Prévia do material em texto

Charismatic Leadership in Organizations: Perceived Behavioral Attributes and Their 
Measurement 
Author(s): Jay A. Conger and Rabindra N. Kanungo 
Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior , Sep., 1994, Vol. 15, No. 5 (Sep., 1994), pp. 
439-452 
Published by: Wiley 
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2488215
 
REFERENCES 
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: 
http://www.jstor.com/stable/2488215?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents 
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide 
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and 
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. 
 
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at 
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of 
Organizational Behavior
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
http://www.jstor.com/stable/2488215
http://www.jstor.com/stable/2488215?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
http://www.jstor.com/stable/2488215?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, VOL. 15, 439-452 (1994)
 Charismatic leadership in organizations:
 perceived behavioral attributes and their
 measurement
 JAY A. CONGER AND RABINDRA N. KANUNGO
 McGill University, Faculty of Management, 1001 Sherbrooke St. W., Montreal, Canada H3A IG5
 Summary Recent interest in the charismatic leadership role of managers in organizations calls
 for the identification and measurement of perceived behavior characteristics of such
 leadership. This article reports on the development of a questionnaire measure of the
 perceived behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership proposed by the Conger
 and Kanungo (1987, 1988) model. Data were collected from 488 managers belonging
 to four organizations located in the U.S.A. and Canada. Analysis of the results revealed
 sound psychometric properties of the measure with adequate reliability, convergent
 and discriminant validity coefficients, and a stable factor structure. Implications of
 the measure for future research and practice are discussed.
 Introduction
 In the early 1980's, there was a growing sense of disillusionment with organizational leadership
 theory and research. Earlier distinctions between task-oriented and person-oriented leadership
 and various contingency approaches such as LPC (least preferred co-worker) and path-goal
 theory seemed inadequate to address certain significant organizational leadership issues of the
 1980's. These included a heightened concern with managing large scale organizational change
 and providing strategic vision to navigate more competitive marketplace environments. In
 addition, previous investigations had overlooked an entire category of leadership charismatic
 forms proposed many decades earlier by the German sociologist Max Weber ([1925] 1968).
 As a result, a paradigm shift would occur in the mid-1980's with new theories of leadership
 emerging under the labels of charismatic and transformational leadership (Bryman, 1992).
 While the earlier organizational leadership models had been subjected to over three decades
 of empirical testing and measures development, the newer conceptions remained more conceptual
 in nature and relied far more upon qualitative case studies for their evidence. As a result,
 rigorous empirical testing and measures development has lagged seriously behind a decade
 of new advances in theory development.
 The study was supported by grants from SSHRC, Canada, and Faculty of Management, McGill University. The
 assistance of T. C. Sanjay in data analysis is gratefully acknowledged.
 CCC 0894-3796/94/050439-14 Received 18 Mapt 1993
 ? 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 23 October- 1993
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 440 J. A. CONGER AND R. N. KANUNGO
 Charismatic and transformational leadership
 Historically, the term is derived from an ancient Greek word meaning 'gift'. It would later
 be adopted by the early Christian Church to describe gifts (charismata) from God that enabled
 the received to perform extraordinary feats such as prophecy and healing. The application
 of the word to leadership contexts came with the pioneering work of Max Weber ([1925] 1968).
 Weber was intrigued by the forces of authority in society and developed a typology of three
 ideal types: the charismatic, the traditional, and the rational-legal. Charismatic authority, he
 asserted, derived its particular legitimacy not from traditions, rules, positions, or laws but rather
 from faith in a leader's exemplary character. The holder of charisma is 'set apart from ordinary
 men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least . . . exceptional powers
 and qualities ... (which) are not accessible to the ordinary person but are regarded as of divine
 origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a
 leader' (Weber, [1925] 1968, pp. 358-359).
 Throughout his writings, Weber expressed concerns with the problems of human freedom,
 creativity, and personal responsibility in modern society. He believed that rational-legal authority
 was the hallmark of the twentieth century and that 'charisma is fated to decline as permanent
 institutional structures increasingly develop' (Weber/Runciman, 1978, p. 248). He feared that
 society's attempts to bring rationality into the area of human emotions and social arrangements
 would ultimately endanger individual creativity and freedom. He also felt that the rational-legal
 mandate 'rule by the majority' -would extinguish the role of individual and personal
 responsibility in society and would ultimately demystify human existence to the point that
 life might become meaningless: '... that the King may be naked indeed' (Eisenstadt, 1968,
 p. lv).
 Given these concerns, Weber sought to explain the forces of individual creativity and responsi-
 bility under the term 'charisma'. By emphasizing the extraordinary and mystical, he developed
 a concept of authority and social organization that was in direct contradiction to the logic
 and laws of the rational-legal and the traditions and inherited status of the traditional. It was
 as if a sense of life's mystery and the importance of individual creativity could be retained
 through charisma. He was careful, however, to note that the term be considered value-free
 since a charismatic leader's 'revelation' for one person might not be a 'revelation' for another.
