely to engage in various types of CSR initiatives. However, one challenge that corporate leaders are constantly confronted with is resource constraint. Despite the will to do well and do good for all, oftentimes, the resource base of the firm is not expansive enough to facilitate every CSR activity. We did not explore how leaders deal with the trade-offs and prioritize their strategic choices among a range of CSR they wish to engage in. This limitation certainly prevented us from predicting the specificities of a firm’s CSR strategic balance (i.e., the amount of resources allocated to specific types of CSR). One possible way to deal with this issue in the future is to consider various contextual factors. Potential macro-level moderators (e.g., industry characteristics) and micro-level moderators (e.g., CEO characteristics) can facilitate understanding of more specific configurations of CSR activities for firms led by SCL, NCL, and PCL. Our model can also be expanded to include firm performance related to the SCL-CSR and PCL-CSR pathways in terms of both strategic and social outcomes.

Building on the idea of advancing the knowledge of CSR strategic configuration mentioned above, we believe that there are opportunities for making a theoretical contribution in the context of the stakeholder domain. CSR research has often been criticized for the lack of solid and coherent theoretical foundations ( Jones et al., 2018 ; Hilliard, 2019 ). Though stakeholder theory continues to be the dominant paradigm in the field, the theory does not offer adequate explanations pertaining to the complex conflicts and interconnectedness among the stakeholder groups ( Wang et al., 2020 ). Our study can be a starting point to examine the leaders’ response to the CSR pressures exerted by different stakeholder groups. For example, it might be interesting to explore how primary stakeholders react when firms led by socialized charismatic leaders focus on addressing the needs of secondary stakeholders and promote institutional CSR initiatives. Investigating such issues would not only bring to light the complex interactions between firms and stakeholders but also bolster the theoretical foundations of CSR research.

Further, for the purpose of gaining a fuller understanding of SCL, it might also be worthwhile to explore the theoretical overlap and divergence between SCL and another closely associated leadership style, responsible leadership. With a focus on social-relational and ethical obligations, responsible leadership has achieved prominence within the CSR domain ( Maak and Pless, 2006 ; Miska and Mendenhall, 2018 ). Future research can bring to light the construct clarity of these two leadership styles, bridge these two leadership theories, and develop a thorough understanding of leader’s roles in CSR engagement.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Aguilera R. V., Rupp D. E., Williams C. A., Ganapathi J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: a multilevel theory of social change in organizations . Acad. Manage. Rev. 32 , 836–863. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.25275678 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aguinis H., Glavas A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda . J. Manag. 38 , 932–968. doi: 10.1177/0149206311436079 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Shammari M., Rasheed A. A., Banerjee S. N. (2021). Are all narcissistic CEOs socially responsible? An empirical investigation of an inverted U-shaped relationship between CEO narcissism and corporate social responsibility . Group Organ. Manag. 47 , 612–646. doi: 10.1177/10596011211040665 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Antonakis J., Bastardoz N., Jacquart P., Shamir B. (2016). Charisma: an ill-defined and ill-measured gift . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 3 , 293–319. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062305 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashrafi M., Magnan G. M., Adams M., Walker T. R. (2020). Understanding the conceptual evolutionary path and theoretical underpinnings of corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability . Sustainability 12 :760. doi: 10.3390/su12030760 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio B. J., Zhu W., Koh W., Bhatia P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance . J. Organ. Behav. 25 , 951–968. doi: 10.1002/job.283 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Banks G. C., Engemann K. N., Williams C. E., Gooty J., McCauley K. D., Medaugh M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership . Leadersh. Q. 28 , 508–529. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.12.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barney J., Rangan S. (2019). Editors’ comments: why do we need a special issue on new theoretical perspectives on market-based economic systems? Acad. Manag. Rev. 44 , 1–5. doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0425 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron D. P. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy . J. Econ. Manag. Strateg. 10 , 7–45. doi: 10.1162/105864001300122548 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boone C., Buyl T., Declerck C. H., Sajko M. (2020). A neuroscience-based model of why and when CEO social values affect investments in corporate social responsibility . Leadersh. Q. 33 :101386. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101386 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun S. (2017). Leader narcissism and outcomes in organizations: a review at multiple levels of analysis and implications for future research . Front. Psychol. 8 :773. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00773, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bundy J., Vogel R. M., Zachary M. A. (2018). Organization–stakeholder fit: a dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders . Strateg. Manag. J. 39 , 476–501. doi: 10.1002/smj.2736 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter S. M., Greer C. R. (2013). Strategic leadership: values, styles, and organizational performance . J. Leader. Organ. Stud. 20 , 375–393. doi: 10.1177/1548051812471724 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang K., Kim I., Li Y. (2014). The heterogeneous impact of corporate social responsibility activities that target different stakeholder . J. Bus. Ethics 125 , 211–234. