Camille Glenn

May 11, 2016

Senior Seminar
Harmful Leadership and the Rise to Power
Since I first started learning about the Holocaust at a young age Ive been interested in
the concept of influence and how so many people could be convinced to do the things they did.
Throughout my many years spent in school I have learned of countless other events where
someone is influenced by someone else to do something they never thought they would do.
Jonestown is another important example of this and is a major event that I have studied and am
interested in. Influence occurs on many different levels, from peer pressure to try a drug, to
pressure to join an extreme political or religious group. People like to believe they are different
than most other people, that they are the exception to the rule. I think even trained psychologists
probably hope deep within them that their knowledge of the power of the situation will protect
them from it. I know I do and I am still amazed when Im proven wrong.
When looking at the two events, the Holocaust and the Jonestown suicide, the first thing
that stands out is the role of the leader in each event. These events might have never happened
without Adolf Hitler leading the Nazis and Jim Jones leading The Peoples Temple. Im curious
whether harmful leaders such as these men have common characteristics, such as similar
personality traits or approaches to gaining and maintaining their power.
Characteristics of Successful Leaders
Termin (1904) was cited as being the first to study trait theory in applied psychology
(Judge, T., Ilies, R., Bono, J., Gerhardt, M., 2002, p. 765). Trait theory went on to evolve as more
psychologists studied it. Trait theorists thought it was the answer to studying leadership and that

effective leadership came down to whether or not a person possessed certain personality traits.
Traits being used to explain leadership wasnt taken seriously by others and was deemed too
simplistic, among other things.
This article was a qualitative review of trait perspective followed by a meta-analysis of
personality trait studies of leadership. The results found were widely varied and held few
consistencies. For example, self-confidence appears in all but two of the reviews, and traits of
adjustment, sociability, and integrity appear in multiple reviews. Despite some agreement the
reviews are not overly consistent. C. R. Anderson and Schneier (1978) commented, These
searches seemed to result in a myriad of characteristics, few of which recurred consistently
across studies. It is telling that, except for self-confidence, no trait emerged as related to
leadership in a majority of these reviews (Judge et. al., 2002, p.765).
In the only meta-analysis on the subject, Lord, De Vader, and Alliger (1986) found two
traits dominance and masculinityfemininitythat had statistically significant relations with
leadership emergence. Thus, the Lord et al. (1986) review did provide some important support
for trait theory (Judge et. al., 2002, p. 766). This article said one of the biggest problems in past
research relating personality to leadership is the lack of a structure in describing personality,
which leads to a wide range of traits being studied under different labels (Judge et. al., 2002, p.
766).
The present study focused on the Big Five personality traits Openness,
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, in an attempt to fix the
problem stated previously. In using the five-factor model to organize these myriad traits, the
present study sheds considerable light on the dispositional basis of leadership. Out of the traits,
Extraversion stood out as the most consistent correlate of leadership (Judge et. al., 2002, 773).

When researching characteristics of successful leaders I came across multiple studies that
emphasized the importance of charisma, not just for harmful leaders, but for all effective leaders.
In their 2001 study, House, R., Spangur, W., and Woycke, J., define charisma is as, the ability of
a leader to exercise diffuse and intense influence over the beliefs, values, behavior, and
performance of others through his of her own behavior, beliefs, and personal example. In this
study they argue that United States presidents effectiveness depends on their personality and
charisma and not solely on their control over bureaucratic structures (House et. al., 1991, p. 364).
House et. al., cite the work of Bass (1985) and others as suggesting that charismatic
leaders arouse others to perform beyond expectations. Need for achievement, which motivates
personal action rather than action directed at, for, and with others, could be viewed as a liability
rather than an asset for charismatic leaders. According to Bass, charismatic leaders have an
ability to understand and build on the needs, values, and hopes of their followers. They conceive
and articulate visions and goals that motivate their followers toward collective action rather than
self-interest. Thus, charismatic leaders generally use their power for the good of the collective
rather than their personal good, although Bass (1985) noted exceptions (House et. al., 1991, p.
368).
The article cites Bradley (1987) as having defined three types of charisma: charisma as a
personality characteristic, charisma as a relationship between leader and followers, and charisma
as a social structure. This study defines charisma as a relationship or bond between a leader and
subordinates or other followers and states that, although we do not define charisma as a
personality trait of specific leaders, we argue that certain leader personality characteristics
contribute to the formation of a charismatic relationship with subordinates. Because charisma is a