 At the same time, Weber was concerned with understanding the creation, maintenance, and
 transformation of institutional arrangements. Intrigued by the forces that stabilized and ordered
 society and those brought change and disorder, he sought to categorize the two into 'traditional/
 rational-legal' on the one hand and 'charismatic' on the other. Charisma, in essence, became
 Weber's umbrella term for the forces of change and innovation in society. Due in part to
 this aspect of Weber's conceptualization, organizational researchers of the 1980's and 1990's
 would turn to charismatic business leaders as a principle focus to understand change and inno-
 vation in what was seen as a largely unadaptive and bureaucratic corporate climate in North
 America (e.g. Conger, 1989; Howell and Higgins, 1990; Roberts, 1985; Tichy and Sherman,
 1993; Trice and Beyer, 1991).
 Though Weber's own writers concerned largely political and religious leaders, he did retainelements of the sacred character of the word in his secular or traditional customs but was
 vested in an individual's personal gifts and abilities. Second, these leaders were revolutionary
 forces whose 'revolutionary' appeal depended upon beliefs in heroism and revelation. These
 were individuals with a prophetic picture or vision of the future. They were perceived as possessing
 a power to 'heal' the wrongs of the previous order whether it be traditional or rational-legal.
 Finally, charismatic authority operated informally through human relationships while both
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS 441
 traditional and rational-legal authority were organized around permanent and formal structures.
 In this respect, the relational demands upon the leader were significantly higher and required,
 at the least, a perceived sensitivity on the leader's part to 'minister' to the needs of followers.
 This in turn led to a powerful bond and commitment from followers to the leader instead
 of a commitment to a set of rules or hierarchical bodies under rational-legal and traditional
 authority.
 While Weber's work launched several decades of extensive investigation on the part of political
 scientists and sociologists, oddly the topic remained largely neglected by organizational behavior
 researchers. The first schemes would not appear until the late 1970's and mid-1980's, and to
 date only a few theoretical models have been proposed (e.g. Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo,
 1987; House, 1977; Roberts, 1985; Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975). Although these schemes
 provide explanations of the dynamics of charismatic leadership, many of them lack an empirical
 base.
 As investigations into charismatic leadership began to appear in the organizational literature
 so did another new formulation the transformational leader. In 1978, in his seminal work
 Leadership, political scientist James McGregor Burns coined the term 'transformational leader'
 to illustrate the two fundamentally different patterns of interaction that might occur between
 leaders and their followers. For example, Burn's transformational leader engaged 'with others
 in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and
 morality ... Their purposes which might have started out as separate but related ... become
 fused .. . as mutual support for common purpose ... transforming leadership ultimately becomes
 moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and
 led, and thus has a transforming effect on both' (1978, p. 20). This, he contrasted with transac-
 tional leadership - a more mundane form that 'occurs when one person takes the initiative
 in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things ... Their purposes
 are related, at least to the extent that the purposes stand within the bargaining process and
 can be advanced by maintaining that process. But beyond this the relationship does not go
 ... A leadership act took place, but it was not one that binds leader and follower together
 in a mutual and continuing pursuit of a higher purpose' (1978, p. 20). In other words, both
 leader and led experienced their interaction as simply a transaction in the most instrumental
 sense of the word.
 Though Burns was concerned largely with political leadership, several management writers
 (Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Tichy and Devanna, 1986)
 would borrow his 'transformational' label to describe leaders involved in organizational change
 efforts who appealed to higher order goals and actively set out to empower their subordinates.
 Within short time, the terms transformational and charismatic leadership became intertwined
 in the organizational literature. For example, it was not uncommon to see references to 'charisma-
 tic/transformational leadership' (see Avolio and Gibbons, 1988).
 Bass (1985) who has been the field's principle proponent of the term transformational leadership
 for organizational contexts has argued that the two are distinguishable. Charisma is simply
 one of several components of transformational leadership. His own empirical research, however,
 would cloud the issue since the component of charisma continually emerged as its most prominent
 component. Further confounding the issue was the fact that both the charismatic and transforma-
 tional formulations portrayed the leader's strategic vision as playing a central role in animating
 and empowering followers (Bryman, 1992).
 From our vantage point, what distinguishes these two formulations has little to do with
 any fundamental differences in leader behavior or tactics but rather with the perspective from
 which the leadership phenomenon is viewed. The charismatic theories and research have
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 442 J. A. CONGER AND R. N. KANUNGO
 measured leadership from the standpoint of perceived leader behavior whereas the transformatio-
 nal theories to date have concerned themselves primarily with follower outcomes. In the case
 of the transformational forms, this was the natural outcome of Burn's original conceptualization
 focusing on elevating follower needs and motives to the forefront of the leadership experience.
 On the other hand, the earlier formulations of charismatic leadership emerging from the fields
 of sociology and political science were primarily concerned with what leader behaviors and
 contexts induced follower responses. In essence, the two formulations of charismatic and trans-
 formational in the organizational literature are highly complementary and study the same pheno-
 menon only from different vantage points.
 Of the fewer conceptions of charismatic and transformational leadership in the organizational
 literature that have been studied empirically, the Bass (1985) and House (1977) frameworks
 have received the greatest attention (Bass, 1985; Howell, 1985; Smith, 1982). In the Bass model,
 however, the focus has not been directed toward delineating specific behavioral dimensions,
 but rather on predictions of follower outcomes. House's own test (House, 1985; House, Spangler
 and Woycke, 1991) of his 1977 theory was conducted on national political leaders rather than
 on organizational leaders and drew solely upon secondary sources such as biographies and
 speeches. Overall, therefore, little attention has been directed towards identifying through empiri-
 cal research the specific distinguishing behavioral attributes of charismatic leaders in organizatio-
 nal settings.
