Weber goes on to state that the term "charisma" will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exception powers or qualities. What is alone important is how the individual is actually regarded by those subject to charismatic authority, by his "followers" or "disciples." Do you agree with this statement? Explain.
Sigmund Freud is the creator of psychoanalytic theory and one of the most influential men in the study of Psychology's history. Of his first writing, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, Freud focused on groups, or more precisely, on what happens to individuals when they become members of groups. First, we change from how we act when alone. Second, leaders of groups are of great importance and are shown it by the followers. Third, Freud discovered that follows desire a leader more than a leader desires followers. Based on what Freud had discovered, what do you have to say about this? Do you agree with his findings? Explain.
Mary Parker Follet was the first in a series of pioneers in the study of leadership and management in large organizations, especially in American business. Peter Drucker, who is widely considered the father of "modern management" referred to Follet as "the prophet of management." James MacGregor Burns has been widely published and highly esteemed both in the academy and outside it. Burns is well known for his two well-known leadership types, transaction and transforming. Transforming leadership came of itself to be considered the ideal, and paragon of leadership types. Which of the two leadership types (transaction & transforming) do you prefer and why?
Stanley Milgram conducted the most famous social science experiment of all time. The experiment was about followers-about obedience to authority. It was intended to shed light on why followers obeyed leaders who ordered the m to do something they would almost certainly not have done otherwise-inflict pain, obvious physical pain, on another human being. Being a psychology major, I have actually seen the video tape of Milgram's true experiment. It is astonishing to see how different people react to the request to inflict pain on another human being. Some people would close their eyes and others would flinch as they flipped the switch. Milgram was trying to understand the relationship between superiors and subordinates. We always were, and we still are, more attracted to and engaged by those who do have power, authority and influence than by those who do not. What do you think the circumstances are under which crimes of obedience are likely to be committed?
I agree with Weber that these are important, but through communications class I have learned that there are other types of authority. We talk about coercive and reward power, which I don’t believe Weber has a spot for. A lot of times there are leaders who lead because they have the ability to coerce people or they are in control of the rewards and punishments. The other types of power coincide well with Weber because they are expert, legitimate and referent. So I think that Weber has a great point, and that these types of power all probably fit into one of his three descriptions.
ReplyDeleteI think that there really is great importance on how the followers regard the charismatic authority. The reason being is that if someone is not in a position of power, but is a leader, they need something that makes the followers want to follow. If I am a great leader but no one can see that, they are less likely to follow me. The way people regard me is the most important. It matters if I think I’m a leader, but it also matters if other people see me as a leader. I can’t lead myself.
I think Freud is a crazy guy, but he makes really great points. A lot of what Freud says is backed up by what I’ve learned in my communication classes. When we are in groups, we are likely to feel a higher sense of anonymity and therefore are more likely to do things that we would not have done on our own. It doesn’t hurt that the entire group encourages the actions as well. The power of a group could be put to use for good or bad. We all know about group think, but groups can also end up acting the same way without really questioning what they are doing. I think that leaders are of great importance, but without the followers they really don’t have much going for them. However, it is true that when the followers respect the leader, they let the leader know about his or her importance. When Freud talks about followers desiring a leader more than a leader desires followers, I think he has some great thought, but leaders desire followers as well. A presidential candidate wouldn’t do well if he didn’t desire followers. However, I don’t wake up every morning thinking about how I need followers. But when I want to start a movement, I sure do need followers. The followers of course also long for a leader. A leader can be the beginning momentum, and many times if someone doesn’t want to take charge, they will wait for a leader. If I want to partake in a movement to stop the caf from serving their grilled cheese sandwiches, I might wait until someone else leads because I just want to help protest. I don’t want to do the leading.
I prefer transformational leadership because it is very difficult for me to see leadership as just a transaction. I see leadership as leaders and followers working together to achieve something. I base leadership on relationships that are definitely not shallow. It is hard for me to see transactional leadership as beneficial in most situations. However, I’m sure there are times when transactional leadership may have its advantages. However, I prefer transformational.