relationship and not a personality characteristic of leaders, charisma exists only if the followers
say it does or followers behave in specific ways (House et. al., 1991, p. 366).
Charismatic Leadership Theory
Multiple leadership theories were mentioned in numerous articles, but I felt as though
Charismatic Leadership Theory applied the most when it came to the type of leadership I was
researching. James Mohr discussed the theory of charismatic leadership in his article, calling
charisma the special quality some leaders posses. This was a qualitative study done using
narrative inquiry to explore white supremacist leadership.
Mohr cites that Howell and Shamir (2005) explained that charismatic leadership can be
divided into two types of relationships, personalized and socialized. Personalized relationships
involve the follower identifying with the leader. In this type of relationship, the follower may
have been confused or without direction before joining with the leader and may be manipulated.
In socialized relationships followers are more likely to identify with the leaders message or
organizational mission rather than with the leader. These people are more likely to have a
stronger sense of self and values. These followers are likely to be less dependent on the leader
and less open to manipulation (Mohr, 2013, p. 21).
Charismatic leadership enhances followers positive affective state. In essence,
charismatic leaders help people to feel happy, which encourages them to comply with the leader
(Mohr, 2013, p. 21). Mohr cites Nadler and Tushman (1995) as having proposed that there are
three components to charismatic leadership. First is envisioning, which involves creating a
vision, setting high expectations, and modeling behavior. Energizing, the second component,
involves motivating people to act by expressing personal excitement, having personal
confidence, and using success stories to celebrate movement toward the vision. The third

component is enabling, in which the leader helps people achieve even when confronted by
challenging goals. This happens when the leader demonstrates personal support for others,
empathizes with them, and expresses confidence in their abilities to be successful (Mohr, 2013,
p. 20).
Strategies and Approaches
There are a number of different strategies that harmful leaders use to gain and maintain
power. Mohr mentions Gardners view about some leaders transgressing societys moral
standards in their roles (Mohr, 2013, p. 18). The two most common and most relevant
transgressors are, (a) those who treat their followers well but who use brutality and encourage
others to use violence against others not in their group and (b) the leaders who may not engage in
brutality but use bigotry, hate, and fear to motivate their followers and to maintain their status
(Gardner, 1990).
The study discussed in Mohrs article involved listening to participants stories in an
attempt to gain insight into white supremacist leadership. Two perspectives were recorded, that
of former followers, and that of former leaders. The participants responses were analyzed and
five major positive leadership components were examined: purpose and vision, community
building and belonging, follower focus and meaning making, empowerment and motivation, and
trust and respect. Participants stories also led Mohr to believe that white supremacist leadership
consists of seeking and abusing power, building ones sense of self-importance, using fear to
achieve goals, and isolating oneself from others (Mohr, 2013, p. 22).
Though harmful leaders may employ positive and moral strategies, these strategies
cannot permanently hide the harmful component of their leadership style. Harmful leadership

may impede the leaders ability to treat followers with dignity, empathize with their situation, or
engage in actions that encourage followers to perform (Mohr, 2013, p. 29).
Purpose and Vision
One responsibility of leaders is to create a compelling vision for the organization and to
try to connect people with the vision. When people believe in the vision of their organization,
they begin to believe they have a greater purpose beyond themselves. The connection to the
vision brings meaning to peoples lives (Shamir et al., 1993) and they are often willing to
subordinate their own needs and egos to achieve this greater purpose or vision (Greenleaf, 2002).
White supremacist, and extremist group leaders, in general, also seek to provide a vision and
purpose for the people they lead. Though their vision is located outside the mainstream of what
society may perceive as appropriate, it is a vision nonetheless (Mohr, 2013, p. 22). The aspiring
leader articulates a vision of change that embodies important shared values with members of that
constituency and promises them a better future. The leader claims that followers have a moral
right to the attainment of the vision, thus making it an ideological rather than an exclusively
materialistic or pragmatic vision (Jacobsen and House, 2001, p. 78).
Community Building and Belonging
Leaders seek to build a sense of community within their organizations with the
expectation that people will develop strong ties to the community (Mohr, 2013. p. 22-23). The
charismatic leader connects individual efforts, values, and identity to the organizations vision
and mission to create community and meaning in the world for their followers (Shamir et al.,
1993). Mohr cited Baumeister and Leary (1995) as considering the need to belong as one of the
most powerful and fundamental motivations compelling people to develop and maintain social
connections.

Many of the former white supremacist participants in Mohrs study spoke about how at
the beginning of their journey they felt like they were wanted they were invited to parties and
functions and treated as though they were important and not someone they wanted to leave out.
Many of these members went on to hold leadership positions in which they learned how to
appeal to others by making new members feel like they belonged in the group. Developing
positive social bonding with others in an organization is an important motivator to retaining
someone (Aho, 1994). The positive bonding process was facilitated through members engaging
in social activities among themselves (Mohr, 2013, p. 23).
Follower Focus and Meaning Making
Charismatic leadership (Shamir et al., 1993) along with other leadership theories focuses
on the needs of the followers and development of their skills, abilities, and leadership
capabilities. Such a focus involves inspiring followers, having high expectations, building their
self-confidence, and connecting them to the vision of the organization and leader. Another part of
this focus is helping followers to understand what is happening in the organization and the
environment in which it functions (Mohr, 2013, p.23). Mai and Akerson (2003, p. 35) explained,
Meaning-making is all about constructing a sense of what is real and important, both for the
individual and for the organization. Leaders show their followers their version of reality.
According to them, the process of meaning making is a critical role for the leader because people
can become more committed to a cause when they understand what they are doing and why it is
important (Mohr, 2013, p. 23).
Defining reality for people is an incredible power as it informs people how to understand
the world. When used within a constructive framework in which the leader cares about the
followers, this responsibility can be a strong motivator for helping people to understand an

