Charismatic Leadership and Self-Leadership, Article Critique Example

The core idea of the essay, “Charismatic leadership and self-leadership: A relationship of substitution or supplementation in the contexts of internalization and identification?” (2011) is that self-leadership can play an important role in establishing charismatic leadership as a functional and positive influence in organizational and workplace environments. The authors carried out a formal statistical study in order to substantiate a posited link between the natural functions of charismatic leadership, and the deliberate acquisition of leadership skills and influence that are associated with self-leadership. The overall method of the study involved the collection of data “from 991 employees of 20 organizations. The research hypotheses were tested using regression analysis” (Anyi, 300). The impact of the study was based in pragmatic application, rather than on abstract theory. The research paper involved a comprehensive literature review as well as a detailed analysis of statistics. My opinion regarding the study is that it is both thorough and convincing. The thesis and  the evidence provided to support the thesis are cogent. The essay is written in a straightforward manner that excludes digressions.

The reason that the question of the relationship between self=leadership and charismatic leadership emerged, through the study, as an important aspect of practical organizational dynamics is due to the fact that formal studies have conclusively shown a relationship between the internalized “self-talk” of employees and the internalized “self-talk” of organizational leaders. The authors of the essay firmly suggest that both their statistical analysis and the review of a cross-section of relevant literature indicates a correlation between self-leadership and organizational performance. For this reason the authors posit that “the implementation of charismatic leadership and self-leadership will help promote a sense of empowerment which in turn leads to innovation and organizational commitment” (Anyi, 300). The connection between modes of leadership and the ultimate utility of any given organization is therefore interpreted by the authors as an extension of the respective internalized  attitudes. One criticism of the hypothesis that is forwarded in the article is that the concept of charismatic leadership is only loosely defined and it is not clear, according to the essay,  how self-leadership impacts organizational efficiency without the accompanying presence of charismatic leadership.

The link between charismatic leadership and self-leadership is the focus of the essay. The authors contend that “charismatic leadership is renowned as one’s personal strength perceived to be extraordinary and attractive” (Anyi, 301). By comparison self-leadership, according tot he authors, is based in a set of behaviors and beliefs that focus on “natural rewards and constructive thought pattern strategies” (Anyi, 302). The main difference between charismatic leadership and self-leadership is the addition of conscious control to self-leadership strategies. The key to the thesis of the essay is the statistically substantiated hypothesis that charismatic leadership stands in a complimentary relationship to self-leadership. The statistical investigation utilized 1400 questionnaires which were distributed to “20 organizations that were implementing change in structure, technology, marketing, or budgeting” (Anyi, 303). The results of the questionnaires were compared withe the original hypotheses and collated with an extensive survey of pertinent literature ranging form psychology journals to business journals.

The breakdown of statistics from the sample group showed conclusively that “charismatic leadership is positively related to internalization and identification” while self-leadership is likely to “supplement/enhance the influence of charismatic leadership” (Anyi, 306-307). These findings uphold the original hypothesis that was forwarded prior to testing of the sample group.  The reason that the authors were able to generate credible hypotheses regarding the connection between the  role of charismatic leadership and self-leadership prior to the statistical verification provided by the formal study is because of the extensive literature review that informed the hypotheses prior to the methodical breakdown of statistics. The literature review that was used in the study included over 65 books, essays, articles, and scholarly sources. The literature review ranged from management journals and leadership journals to journals based in cutting-edge psychological theories,as well as books and articles that focused on organizational logistics and the nature of work and labor.  The statistical verification of the authors’ hypotheses must therefore also be taken as a verification of the cumulative impact of the individual studies that comprised the comprehensive literature review that influenced the authors’ study.

Work Cited

Anyi Chung, I-Heng Chen, Amber Yun-Ping Lee, Hsien Chun Chen, Yingtzu Lin, (2011) “Charismatic leadership and self-leadership: A relationship of substitution or supplementation in the contexts of internalization and identification?”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 24 Iss: 3, pp.299 – 313