Maintaining charisma

of a leader to one or more myths of his society.” The second factor is the proof given by the leader of his special qualities. The third factor is the projection of the possession of the qualities. The fourth and last factor is the leader’s rhetorical ability. This approach, nevertheless, has not been properly treated in the literature and a lot of emphasis is given to a

“situation of crisis” as the sine qua non condition to the emergence of charismatic leadership.

We argue that Weber’s lack of systematic treatment to the analysis of the emergence of charisma has had an impact on the way this important topic is discussed. At the end of this chapter, we present our view on the subject.

Weber states, charisma is only “real” in its origin, then it is important to consider what happens when that "original momentum" is lost. Leadership in itself is defined as a process and consequently charisma, as a type of leadership, is also conceptualised as progression. This

“charismatic process,” as it was shown, has very particular characteristics, but it is nevertheless subjected to changes in its nature due to time and events. As Tucker (1970) clearly explains: “charisma … undergoes transformation from an extraordinary and purely personal relationship into an established authority structure that is no longer necessarily dependent upon personal charismatic qualification in the incumbent leader” (p. 91). In contemporary democratic systems, charismatic leaders may come to power due to special social circumstances, but once they have achieved a position of power in the established political system, the leader needs to adjust his leadership style to avoid conflicting with the existing democratic institutions that make up the political structure.

In the case of the charismatic leader, however, this so-called ‘adjustment’ to comply with normal organisational routine seems to be of a particular character. Research shows that charismatic leaders use specific strategies to reinforce the charismatic bond established with the followers. Willner (1984) exposes several of this “strategies in aid of charisma” as follows:

a) “Invocation of the glorious past”: leaders try to legitimise their policies and administration by relating them closely to symbols and memories of a previous regime, most especially if they were “glorious” times.

b) “Being one with the people”: in general, charismatic leader are treated with awe and respect. Nevertheless, these leaders tend to act “as normal and ordinary beings” by performing actions that bring them closely with their group of followers (body language, constant use of folksy and colloquial phrases, et cetera).

c) “The éclat of innovation”: dramatic innovation may have a tremendous impact on a group of followers. This may refer to new communication techniques and creative ways of promoting policies.

d) “The suspense tactic”: like actors, political leaders have learned to build up suspense before an announcement.

e) “Organisational overlap and competition”: Charismatic leaders tend to create new and sometimes complex institutional bodies that they deem important for their task. In most occasions, the objectives of these organisations are poorly delimited.

Willner (1984) rightly suggests that these strategies are not the exclusive use of charismatic leaders, although most of them have been implemented by leaders considered and labelled as charismatic. The ideas exposed by Willner are useful to understand the maintenance of charisma. Nevertheless, the list of “strategies” that aim or reinforce the charismatic bond seems incomplete. There are a number of carefully studied policies that charismatic leaders tend to use in order to maintain their influence over their followers and that are worth explaining in more detail. In an attempt to develop a more holistic and updated framework, we will, at the end of this chapter, present some of the tactics used by charismatic leaders to maintain their leadership as part of our contribution to the literature on the subject.

As in the case of explaining the conditions under which charismatic leadership emerges, Weber does not systematically treat the subject of maintaining charisma. The figure of ‘routinization’ is useful to understand the different stages charisma undergoes, from an original momentum in which the leader’s charisma is clearly perceived to the eventual adjustment of this type of rule to more established patterns of political behaviour. Weber, nevertheless, does not elaborate on the policies and strategies employed by the charismatic leader in order to secure and maintain the bond established with his followers. For Weber

(1968), one of the main problems that arise in relation to the continuation of the charismatic bond is the problem of succession and his analysis on the topic of maintenance deviates from the due analysis of the leader’s policies to a study of the possible ways in which a leader transmits his rule to another leader. Once the disappearance of the charismatic leader occurs, a successor needs to be found if the relationship created by the leader is to persist. Weber (1968) presents some possible types of solution:

a) Search for the new leader based on specific criteria of qualities suitable for the position (like the case of the choice of His Holiness the Dalai Lama).

b) Through the revelation of oracles, lots and other techniques of selection considered divine.

c) By the designation of the new leader by the initial charismatic leader as his own successor.

d) Appointment of the successor by an institution or “charismatically qualified staff” and recognition of the community.

e) Through the idea that charisma can be transmitted by heredity.

f) By the transmission of the charismatic qualities through rituals.

Weber’s main idea regarding the problem of succession is that charisma is subsequently transformed in an established authority institution with rules for its transmission.

Many critics of Weber argue that his explanation of routinisation of charisma invalidates his theory. Some authors point out that if charisma is defined as anti-routine, then the concept is nullified by the idea of “routinisation.” Weber’s explanation of the routinisation of charisma is complex and extends to spheres outside politics. The main point to understand is that although charisma is an anti-routine process in its origin, it is later transformed for its own survival and because of its very nature. As explained by Eatwell (2002), this criticism can be avoided if charisma is studied as a “continuum,” and not pursued as a rigid category.