I think that we are likely to commit crimes of obedience when we don’t have enough knowledge about something. In that situation, we have to trust someone else who knows more and would probably do whatever the person who seems to know what is going on tells us to. I think fear plays a big role in this as well. When we think someone seems like they are in a higher position, know more, or have reward power, we are likely to fear them and do what they want out of fear that they will do something bad to us. I also think that there is the trust issue. We trust the people in the white coat, with the DR title, so we will do what they say without thinking about it. I feel like these are the times when we are most likely to be obedient.
I think that Weber covered some three of the main categories of leaders. The three that were outlined covered the basis of legality, legitimacy, and charisma. I agree that these are the most common and well known. I do think that he should include some type of relational leadership. This could go along with charismatic but I think that the ability to lead because they are able to form bonds and trust with their followers is an important characteristic as well. I think the general categories he has outlined are able to capture many of the common characteristics with some adaptation.
ReplyDeleteI think that charismatic authority is something that can separate a good and great leader. In order to lead you need followers, so if your followers look upon you favorably that speaks to the type of impact you will have as a leader. Charisma is somewhat of an undefinable quality that makes followers want to follow a person. I think that it coincides with the Woo characteristic on the StrenthsQuest test. You can believe in yourself and abilities, but what makes a leader is getting others to do the same.
I think that Freud makes a great point is saying that followers desire a leader more than leaders desire followers. It is not that people don't want to assume responsibility for what their group is doing but they liked being instructed what to do. In a group there is a sense of community and togetherness in completing a task. Individuals are more likely to do something they may not have tried before with the encouragement of both their leader and peers. A leader is essentially powerless without followers to back the decisions they make. So I think in this effect leaders desire followers. I think that a leader knows in order for their ideas to take shape they need to get a group of individuals that share their values and vision.
I prefer transformational leadership because it shows leadership as a progression and process rather than a transaction. I think that leaders and followers develop different skills in one another. It is not a one time instantaneous thing. I am sure in some instances transactional is more efficient but in the long run transformational helps take into account the future and repercussions of the actions.
As Milgram stated people are drawn to innately drawn to authority figures. Crimes of obedience are committed when we are unfamiliar with our surroundings or have little knowledge about what we are doing. We look to a leader to take authority and guide us through the process. For instance if you are in an unfamiliar and someone claims that they know where something is you are likely to follow their lead. They have taken the initiative to assume responsibility for the decision making. Out of ignorance we follow what they advice and succumb to a 'crime of obedience'. I think other times when we give into obedience is when we are fearful, or trusting of another individual. Our emotions play into how we follow instructions from others.
I think that Weber points out the three main types of legitimate authority. When people think of authority they think of rational and charismatic leaders who lead in a traditional way – leaders lead because they are seen and heard by their followers. I think the three pure types of legitimate authority should be the three that should be focused on because most leaders possess one or all of these skills. It would also be beneficial to also discuss other types in a class setting as well.
ReplyDeleteIt is important for leaders to be charismatic. Yes there will be the few leaders who are not as outgoing and talkative as others, but most leaders are charismatic. It is important for leaders to express charisma to inspire and motivate their followers. What follower wants to be lead by a dull person who has no personality?
In society today people want to have a leader that they can look to for guidance and can also do the work for them and make their lives easier. People look to leaders to do the dirty work for them. Many times the leaders will take on a heavier work load and people appreciate and expect this.
I prefer transforming leadership as a leadership style. I think that transforming helps build and develop relationships.
It is crazy to think about Milgram’s findings! When people are put in situations where they do not feel fimilar or comfortable they took to a leader to guide them. When I studied abroad in Australia I was not afraid to ask those around me questions like where to visit and what to eat. Every time a person responded to my question he or she was showing a leadership quality. I agree with the others in our class that obdienance also comes from fear. We are more likely to listen and obey others when we feel that we are being put in a harmful or ‘fearful’ situation.
I agree with Weber. Those three types are most commonly viewed I would think unless you are deeply study the topic. I find that true with any other kind of topic now though. Anything can be broken down deeper and into more categories but I think Weber's three covers it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Freud says as well especially what he said about dealing with followers needing a leader more than leaders desire followers. I think that without a leader followers are lost. Leaders can still function without followers just not to the full capacity. Followers are lost and can stray off without a leader.