 As a result of the complexity of the phenomena and these confusions in the formulations,
 measurement of the new models of leadership is fraught with problems of construct ambiguities
 and validity issues. This necessitates research on two fronts: identification of the behavioral
 dimensions of charismatic leaders and the development of valid and reliable measures of such
 leadership behavior for use in future research.
 Recently, Conger and Kanungo (1987, 1988, 1992) developed a model that focuses on several
 behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership within organizations. According to the model,
 charismatic leadership is an attribution based on followers' perceptions of their leader's behavior.
 The leader's observed behavior is interpreted by followers as expressions of charisma in the
 same sense as a leader's behaviors reflect that individual's participative, people and task orien-
 tations. Charismatic leaders differ from other leaders by their ability to formulate and articulate
 an inspirational vision and by behaviors and actions that foster an impression that they and
 their mission are extraordinary. As such,individuals choose to follow such leaders in manage-
 ment settings not only because of formal authority but out of perceptions of extraordinariness.
 Thus any measurement of charismatic leadership must be based on follower's perceptions of
 the specific behavioral attributes of the leader that engender such outcomes. The Conger-
 Kanungo model proposed several distinguishing behavioral components in three distinct stages
 of the leadership process.
 Specifically in stage one (environmental assessment stage), the Conger-Kanungo model dis-
 tinguishes the charismatic leadership of managers from other leadership roles by followers'
 perception of the manager's greater desire to change the status quo and by a heightened sensitivity
 to environmental opportunities, constraints, and followers' needs. As such, managers in a charis-
 matic leadership role are more likely than in other roles to be perceived both as critics of
 the status quo and as reformers or agents of radical reform. In stage two (vision formulation
 stage), the followers' perception of the manager's formulation of a shared, but idealized future
 vision and effective articulation of this vision in an inspirational manner distinguishes the
 manager's charismatic leadership role from other roles. Finally, in stage three (implementation
 stage), managers who are perceived as charismatic are seen to be engaging in exemplary acts
 that subordinates interpret as involving great personal risk and sacrifice. Through these actions,
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS 443
 such fmanagers are able to empower subordinates and build trust. In addition, managers in
 a charismatic leadership role are also seen to be deploying innovative and unconventional
 means for achieving their visions. The present study attempts to operationalize the charismatic
 leadership role of managers in organizations by developing reliable and valid questionnaire
 measures of the perceived behavioral attributes identified by the Conger-Kanungo model.
 Method
 Design of questionnaire and procedure
 In order to operationalize the behavior components through a questionnaire measure of charis-
 matic leadership, the following method was employed. Drawing from previous studies and
 a review of the literature, 49 items were constructed. These items described 49 different behaviors
 of a manager perceived by subordinates to be charismatic. In a previous study (Conger and
 Kanungo, 1992) a sample of 120 subordinate managers were asked to think of a superior whom
 they perceived to have leadership abilities and then rate the superior in terms of each of the
 49 items and the degree to which the superior exhibited charisma. On the basis of the results
 of this study, 24 items were eliminated on grounds of ambiguity, redundancy and lack of discrimi-
 natory power. The remaining 25 items were selected for the present study to represent the
 Conger-Kanungo (C-K) scale of charismatic leadership. A six-point 'very characteristic--very
 uncharacteristic' response format was used for the respondents in the present study.
 The three stages of the Conger-Kanungo model described earlier are linked to the factor
 items in the following manner. As shown in Table 2, the items under 'Environmental sensitivity',
 'Sensitivity to member needs', and 'Does not maintain the status quo' are directly related to
 stage one the environmental assessment. These items seek to reveal a leader's ability to
 see opportunities and constraints in the environment, in members' abilities and needs, and
 in challenges to the status quo. The second stage vision formulation is captured in the
 items labelled 'Vision and articulation'. These items describe the ability of a leader to devise
 an inspirational vision and to be an effective communicator. Finally, stage three implemen-
 tation is measured in the 'Personal risk' and 'Unconventional behavior' items. Here the
 aim of the items is to demonstrate the degree to which a leader is seen to be assuming personal
 risk and engaging in unconventional behavior to reveal their extraordinary commitment and
 uniqueness. These perceived behaviors will, in turn, engender follower support and commitment.