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1895-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chatterjee A., Hambrick D. C. (2011). Executive personality, capability cues, and risk taking: how narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and stumbles . Adm. Sci. Q. 56 , 202–237. doi: 10.1177/0001839211427534 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaudhary R. (2021). Authentic leadership and meaningfulness at work: role of employees' CSR perceptions and evaluations . Manag. Decis. 59 , 2024–2039. doi: 10.1108/MD-02-2019-0271 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen H., Liang Q., Feng C., Zhang Y. (2021). Why and when do employees become more proactive under humble leaders? The roles of psychological need satisfaction and Chinese traditionality . J. Organ. Change Manag. 34 , 1076–1095. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-12-2020-0366 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen G., Treviño L. K., Hambrick D. C. (2009). CEO elitist association: toward a new understanding of an executive behavioral pattern . Leadersh. Q. 20 , 316–328. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng B., Ioannou I., Serafeim G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance . Strateg. Manag. J. 35 , 1–23. doi: 10.1002/smj.2131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chin M. K., Hambrick D. C., Treviño L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: the influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility . Adm. Sci. Q. 58 , 197–232. doi: 10.1177/0001839213486984 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christensen L. J., Mackey A., Whetten D. (2014). Taking responsibility for corporate social responsibility: the role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors . Acad. Manag. Perspect. 28 , 164–178. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0047 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Comte-Spoonville A. (2001). A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues . New York, NY, Henry Holt. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cragun O. R., Olsen K. J., Wright P. M. (2020). Making CEO narcissism research great: a review and meta-analysis of CEO narcissism . J. Manag. 46 , 908–936. doi: 10.1177/0149206319892678 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities . Acad. Manag. J. 16 , 312–322. doi: 10.5465/255331 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devinney T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility . Acad. Manag. Perspect. 23 , 44–56. doi: 10.5465/amp.2009.39985540 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dmytriyev S. D., Freeman R. E., Hörisch J. (2021). The relationship between stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility: differences, similarities, and implications for social issues in management . J. Manag. Stud. 58 , 1441–1470. doi: 10.1111/joms.12684 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doh J. P., Stumpf S. A. (Eds.) (2005). Handbook on Responsible Leadership and Governance in Global Business . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donia M. B. L., Ronen S., Tetrault Sirsly C. A., Bonaccio S. (2019). CSR by any other name? The differential impact of substantive and symbolic CSR attributions on employee outcomes . J. Bus. Ethics 157 , 503–523. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3673-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donia M. B. L., Tetrault Sirsly C. A., Ronen S. (2017). Employee attributions of corporate social responsibility as substantive or symbolic: validation of a measure . Appl. Psychol. 66 , 103–142. doi: 10.1111/apps.12081 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elfenbein D. W., McManus B. (2010). A greater price for a greater good? Evidence that consumers pay more for charity-linked products . Am. Econ. J. Econ. Pol. 2 , 28–60. doi: 10.1257/pol.2.2.28 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elkington J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century (The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century) . Capstone: Oxford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabrizi M., Mallin C., Michelon G. (2014). The role of CEO’s personal incentives in driving corporate social responsibility . J. Bus. Ethics. 124 , 311–326. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1864-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farooq O., Rupp D. E., Farooq M. (2017). The multiple pathways through which internal and external corporate social responsibility influence organizational identification and multifoci outcomes: the moderating role of cultural and social orientations . Acad. Manag. J. 60 , 954–985. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0849 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flammer C., Luo J. (2017). Corporate social responsibility as an employee governance tool: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment . Strateg. Manag. J. 38 , 163–183. doi: 10.1002/smj.2492 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fodor E. M. (2010). “ Power motivation ,” in Implicit Motives . eds. Schultheiss O. C., Brunstein J. C. (New York, NY: Oxford; ), 3–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox C., Davis P., Baucus M. (2020). Corporate social responsibility during unprecedented crises: the role of authentic leadership and business model flexibility . Manag. Decis. 58 , 2213–2233. doi: 10.1108/MD-08-2020-1073 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , Boston, MA, Pitman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman R. E., Harrison J. S., Wicks A. (2008). Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success , Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedman M. (2007). “ The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits ” in Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance . eds. Zimmerli W. C., Richter K., Holzinger M. (Heidelberg: Springer: Berlin; ), 173–178. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godfrey P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: a risk management perspective . Acad. Manag. Rev. 30 , 777–798. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.18378878 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godfrey P. C., Merrill C. B., Hansen J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: an empirical test of the risk management hypothesis . Strateg. Manag. J. 30 , 425–445. doi: 10.1002/smj.750 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gond J. P., El Akremi A., Swaen V., Babu N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: a person-centric systematic review . J. Organ. Behav. 38 , 225–246. doi: 10.1002/job.2170 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hambrick D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: an update . Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 , 334–343. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.24345254 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hambrick D. C., Mason P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers . Acad. Manag. Rev. 9 , 193–206. doi: 10.2307/258434 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hambrick D. C., Wowak A. J. (2021). CEO sociopolitical activism: a stakeholder alignment model . Acad. Manag. Rev. 46 , 33–59. doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0084 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilliard I. (2019). Coherency Management: An Alternative to CSR in a Changing World . Palgrave MacMillian: Cham. [ Google Scholar ]
• House R. J. (1977). “ A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership ,” in Leadership: The Cutting Edge . eds. Hunt J. G., Larson L. L. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; ), 189–207. [ Google Scholar ]
• House R. J., Howell J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership . Leadersh. Q. 3 , 81–108. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(92)90028-E [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House R. J., Spangler W. D., Woycke J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the US presidency: a psychological theory of leadership effectiveness . Adm. Sci. Q. 36 , 364–395. doi: 10.2307/2393201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howell J. M., Avolio B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: submission or liberation? Acad. Manag. Exec. 6 , 43–54. doi: 10.5465/ame.1992.4274395 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howell J. M., Shamir B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships and their consequences . Acad. Manag. Rev. 30 , 96–112. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.15281435 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu J., Rong Y., McKee-Ryan F. M. (2022). Fifty Shades of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Conceptual Synthesis via Decision Frame Lens . Manuscript is under review.
• Humphreys J., Zhao D., Ingram K., Gladstone J., Basham L. (2010). Situational narcissism and charismatic leadership: a conceptual framework . J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 11 , 118–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamali D., Karam C. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging field of study . Int. J. Manag. Rev. 20 , 32–61. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12112 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones T. M., Harrison J. S., Felps W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage . Acad. Manag. Rev. 43 , 371–391. doi: 10.5465/amr.2016.0111 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim B. J., Nurunnabi M., Kim T. H., Kim T. (2018). Doing good is not enough, you should have been authentic: organizational identification, authentic leadership and CSR . Sustainability 10 :2026. doi: 10.3390/su10062026 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King B. G., Felin T., Whetten D. A. (2010). Perspective—finding the organization in organizational theory: a meta-theory of the organization as a social actor . Organ. Sci. 21 , 290–305. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0443 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurucz E. C., Colbert B. A., Wheeler D. (2008). “ The business case for corporate social responsibility ” in The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility . eds. Crane A., McWilliams A., Matten D., Moon J., Siegel D. (Oxford: OUP; ), 83–112. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luque M. S., Washburn N. T., Waldman D. A., House R. J. (2008). Unrequited profit: how stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’ perceptions of leadership and firm performance . Adm. Sci. Q. 53 , 626–654. doi: 10.2189/asqu.53.4.626 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maak T., Pless N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society—a relational perspective . J. Bus. Ethics 66 , 99–115. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9047-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maak T., Pless N. M., Voegtlin C. (2016). Business statesman or shareholder advocate? CEO responsible leadership styles and the micro-foundations of political CSR . J. Manag. Stud. 53 , 463–493. doi: 10.1111/joms.12195 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maccoby M. (2004). Narcissistic leaders: the incredible pros, the inevitable cons . Harv. Bus. Rev. 82 , 92–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marcy R. T. (2020). Leadership of socio-political vanguards: a review and future directions . Leadersh. Q. 31 :101372. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101372 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mattingly J. E., Berman S. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: discovering taxonomy in the kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data . Bus. Soc. 45 , 20–46. doi: 10.1177/0007650305281939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McClelland D. C. (1985). How motives, skills and values determine what people do . Am. Psychol. 40 , 12–825. [ Google Scholar ]