I prefer transforming leadership as a leadership style> I think it shows the different stages that develop someone into a leader.
Well seeing as I just typed up an entire response and clicked post comment and it didn't work, I am going to have to redo it again!
ReplyDeleteI think that Weber's three types of leadership are well defined. I think good authority has the traits of being rational, traditional, and charasmatic. I think that these types are well known, but others ones could be added too. I also agree that having charisma is a very beneficial quality. I always hear talk about charasmatic leadership. I think that followers want a leader who had charasmatic authority.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Freud's statement that followers desire a leader more than a leader desires followers. I often see this in group setting I am a part of. We always try to find someone who wants to take charge and take control of the group.
I would have to say I prefer transformational leadership. This way you can see the progress that has been made by both the leaders and followers. You can analyze the skills you have gained.
As far as crimes of obedience go, I think that when people are unaware of there environment they try to find authority to make them feel more comfortable. I think that they will commint the crime out of fear because they are unsure of what else to do or who else to listen to.
I agree with Weber's three types of leaders, but another one that I think he could have added is the leader by intelligence/knowledge. Leaders need not only to be charismatic, but to prove to people that they know they are leading them in the right direction. Intelligence/knowledge is not necessarily included in any of the other three types of leaders, but it is vital for a leader to be intelligent or knowledgeable about the subject in order to know the best decision for the group to pursue.
ReplyDeleteI believe charisma is not necessary for leadership, but it definitely helps a leader to be successful. Charismatic leaders have a greater ability to capture the attention of followers in order to persuade them to help the group towards its goals. Without charisma, a leader may be overlooked or not have the ability to get the group motivated to work toward the common goal.
I definitely agree with Freud's findings, especially his third finding that followers desire a leader more than leaders desire followers. When faced with a goal or problem, a group will remain ineffective without a leader. Think about a group project for a class. The group tends to remain idle and not complete much work until a leader steps up. A leader is needed to schedule when the group will meet, encourage others to contribute ideas, and determine the overall goal for the group. This is also seen in the Milgram studies when the test subjects follow the authority figure without question, as they see a need for a leader figure.
I definitely prefer the idea of transformational leadership because I believe that leadership happens through teamwork among leaders and followers, and not as a set transaction between leaders and followers. Using transformational leadership, it allows for flexibility in the group for anyone to step up as a leader and give their own unique ideas to help the group toward its goal.
The Milgram study is very interesting to see the relationship between the dominant and subordinate people. In a situation of uneasyness, such as in the Milgram study, I believe people are more willing to follow the instructions of a superior. The people were uneasy about the situation, so they turned off their own emotions and just followed the instructions. In another situation, I believe gang activity is very similar in that subordinates may follow the directions of leaders of the gang because they are uneasy about the situation they have found themselves in. I also agree with Nicole in that followers may likely blindly follow the superior if they lack knowledge in the area of study. In the Milgram study, the test subjects may not have been aware of the thought behind the proposed study, so because of their perceived ignorance, they blindly followed the superior.
I agree with Weber's 3 types of leaders. Another category that could be added would deal with credibility. I think there are just some people out there that are leaders because they have a lot of experience and/or knowledge about a specific area or topic. From communication courses, I have learned about the different types of credibility but I don't think it is necessary here.
ReplyDeleteI think charisma can be essential to leadership. People will never get noticed without a certain amount of charismatic features, without being noticed there is a small possibility of getting followers.
Freud definitely makes some good points with regards to how leaders and followers interact. It is absolutely true that followers desire a leader rather than the leader desiring followers. A successful group of any kind would become pretty much void without any source of leadership. Also, I agree with the fact that we change how we act when we are in a group. Personally, I know I do things in a group that I would never do by myself. It doesn't mean these activities are better or worse, I just wouldn't have the ambition to go about it by myself.
I have learned about the Milgram study in a myriad of college classes now, so I am well aware of the impact this study has brought. While the outcome is still astounding to me, I can see how these thing happen. When soldiers are interview about doing terrible acts, they often say that they were just following orders. I think the military is a great example of a time when crimes of obedience is likely to occur.