 A questionnaire containing three parts was designed for the purpose of testing the reliability
 and validity of the Conger-Kanungo (C-K) scale. One part contained the 25 items describing
 the behavioral components while a second part contained the Bass charisma scale (1985) and
 three other measures of leader/manager behavior (task orientation, people orientation, and
 participative orientation adapted from standardized measures to manage questionnaire
 length). The Bass charisma scale contained the six items with the highest loading on the charisma
 factor in Bass' (1985) study. The items were: 'is a model for me to follow'; 'makes me proud
 to be associated with him/her'; 'has a special gift of seeking what is really important for me
 to consider'; 'I have complete faith in him/her'; 'encourages understanding of points of view
 of other members'; and 'has a sense of mission which he/she transmits to me'. For measuring
 other behavior orientations, items were constructed from a pool of items taken from standard
 scales such as the Ohio State leadership behavior scales (see Halpin and Winer 1957). Five
 items were selected to measure each of the task ('schedules the work to be done'; 'assigns
 subordinates to particular tasks', 'maintains definite standards of performance'; 'encourages
 use of uniform procedures'; and 'overall, he/she is a task oriented leader'), people ('looks out
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 444 J. A. CONGER AND R. N. KANUNGO
 for the personal welfare of subordinates'; 'finds time to listen to his/her subordinates'; 'shows
 personal favors for his/her subordinates'; 'tends to be friendly and approachable'; and 'overall,
 he/she is a people oriented leader'), and participative ('acts after consulting subordinates'; 'seeks
 consensus among subordinates to create a pleasant working atmosphere'; 'gets group approval
 of subordinates in important matters before going ahead'; and 'overall, he/she is a participatory
 leader') orientations. The Bass scale (1985) and the three other behavior orientation scales
 were used for purposes of testing the convergent and discriminant validities of the proposed
 C-K measure. To reduce the effects of method bias, the two parts of the questionnaire were
 administered with a one-day separation between them. As well, the order of the presentation
 of the two parts were reversed for one half of the total sample. The third part of the questionnaire
 was designed to determine the demographic characteristics of the respondents and was adminis-
 tered at the end of the testing.
 Sample description
 The questionnaire was written in both English and French following the translation-retranslation
 procedure (Brislin, Lonner and Thorndike, 1973) and was administered to 750 full-time English-
 and French-speaking managers in four corporations in the United States and Canada. The
 respondents were told that participation in the study was optional and that they could be
 assured of the confidentiality of the data. Distribution of the questionnaires was performed
 by the human resources departments of the participating companies. Each respondent received
 an envelope containing the first part of the questionnaire with a postage-paid mailer addressed
 to the researchers. Part two with the demographics questionnaire attached was distributed one
 day later with instructions to answer it no sooner than 24 hours after completing part one.
 This second part was also accompanied by a postage-paid mailer addressed to the researchers.Parts one and two of the questionnaires from individual respondents were identified through
 matching identical serial numbers given to each questionnaire pair. At no point, did the question-
 naires pass back though the human resources or other organizational departments. The final
 count revealed that 488 completed questionnaires were returned.
 Results
 Demographic data
 Respondents were managers belonging to four corporations. Eighty per cent of the sample
 came from large organizations (over 1000 employees). Eighty-nine per cent of the respondents
 were male and 11 per cent female, with a mean age of 41.5 for the total sample. Eighty-six
 per cent were married, and 14 per cent were single. Their education levels ranged from high
 school to advanced graduate degrees, and their income levels ranged from under $25 000 to
 over $105 000. Sixty-two per cent spoke English as their mother tongue, and 25 per cent spoke
 French as their mother tongue. Half of the sample had organizational tenure of 12 years or
 more.
 Psychometric properties of the measures
 The means, standard deviations and reliability coefficients (Cronbach alpha) for each of the
 scales and for each of the four organizations from where samples were drawn are presented
 in Table 1. The reliabilities for the Conger-Kanungo (C-K) scale varied from 0.88 to 0.91
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS 445
 across samples. For the total sample (N = 488), the reliability index was 0.88. The item-total
 correlations for the 25 items in the C-K scale ranged from 0.25 to 0.66, with an average correlation
 of 0.44.
 Dimensions of charismatic leadership
 Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the 25 items of the
 C-K scale to determine if the various behavioral dimensions proposed by the Conger-Kanungo
 model could be empirically verified. The total sample was broken into two groups (Ns = 241
 and 244), and separate analyses were performed on each to determine the stability of the factor
 structures across the samples. Separate factor analyses of the two samples reported here yielded
 essentially similar factor structures. Analysis of the total sample yielded six clear interpretable
 factors of charismatic leadership (see Table 2).
 The first factor contained six items which reflected strategic vision and articulation behavior
 components (item loadings ranged from 0.50 to 0.82). The second factor contained seven items,
 and these items reflected sensitivity to the environment with item loadings ranging from 0.37
 to 0.75. The third (three items) and fourth (four items) factors reflected unconventional behavior
 (item loadings 0.68 to 0.79) and personal risk (item loadings 0.73 to 0.81). The fifth (three
 items) and sixth (two items) factors were respectively a sensitivity to organizational members'
 needs (item loadings from 0.79 to 0.86) and an action orientation away from the maintenance
 of the status quo (item loadings 0.73 and 0.75). The eigen values were 7.54 (factor 1), 3.73
 (factor 2), 1.81 (factor 3), 1.59 (factor 4), 1.41 (factor 5), and 1.25 (factor 6) explaining 60
 per cent of the total variance. Each of the six orthogonal factors represented a subscale measuring
 a distinct dimension of the composite C-K scale. The means, standard deviations and reliability
 coefficients for these subscales are presented in Table 3.
 In a separate study using 75 respondents, the scales were administered twice with a two-week
 interval. The test-retest reliability coefficients were calculated for each of the subscales, and
 these results are also presented in Table 3. For the composite C-K scale, the test-retest reliability
 was 0.69.
 Confirmatory factor analyses
 A confirmatory factor analysis of the items measuring the six dimensions of C-K scale was
 conducted using the maximum likelihood method of LISREL VII (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989).
