Comments on: Is Charisma an Important Leadership Quality?

By: Per - Konflikthåndtering

Per - Konflikthåndtering — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 07:36:45 +0000

I worked with a leader once, who had charisma and at first glance seemed very convincing. Over time it showed however, that it was all acting and that there was no solid knowledge or ability to lead, when it came to medium complex situations. So I am sure his charisma convinced the board to employ this guy, but as mentioned charisma doesn’t neccesarily do the job.

By: Russell Page

Russell Page — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:12:17 +0000

I like it.

I actually know Larry’s brother very well. He was a client. Last year at CES he brought brother Larry by so we could meet him, but I was off talking to a man about a horse or something. D’oh’

By: Jeff Jordan

Jeff Jordan — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:35:36 +0000

So all I need to do is add “honest” to my list of CEO characteristics, and I’m good, right?

It sounds like what we’re getting at is that skills/personality characteristics are secondary indicators of success for CEOs. If they have shown a propensity to “get the job done” (that is to say, make money without lying, cheating, etc.) then it doesn’t matter what their charisma level is.

A great example of this is the Google founders. Those dudes are severely lacking in charisma, but Larry did a great job as CEO in the early days, growing the company to 200+ employees before stepping aside.

By: Russell Page

Russell Page — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:14:40 +0000

After reading the responses I have a few questions to pose.

If charisma (as has been alluded to) entails integrity and all the generally accepted great leadership qualities, how is it that Hitler was so charismatic?

is it not leadership if someone can get millions to follow them whether you or I agree with the moral outcomes?

Could it be that the Enron CEO was very charismatic and strategic while being an incredible accountant and salesman?

Hear me out on this because I’m not trying to bag on anybody’s thinking here, I just wonder at times why we’re so quick to tag great leaders based on the way they carry out things tactically while knowing very little about they function on a principled level.

Rockefeller is a great example of this. Was he charismatic? I don’t know, but what I do know is that he told people what he believed and what guidelines he used for making decisions and his actions followed these guidelines.

He gave a speech in 1941 about what he believes . . .
I posted his “I believe” on my site.
http://www.russpage.net/i-believe-john-d-rockefeller/

By: Joshua Steimle

Joshua Steimle — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 19:30:49 +0000

The best CEO is the one who does the best at getting “the job” done. The trouble is that this is easy to judge in hindsight, but not so easy to predict. Certainly those who have done well with certain jobs in the past could be expected to do well with similar jobs in the future, but even here I believe there is a temptation to make jobs appear more similar than they really are. But I guess what I’m getting at is that I believe experience and a proven track record is one of the most important, if not the most important, factor.

I hesitate to say it is definitely the most important factor because I’m a firm believer in the power of humility and a natural aptitude for learning. But all the humility in the world along with a talent for learning doesn’t make up for a lack of experience.

The book The Innovator’s Solution does a good job of bringing some science into the process of picking leaders to run companies, as does Good to Great.

By: Jeff Jordan

Jeff Jordan — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:29:56 +0000

I get you, Josh. Your assertion that charisma shouldn’t be the prime consideration for leadership brings up an interesting question: What should the prime consideration for leadership be? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

My take: The ideal CEO is equal parts charisma, strategy, accountant, and salesman. There aren’t many people who meet this description, so if you’re going to be strong in any one category, it’s good to have the charisma to get others who fill in where you lack to join your cause. But it’s not the be all and end all of leadership.

By: Alex Lawrence

Alex Lawrence — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 06:03:08 +0000

Less then half of my blog posts make much sense, so don’t be too hard on yourself.

I hear what you are saying, charisma does get some people further then they deserve for sure. But it is an important leadership characteristic (one of many) in my opinion.

By: Joshua Steimle

Joshua Steimle — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 04:45:46 +0000

My point was more about people being put in leadership positions of great responsibility based primarily on their charisma, but perhaps I didn’t make that clear. That’s the trouble with us bloggers, we’re a bunch of non-professional writers.

By: Alex Lawrence

Alex Lawrence — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 04:34:36 +0000

Time will tell who is a great leader or not. Your question, at least I thought, was talking about GREAT leadership, not mediocre or fake leadership. I want to learn about what makes histories greatest leaders great and I submit that they all had some form of real and enduring charisma. Enron, Tyco and Global Crossing are examples of poor leaders in leadership POSITIONS. History now tells us that they weren’t leaders at all, charisma or not. Clinton has fantastic charisma – people love him even though he cheated on his wife and lied about it. But is he a great leader? Maybe, people love to follow him and work hard for him and sacrifice for him. BUT – the people that really get studied years down the road as the great leaders of their time have all the charismatic qualities of Clinton, but the substance of Lincoln.

By: Joshua Steimle

Joshua Steimle — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:27:11 +0000

But the issue is that people can’t tell who’s got the substance to back up their charisma and whose charisma is a shell. That is, there are a lot of people in critical positions who are choosing influential corporate leaders who can’t tell. The people I’ve personally witnessed are small fry, but what about Enron, Tyco, and Global Crossing? The execs at those companies had charisma, and yet they were horribly suited for the leadership positions they held and now we’re paying for it with Sarbanes-Oxley.

Maybe I’m opening up a can of worms by mentioning politicians, but take Clinton for example. Clinton had plenty of charisma, but will he go down in history as a great leader? 20 years from now he’ll have a Jimmy Carter-esque legacy at best.

Some people can tell the difference, to be sure, but there’s plenty of evidence that people who are plenty smart still get won over by charisma without substance, or charisma that has substance but is still mis-matched for “the job” at hand.