I agree with Weber. I believe that all three are well known in their own right, specifically speaking traditional leaders are more seen in a clan or tribe and charismatic leaders are clearly seen more in a political setting. I also agree with Zach in wondering where the silent leader has a place. The silent leader is unique, and has its own characteristics.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that individuals who are seen as above others are the only ones who can be charismatic. Many regular people can be charismatic in their own right. This can even be seen on campus in the various organizations, along with the President's position. I'm sure that President Kunkel, a regular man, was chosen for his position due to his charisma being one of his qualities.
I agree with Freud as well. We do act differently alone than when we are a group. I also believe that followers desire a leader. They want someone to show them the way. The leader will always be there and acting on their own, they don't necessary always search for followers.
I like the transforming type because it focuses more on the growth of others, rather transactional, which sounds more of a "give and take" type of relationship.
Crimes of obedience are more likely to be seen where the individual really never feels like they have an option to say otherwise. The example I mentioned in class was "A Few Good Men" when the Marine killed his squadmate because he was "action on orders".
I think these three types of leaders do a good job of balancing the different dynamics that may be possible for a person to employ when being classified as a leader. They encompass both the appointed leadership characteristics that some value, as well as the earned aspects that indicate an individual has risen based on his own actions to his role in leadership. I think these are important distinctions because these are very different types of leaders. The appointed and earned have very different motivations to lead and thus face very different challenges and advantages to motivating their followers.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there is some value in this statement. Regardless of what an individual thinks of his own actions, I believe it is imperative to be aware of how others are perceiving you, and thus how they react to your decision making. I think it is virtually impossible to be an effective leader if you do not have the ability to both understand, and effectively inspire your followers. These two factors, for me, require a certain amount of charisma in a leadership style.
I defiantly think followers desire leaders more than leaders desire followers. For me, I do not believe that one sets out to be a great leader. I believe effective leadership is based on followers seeking the right person in the right situation to make the change they are seeking a reality. Freud has it right when he makes this assertion.
I prefer transformational leadership. I believe that transformational leadership fits better with the value I place on the interpersonal and social aspects of effective leadership. Transformational leadership is about inspiration of others, and incorporates the need for working toward a cause greater than ourselves. For me, these are the most important aspects of leadership.
I believe crimes of obedience are committed when people are immorally or unethically under informed about the real issues at hand. For example, if a person is told that something is right or the absolute only way for a goal to be met, then they may not research any other alternatives and carry out an act that may not otherwise have been necessary (for example, religious groups that use the bible to rationalize the dehumanization of homosexuals). With this, I also believe that sheer ignorance and lack of self-esteem can contribute to these crimes. If a person believes in their own instincts about a given situation, or is confident enough in their own knowledge on a subject to stand up to someone, then they may be less likely to commit the said act.
I agree with Weber, these 3 seem to be the most common when the term “leader” is being discussed. I think that when people begin to learn more about leaders and leadership, then they are able to see leaders in more than just these 3 categories.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement, as it is what the leaders followers believe to be charismatic which makes the leader a leader. If the followers do not believe that the leader has charisma, then I would assume that they wouldn’t agree that that leader should be the leader based on that specific quality.
I believe when individuals become members of a group, they do change from how they had acted when alone, and that leaders are of great importance and the followers show this to the leader; however, I do not agree that followers desire I leader more than a leader desires followers. I feel it’s more of a mutual desire, as a leader needs their followers, and followers need a leader.
I prefer the transforming leadership type, but I believe there is also a place for transaction leadership. Transforming leadership enables both the leader and the follower to gain more from the experience. They both are further developed from their engaging together, and will continue to develop others. Transforming leadership seems to be a deeper leader-follower relationship than transaction, and I believe the deeper the connection and dedication, the better you can be.
I think these circumstances are some of which crimes of obedience are likely to be committed: 1) If the follower is threatened into doing something, 2) If the follower believes the subject deserves what it will receive, and 3) If the follower is pressured into doing something and caves into the pressure.