 Using this analysis, two hypothesized models, one a six-factor model and the other a single-factor
 model were compared for the best fit to the data.
 Following a suggestion (Bentler and Chou, 1987) that the total number of variables should
 preferably be less than 20 in structural modelling analysis, the total number of indicators for
 the six latent variables were reduced from 25 to 13. For each of the following four latent
 variables, vision and articulation, environmental sensitivity, personal risk and sensitivity to
 member needs, two indicators were created by combining items on the basis of content similarity
 and intercorrelations (Harris, 1991). For the other two latent variables, unconventional behavior
 and does not maintain status quo, each of the respective individual items (three and two items
 respectively as in Table 2) served as indicators. Thus there were a total of 19 variables (13
 indicators and six latent). The covariance matrix recommended for large samples was used
 in the analysis (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1990).
 The model that hypothesized six factors to underlie the C-K scale of charismatic leadership
 yielded a X2(52,N = 488) = 200.30, p < 0.001, for a chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio of
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 446 J. A. CONGER AND R. N. KANUNGO
 Table 1. Internal consistency index/mean/standard deviation for all measures
 Org 1 (N= 241) Org 2 (N= 71) Org 3 (N=63) Org 4 (N= 113) Total (N=488)
 Alpha Mean S.D. Alpha Mean S.D. Alpha Mean S.D. Alpha Mean S.D. Alpha Mean S.D.
 Bass scale for charisma
 (six items) 0.88 27.13 5.22 0.92 29.01 4.92 0.85 28.38 4.15 0.78 30.31 3.57 0.88 28.29 4.87
 Task orientation (five
 items) 0.72 23.40 3.53 0.69 23.22 3.48 0.72 22.98 3.40 0.71 22.07 3.92 0.71 23.01 3.63
 Participation orientation
 (five items) 0.86 21.11 4.66 0.82 22.68 3.55 0.76 22.25 3.62 0.78 21.72 3.90 0.83 21.63 4.25
 People orientation (five
 items) 0.85 21.89 4.77 0.87 23.49 4.10 0.72 22.63 3.40 0.76 23.63 3.65 0.83 22.62 4.33
 C-K scale for charisma
 (25items) 0.88 104.32 14.98 0.91 107.57 13.73 0.87 108.82 13.03 0.88 114.66 12.43 0.88 107.78 14.52This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS 447
 3.85, and a goodness of fit index of 0.942. Since chi-square is very sensitive to sample size
 and number of variables, it is not surprising that trivial differences between the present sample
 and reproduced covariance matrices would result in a significant chi-square value in the present
 study which used a sample size of 488 with 19 variables (Bentler, 1980; Brooke, Russell and
 Price, 1988). Consequently, the goodness of fit index and ratio of chi-square to degrees of
 freedom can be used to assess the goodness of model fit. Since the goodness of fit index is
 above 0.90 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1984) and the ratio is less than 5 (Marsh and Hocevar,
 1985) the six-factor model provides a good and acceptable fit to the data. By comparison,
 the second model that hypothesized a single factor provides a very poor fit with X2(65,N =
 488) = 641.23, p < 0.001, for a chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio of 9.86, and the goodness
 of fit index of 0.813. The difference between the two models is significant, X2(13,N = 488)
 = 440.93, p < 0.001, and suggests that the six-factor model provides a significantly better
 fit to the data.
 Convergent and discriminant validity of the Conger-Kanungo scale of charismatic
 leadership
 Table 4 presents intercorrelations among the five leadership role behavior measures for the
 total sample. These correlations reveal two distinct clusters: one representing the task-directed
 roles of managers that primarily emphasize day-to-day administration and taskaccomplishment
 and the other representing follower-directed roles that primarily emphasize influencing followers'
 attitudes and behavior. The task-oriented role relationship to the four other follower-directed
 roles (Bass, participative, people, C-K charismatic) are of a lower magnitude (r's range from
 0.25 to 0.35). The follower-directed roles show significant positive correlation with each other
 (r's range from 0.53 to 0.75). While perceived as distinct from the task-oriented role, the C-K
 scale measuring charismatic leadership is positively related to the other leadership measures
 such as the Bass, participation, and people orientation. The C-K scale has highest correlation
 with the Bass scale (r = 0.69), but lowest correlation with task orientation measures (r =
 0.26) suggesting convergent and discriminant validities of the scale respectively.
 The unique features of C-K scale
 The correlations of each C-K charismatic leadership subscales with other perceived leadership
 behavior measures are also presented in Table 4. These correlations further illustrate the distinc-
 tive nature of the charismatic leadership construct in Conger-Kanungo model and the C-K
 scale as its operational measure. For instance, while the charismatic leadership role as measured
 by Bass scale is moderately associated with articulation and vision (r = 0.62), personal risk
 (r = 0.42), and environmental sensitivity factors (r = 0.63), all other types of leadership roles
 are associated with these factors to a lesser extent (r's = 0.09 to 0.47 in the case of articulation
 and vision, r's = 0.03 to 0.31 in the case of personal risk and r's = 0.19 to 0.52 in the case
 of environmental sensitivity). In the charismatic role, there is some emphasis on changing the
 status quo (r = 0.14), whereas in the task role, the emphasis is on maintaining the status quo
 (r = -0.18).