• McClelland D. C. (1992). “ Motivational configurations ,” in Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis . ed. Smith C. P. (Cambridge: New York, NY; ), 87–99. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527937.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McWilliams A., Siegel D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective . Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 , 117–127. doi: 10.5465/amr.2001.4011987 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McWilliams A., Siegel D., Wright P. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications . J. Manag. Stud. 43 , 1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miner J.B. (1993). Role Motivation Theories . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miska C., Hilbe C., Mayer S. (2014). Reconciling different views on responsible leadership: a rationality-based approach . J. Bus. Ethics 125 , 349–360. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1923-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miska C., Mendenhall M. (2018). Responsible leadership: a mapping of extant research and future directions . J. Bus. Ethics 148 , 117–134. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2999-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell R. K., Agle B. R., Wood D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts . Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 , 853–886. doi: 10.2307/259247 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen R., Marrone J. A., Slay H. S. (2010). A new look at humility: exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership . J. Leader. Organ. Stud. 17 , 33–43. doi: 10.1177/1548051809350892 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor J., Mumford M. D., Clifton T. C., Gessner T. L., Connelly M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: an historiometric study . Leadersh. Q. 6 , 529–555. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90026-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Reilly C. A., III, Doerr B., Caldwell D. F., Chatman J. A. (2014). Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation . Leadersh. Q. 25 , 218–231. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ou A. Y., Waldman D. A., Peterson S. J. (2018). Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes . J. Manag. 44 , 1147–1173. doi: 10.1177/0149206315604187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perez-Batres L. A., Doh J. P., Miller V. V., Pisani M. J. (2012). Stakeholder pressures as determinants of CSR strategic choice: why do firms choose symbolic versus substantive self-regulatory codes of conduct? J. Bus. Ethics 110 , 157–172. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1419-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petrenko O. V., Aime F., Ridge J., Hill A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance . Strateg. Manag. J. 37 , 262–279. doi: 10.1002/smj.2348 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pless N. M., Maak T. (2011). Responsible leadership: pathways to the future . J. Bus. Ethics 98 , 3–13. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1114-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pless N. M., Maak T., Waldman D. A. (2012). Different approaches toward doing the right thing: mapping the responsibility orientations of leaders . Acad. Manag. Perspect. 26 , 51–65. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized charismatic leaders . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 19 , 797–809. doi: 10.1177/0265407502196004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Porter M., Kramer M. (2006). Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility . Harv. Bus. Rev. 84 , 78–92, 163. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preston L. E. (1975). Corporation and society: the search for a paradigm . J. Econ. Lit. 13 , 434–453. [ Google Scholar ]
• Price J. M., Sun W. (2017). Doing good and doing bad: the impact of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility on firm performance . J. Bus. Res. 80 , 82–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rupp D. E., Mallory D. B. (2015). Corporate social responsibility: psychological, person-centric, and progressing . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 2 , 211–236. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111505 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saha R., Cerchione R., Singh R., Dahiya R. (2020). Effect of ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility on firm performance: a systematic review . Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 27 , 409–429. doi: 10.1002/csr.1824 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Samimi M., Cortes A. F., Anderson M. H., Herrmann P. (2022). What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research . Leadersh. Q. 33 :101353. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101353 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir B., Howell J. M. (2018). “ Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership ” in Leadership Now: Reflections on the Legacy of Boas Shamir Monographs in Leadership and Management . Vol. 9. eds. Katz I., Eilam-Shamir R., Berson Y. (Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited; ), 255–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sosik J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: a model and preliminary field study . Leadersh. Q. 16 , 221–244. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang Y., Mack D. Z., Chen G. (2018). The differential effects of CEO narcissism and hubris on corporate social responsibility . Strateg. Manag. J. 39 , 1370–1387. doi: 10.1002/smj.2761 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang Y., Qian C., Chen G., Shen R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir) responsibility . Strateg. Manag. J. 36 , 1338–1357. doi: 10.1002/smj.2286 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tangney J. P. (2000). Humility: theoretical perspectives, empirical findings, and directions for further research . J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 19 , 70–82. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2000.19.1.70 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the instruments in the context of psychiatry . Science 211 , 453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Uhl-Bien M., Marion R., McKelvey B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era . Leadersh. Q. 18 , 298–318. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Scotter J. R. (2020). Narcissism in CEO research: a review and replication of the archival approach . Manag. Rev. Q. 70 , 629–674. doi: 10.1007/s11301-019-00178-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Varella P., Javidan M., Waldman D. A. (2012). A model of instrumental networks: the roles of socialized charismatic leadership and group behavior . Organ. Sci. 23 , 582–595. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0604 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vergauwe J., Wille B., Hofmans J., Kaiser R. B., De Fruyt F. (2018). The double-edged sword of leader charisma: understanding the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 114 , 110–130. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000147, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vishwanathan P., Van Oosterhout H. J., Heugens P., Duran P., Van Essen M. (2020). Strategic CSR: a concept building meta-analysis . J. Manag. Stud. 57 , 314–350. doi: 10.1111/joms.12514 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voegtlin C., Patzer M., Scherer A. G. (2012). Responsible leadership in global business: a new approach to leadership and its multi-level outcomes . J. Bus. Ethics 105 , 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0952-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A. (2011). Moving forward with the concept of responsible leadership: three key caveats to guide theory and research . J. Bus. Ethics 98 , 75–83. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1021-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A. (2014). “ Bridging the domains of leadership and corporate social responsibility ,” in The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations . ed. Day D. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ), 539–555. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A., Galvin B. M. (2008). Alternative perspectives of responsible leadership . Organ. Dyn. 37 , 327–341. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2008.07.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A., Javidan M. (2009). Alternative forms of charismatic leadership in the integration of mergers and acquisitions . Leadersh. Q. 20 , 130–142. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A., Ramírez G. G., House R. J., Puranam P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty . Acad. Manag. J. 44 , 134–143. doi: 10.5465/3069341 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A., Siegel D. S. (2008). Defining the socially responsible leader . Leadersh. Q. 19 , 117–131. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A., Siegel D. S., Javidan M. (2006). Components of CEO transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility . J. Manag. Stud. 43 , 1703–1725. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00642.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A., Siegel D. S., Stahl G. K. (2020). Defining the socially responsible leader: revisiting issues in responsible leadership . J. Leader. Organ. Stud. 27 , 5–20. doi: 10.1177/1548051819872201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldman D. A., Yammarino F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects . Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 , 266–285. doi: 10.2307/259082 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walter F., Bruch H. (2008). The positive group affect spiral: a dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups . J. Organ. Behav. 29 , 239–261. doi: 10.1002/job.505 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang H., Choi J. (2013). A new look at the corporate social-financial performance relationship: the moderating roles of temporal and interdomain consistency in corporate social performance . J. Manag. 39 , 416–441. doi: 10.1177/0149206310375850 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang H., Tong L., Takeuchi R., George G. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: an overview and new research directions . Acad. Manag. J. 59 , 534–544. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.5001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang J., Zhang Z., Jia M. (2020). Echoes of corporate social responsibility: how and when does CSR influence employees’ promotive and prohibitive voices? J. Bus. Ethics. 167 , 253–269. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04151-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watts L. L., Steele L. M., Mumford M. D. (2018). Making sense of pragmatic and charismatic leadership stories: effects on vision formation . Leadersh. Q. 30 , 243–259. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.09.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinberger J., Cotler T., Fishman D. (2010). The duality of affiliative motivation . In Schulthesis O. & & Brunstein J. (Eds.), Implicit Motives , pp. 71–89. Oxford: University Press Oxford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Windsor D. (2012). “ A corporate social responsibility decision framework for managers and stakeholders ,” in A stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: Pressures, Conflicts and Reconciliation . eds. Lindgreen A., Kotler P., Vanhamme J., Maon F. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 387–412. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winter D. G. (2001). Manual for scoring motive imagery in running text (4th Ed.). Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
• Wowak A. J., Busenbark J. R., Hambrick D. C. (2022). How do employees react when their CEO speaks out? Intra-and extra-firm implications of CEO sociopolitical activism . Adm. Sci. Q. 67 , 553–593. doi: 10.1177/00018392221078584 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wowak A. J., Mannor M. J., Arrfelt M., McNamara G. (2016). Earthquake or glacier? How CEO charisma manifests in firm strategy over time? Strateg. Manag. J. 37 , 586–603. doi: 10.1002/smj.2346 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao L., Yang M. M., Wang Z., Michelson G. (2022). Trends in the dynamic evolution of corporate social responsibility and leadership: a literature review and bibliometric analysis . J. Bus. Ethics . doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05035-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]