 In order to avoid the problems of multicollinearity in interpreting the correlations of the
 C-K subscales with the four leadership role measures in Table 4, four separate stepwise regression
 analyses were performed one for each leadership role measure as the dependent variable.
 The partial R2 and F ratios are presented in Table 5. Clearly, in the task-oriented role, environ-
 mental sensitivity is an important factor. Sensitivity to member needs explains a large amount
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 448 J. A. CONGER AND R. N. KANUNGO
 Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis (N = 488)
 Factor names and items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
 Vision and articulation
 Exciting public speaker 0.82 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.21 -0.01
 Appears to be a skillful performer when 0.80 0.11 -0.06 0.04 -0.02 -0.02
 presenting to a group
 Inspirational, able to motivate by articulating 0.55 0.31 -0.04 0.25 0.40 0.05
 effectively the importance of what
 organizational members are doing
 Has vision, often brings up ideas about 0.61 0.31 0.19 0.22 0.06 0.26
 possibilities for the future
 Provides inspiring strategic and organizational 0.53 0.31 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.19
 goals
 Consistently generates new ideas for the future 0.50 0.21 0.22 0.31 0.06 0.31
 of the organization
 Environmental sensitivity
 Readily recognizes constraints in the 0.22 0.69 0.03 0.07 0.22 0.02
 organization's social and cultural environment
 (cultural norms, lack of grass roots support,
 etc) that may stand in the way of achieving
 organizational objectives
 Readily recognizes constraints in the physical 0.11 0.68 0.05 0.03 0.19 -0.15
 environment (technological limitations, lack of
 resources, etc) that may stand in the way of
 achieving organizational objectives
 Readily recognizes barriers/forces within the 0.07 0.68 0.14 0.04 0.00 -0.02
 organization that may block or hinder
 achievement of his/her goals
 Recognizes the abilities and skills of other 0.25 0.67 -0.06 0.12 0.27 0.05
 members in the organization
 Recognizes the limitations of other members in 0.11 0.75 -0.14 0.03 0.15 -0.06
 the organization
 Readily recognizes new environmental 0.53 0.45 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.19
 opportunities (favorable physical and social
 conditions) that may facilitate achievement or
 organizational objectives
 Entrepreneurial; seizes new opportunities to 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.16 0.02 0.27
 achieve goals
 Unconventional behavior
 Engages in unconventional behavior to achieve 0.00 0.06 0.79 0.09 -0.12 0.13
 organizational goals
 Uses non-traditional means to achieve 0.05 0.09 0.71 0.13 0.09 0.32
 organizational goals
 Often exhibits very unique behavior that 0.03 0.04 0.68 0.15 -0.09 -0.06
 surprises other members of the organization
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS 449
 Table.2. Continued.
 Factor names and items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
 Personal risk
 In pursuing organizational objectives, engages 0.13 0.08 0.24 0.81 0.04 0.18
 in activities involving considerable personal
 risk
 In pursuing organizational objectives, engages 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.73 0.00 0.01
 in activities involving considerable self-sacrifice
 Takes high personal risk for the sake of the 0.12 0.07 0.18 0.78 0.14 0.18
 organization
 Often incurs high personal costs for the good 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.78 0.12 0.02
 of the organization
 Sensitivity to member needs
 Shows sensitivity for the needs and feelings of 0.06 0.25 -0.08 0.04 0.86 -0.02
 other members in the organization
 Influences others by developing mutual liking 0.15 0.20 -0.06 0.04 0.79 -0.02
 and respect
 Often expresses personal concern for the needs 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.18 0.80 -0.07
 and feelings of other members of the
 organization
 Does not maintain status quo
 Tries to maintain the status quo or the normal 0.12 0.10 0.16 0.09 -0.06 0.75
 way of doing things
 Advocates following non-risky well-established -0.03 -0.07 0.22 0.13 0.11 0.73
 courses of action to achieve organizational
 goals
 Table 3. Reliability indices, means, and standard deviations for the six subscales
 Reliability
 Alpha Mean S.D. test - retest
 Vision and articulation (six items) 0.84 27.14 4.89 0.80
 Environmental sensitivity (seven items) 0.81 33.24 4.71 0.70
 Unconventional behavior (three items) 0.74 10.95 3.36 0.73
 Personal risk (four items) 0.83 15.74 4.12 0.72
 Sensitivity to member needs (three items) 0.83 13.53 3.05 0.84
 Does not maintain status quo (two items) 0.62 7.24 2.16 0.69
 of variance in the participative and people-oriented roles. In the Bass scale of charismatic
 leadership, sensitivity to the environment and member needs explain a significant portion of
 the variance. Articulation and vision and the personal risk factors are of lesser importance.
 The dimensions of unconventional behavior and negative orientation toward the status quo
 do not account for variance in the Bass scale.
 The LISREL estimates of the relationships between C-K subscales and other leadership
 measures corresponding to the stepwise regression analysis are presented in Table 6. The results
 from the LISREL analysis provide unbiased estimates and are consistent with the regression
 analysis. They support the following conclusions. First, four of the C-K dimensions (vision
 and articulation, environmental sensitivity, personal risk and sensitivity to member needs) have
 positive relations with the Bass' scale, but the other two dimensions (unconventional behavior
 and not maintaining status quo) constitute unique features of the C-K scale that makes it a
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 450 J. A. CONGER AND R. N. KANUNGO
 Table 4. Intercorrelations among leadership measures
 1 2 3 4
 1. Task-oriented leadership
 2. Participative leadership 0.35*3. People-oriented leadership 0.25* 0.75*
 4. Bass charisma 0.34* 0.73* 0.70*
 5. C-K charismatic leadership 0.26* 0.53* 0.57* 0.69*
 Subscales
 Vision and articulation (six items) 0.27* 0.47* 0.44* 0.62*
 Environmental sensitivity (seven items) 0.39* 0.54* 0.52* 0.63*
 Unconventional behavior (three items) -0.03 -0.05 0.05 0.06
 Personal risk (four items) 0.16* 0.24* 0.31* 0.42*
 Sensitivity to member needs (three items) 0.15* 0.71* 0.75* 0.60*
 Does not maintain status quo (two items) -0.18* -0.08 0.02 0.14*
 *p < 0.01.
 Table 5. Stepwise regression analysis with C-K dimensions as independent and other leadership scales
 as dependent variables
 Task Participative People Bass
 Partial Partial Partial Partial
 R 2 F R F R F R2 F
 Vision and articulation - 0.01 10.85 0.06 72.40
 Environmental sensitivity 0.15 85.18 0.06 62.53 0.03 41.46 0.40 319.33
 Unconventional behavior
 Personal risk 0.02 22.68 0.02 28.59
 Sensitivity to member needs 0.50 488.58 0.56 618.31 0.12 122.40
 Does not maintain status quo 0.05 28.51 0.01 16.01
 All F values significant below 0.00 1 level.
 more comprehensive measure of charismatic leadership. This observation is consistent with
 what we described earlier as some of the overlap between the charismatic and transformational
 formulations especially on the vision and member/follower sensitivity dimensions. Yet the
 absence of additional leader behavior dimensions in Bass' scale points to the restrictive nature
 of the formulation of the transformational forms. Second, the sensitivity to environment seems
 to have positive relations with all the other leadership measures. Third, sensitivity to member
 needs is an important feature in participative, people, and Bass scales. Finally, vision and
 articulation, unconventional behavior, personal risk and striving to change the status quo seem
 to constitute the major features that distinguish charismatic leadership as measured by C-K
 scale from the other forms of leadership measures.
 Conclusion
 The results of the study suggest that the Conger-Kanungo scale appears to have sound psycho-
 metric properties with adequate reliability and convergent and discriminant validity coefficients.
 Besides, the factor structure of the C-K scale reveals a number of stable perceived behavioral
 dimensions of charismatic leadership. In addition, the scale expands the number of leader be-
 havior dimensions associated with the phenomenon and therefore brings us one step closer
 to a more comprehensive descriptor of charismatic leadership in organizations.
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS 451
 Table 6. LISREL estimates of relations between C-K dimensions and other leadership measures
 Task Participative People Bass
 Vision and articulation 0.087 0.155* 0.060 0.255*
 Environmental sensitivity 0.408* 0.252* 0.183* 0.322*
 Unconventional behavior -0.056 -0.047 0.029 -0.061 t
 Personal risk 0.088t 0.065t 0.106t 0.147*
 Sensitivity to member needs -0.076t 0.445* 0.542* 0.270*
 Does not maintain status quo -0.167* -0.095* -0.034 0.028
 *p < 0.001.
 tp < 0.01.
 tp < 0.05.
 Two important steps, however, remain for future research. First, there is a need for further
 studies to vigorously establish criterion validity. Second, it would be important to explore
 empirically the links between the individual behavioral dimensions and specific follower out-
 comes. For example, it has been suggested that charismatic leadership may enhance group
 cohesion and foster high task performance (House, 1977; Conger and Kanungo 1988). Tests
 to discern whether specific C-K dimensions such as vision and articulation directly effect say
 group cohesion or task performance are a logical progression in the research process.
 As well, the scale has implications for management training, development, and selection.
 Having identified the presence or absence of certain behavioral dimensions, it may be possible
 to train managers in some of these attributes. Role-plays and behavioral skill-building exercises
 focusing on these behaviors as well as films and cases employing critical incidents demonstrating
 these characteristics may be useful in training charismatic leadership skills in managers. Also,
 assuming that charismatic leadership is important for organizational reform, companies may
 wish to select managers for reform jobs on the basis of the behaviors identified.
 References
 Avolio, B. J. and Gibbons, T. (1988). 'Developing transformational leaders: a lifespan approach'. In:
 Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (eds) Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational
 Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 276-308.
 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Peiformance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York.
 Bennis, W. G. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. The Strategies of Taking Charge, Harper Collins, San
 Francisco.
 Bentler, P. M. and Chou, C. (1987). 'Practical issues in structural modelling', Sociological Methods and
 Research, 16, 78-117.
 Bentler, P. M. (1980). 'Multivariate analysis with latent variables: causal modeling', Annual Review of
 Psychology, 31, 419-456.
 Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J. and Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-Cultural Research Methodology, Wiley,
 New York.
 Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W. and Price, J. L. (1988). 'Discriminant validation of measures of job
 satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment', Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 139-
 145.
 Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organizations, Sage Publications, London.
 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership, Harper and Row, New York.
 Conger, J. A. (1989). The Charismatic Leader, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
 Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1987). 'Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in
 organizational setting', Academy of Management Review, 12, 637-647.
 Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1988). 'Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership'. In: Conger,
 J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (Eds) Charismatic Leadership, Jossey Bass Inc., San Francisco, pp. 78-97.
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 452 J. A. CONGER AND R. N. KANUNGO
 Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1992). 'Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership',
 Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24, 86-102.
 Eisenstadt, N. (Ed.) (1968). Max Weber: On Charisma and Institution Building, University of Chicago
 Press, Chicago, IL.
 Halpin, A. W. and Winer, B. J. (1957). 'A factorial study of leadership behavior descriptions'. In: Stogdill,
 R. M. and Coons, A. E. (Eds) Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, Bureau of Business
 Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
 Harris, M. M. (1991). 'Role conflict and role ambiguity as substance versus artifact: a confirmatory factor
 analysis of house, Schuler and Levanoni's (1983) scales', Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 122-126.
 Harris, M. M. and Schaubroeck, J. (1990). 'Confirmatory modeling in organizational behavior/human
 resource management: issues and applications', Journal of Management, 16(2), 337-360.
 House, R. J. (1985). 'Exchange and charismatic theories of leadership'. In: Kaiser, A., Reber, G. and
 Wunderer, W. (Eds) Handworterbuck der Fuhrung, C. E. Poescel Verleg, Struttgart.
 House, R. J. (1977). 'A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership'. In: Hunt, J. G. and Larson, L. L. (Eds)
 Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pp. 189-207.
 House, R. J., Spangler, W. D. and Woycke, J. (1991). 'Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency:
 a psychological theory of leader effectiveness', Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396.
 Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990). 'Champions of technology and innovation',Administrative
 Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.
 Howell, J. M. (1985). 'A laboratory study of charismatic leadership'. Paper presented at the annual meeting
 of Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.
 Heller, F. and Yukl, G. (1969). 'Participation, managerial decision making, and situational variables',
 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 227-241.
 Jorsekog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI. Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by
 the Method of Maximum Likelihood, National Educational Resources, Chicago.
 Jorsekog, K. G. and Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A Guide to Program and Applications, 2nd edn,
 SPSS Inc., Chicago.
 Kenny, D. A. and Zacarro, S. J. (1983). 'An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership', Journal
 of Applied Psychology, 68, 678-685.
 Marsh, H. W. and Hocevar, D. (1985). 'Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-
 concept: first and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups', Psychological Bulletin,
 97, 562-582.
 Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York.
 Roberts, N. C. (1984). 'Transforming leadership: sources, process, consequences'. Paper presented at
 the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, MA.
 Roberts, N. C. (1985). 'Transforming leadership: a process of collective action', Human Relations, 38,
 1023-1046.
 Runciman, W. G. (Ed.) (1978). Weber: Selections in Translation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
 Smith, B. J. (1982). 'An initial test of a theory of charismatic leadership based on the responses of subordi-
 nates'. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto.
 Tichy, N. M. and Sherman, S. (1993). Control Your Destiny or Someone Else Will, Currency-Doubleday,
 New York.
 Tichy, N. M. and Devanna, M. A. (1986). The Transformational Leader, Wiley, New York.
 Trice, H. M. and Beyer, J. M. (1991). 'Cultural leadership in organizations', Organizational Science,
 2, 149-169.
 Trice, H. M. and Beyer, J. M. (1986). 'Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organizations',
 Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 113-164.
 Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society (1925), three volumes, Roth, G. and Wittich, C. (Eds) Bedminster,
 New York.
 Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in Organization, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
 Zaleznik, A. and Kets de Vries, M. R. F. (1975). Power and the Corporate Mind, Houghton-Mifflin,
 Boston.
This content downloaded from 
�������������139.82.115.33 on Tue, 14 Jul 2020 19:03:44 UTC������������� 
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
	Contents
	image 1
	image 2
	image 3
	image 4
	image 5
	image 6
	image 7
	image 8
	image 9
	image 10
	image 11
	image 12
	image 13
	image 14
	Issue Table of Contents
	Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 5, Sep., 1994
	Front Matter
	Point/Counterpoint
	Point-Counterpoint [p. 383]
	Using Self-Report Questionnaires in OB Research: A Comment on the Use of a Controversial Method [pp. 385 - 392]
	Method Bias: The Importance of Theory and Measurement [pp. 393 - 398]
	Why Do People Say Nasty Things About Self-Reports? [pp. 399 - 404]
	Individual and Contextual Influences on Self-Assessed Training Needs [pp. 405 - 422]
	Work Experiences and Marital Interactions: Elaborating the Complexity of Work [pp. 423 - 438]
	Charismatic Leadership in Organizations: Perceived Behavioral Attributes and Their Measurement [pp. 439 - 452]
	Third Party Roles Played by Turkish Managers in Subordinates' Conflicts [pp. 453 - 466]
	Research Note
	Issues, Behavioral Responses and Consequences in Interpersonal Conflicts [pp. 467 - 471]
	Book Reviews
	untitled [pp. 473 - 474]
	untitled [pp. 475 - 476]
	untitled [pp. 476 - 478]
	untitled [pp. 478 - 482]
	Back Matter