organization, its goals, and how to be successful within the organizational structure. When used
within a harmful framework, explaining to people how to engage in a meaning-making process
can be destructive to the individual and the community. When leaders are more concerned about
their power and ego and use fear as a motivator, their attempts to influence their followers
meaning-making process is not for the benefit of the followers but for the leader (Mohr, 2013,
p.24).
Charismatic leadership also increases the meaningfulness of goals and related actions by
showing how these goals are consistent with the collective past and its future and thus creating
the sense of "evolving" which is central for self-consistency and a sense of meaningfulness
(McHugh 1968). In addition, such leadership stresses the importance of the goal as a basis for
group identity and for distinguishing the group or collective from other groups. Jahoda (1981)
wrote that this brings meaning to the followers' lives and efforts by connecting them to larger
entities and to concerns that transcend their own limited existence (Shamir et. al., 1993, p. 583).
Empowerment and Motivation
Empowerment is the weakest of the positive elements of leadership theories that are
demonstrated by white supremacist leaders. These leaders make some efforts at using vision,
eliminating a sense of powerlessness, and helping followers to see themselves as capable but
they do not necessarily focus on these areas, especially the latter two. Though leaders can make
followers feel powerful in terms of changing the world so it is better for their group of people,
leaders have a harder time accomplishing this by changing policies within the organization itself.
Leaders want to maintain their power and keep followers in that role. Leaders within the
movement may have difficulties sharing the leadership role with others so they do not seek to
empower their followers (Mohr, 2013, p. 25). In most cases, charismatic leadership de-

emphasizes extrinsic rewards and their related expectancies in order to emphasize the intrinsic
aspects of the effort. Refraining from providing pragmatic extrinsic justification for the required
behavior increases the chances that followers will attribute their behavior to internal self-related
causes and thus adds to followers' commitment to that course of action (Shamir, House, and
Arthur, 1993, p. 583).
Trust and Respect
Trust and respect are important components of becoming and staying involved in an
organization. Follower trust is earned when leaders treat followers fairly and demonstrate faith in
their abilities (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Developing a sense of trust has been positively associated
with work outcomes, work attitudes, citizenship behaviors, and job performance (Dirks & Ferrin,
2002). The participants in the current study developed commitment because they trusted the
leaders and people involved with the white supremacist movement (Mohr, 2013, p. 25). Trust is
an important component of maintaining a persons commitment to an organization. However,
maintaining trust between leaders and followers in the white supremacist movement was
difficult. Along with empowerment, maintaining trust and respect are two areas that are difficult
for white supremacist leaders to achieve. At first, they encourage a sense of trust and respect in
their followers, but then they have a difficult time maintaining it (Mohr, 2013, p. 25).
Seeking and Abusing Power
Mohr cites very important and applicable information to my current area of research from
an article written by Vredenburgh and Brender in this section. I have yet to be able to find the
original article to read myself and cite properly, but I will continue to search.
Though leaders can use power for the benefit of their followers and organizations, many
leaders may use their power in self-interested ways that can decrease peoples feelings of dignity

and diminish their job performance or acquisition of rewards (Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998).
Power becomes about dominating rather than serving others and can become intoxicating with
leaders wanting more of it so they can use it for personal gain. The lust for power eventually
pushes leaders beyond their original leadership mandate (Kets de Vries, 2004) and is seen as a
strategy for leaders to achieve their goals and satisfy their needs (Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998).
Power is a valuable resource that allows people to experience autonomy and to make decisions
regarding organizational actions and the distribution of rewards (Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998).
Harmful leaders tend to use power in ways that diminish followers sense of dignity and
respect. Power becomes a way for the leader to dominate and control others ratherthan a process
of uplifting and empowering others. Followers begin to feel as if they cannot do anything right,
develop a sense of shame from not meeting leaders expectations, and struggle to achieve the
leaders goals (Mohr, 2013, p. 28).
In the study summarized in Mohrs article, a participant was very involved with the
movement but when he got in trouble, he felt like the leadership abandoned him. The leaders
were not willing to help him, which made him think the leaders were not so interested in the
people in the movement but more about money and power. For this individual, the leaders were
more about themselves and satisfying their own needs than sacrificing for the movement. The
leaders wanted power, access to resources, and a sense of importance (Mohr, 2013, p. 25-26).
While I was looking into Elevation Church in order to lead senior seminar in a discussion
of cult behavior, I came across multiple shocking and unexpected findings about some major
churches in the Charlotte, North Carolina area. One church in particular, The United House of
Prayer for All People, is a predominantly African-American church with numerous locations

throughout the United States. The YouTube compilation of NBC Investigative report clips went
into detail about the history and practices of this church.
The same thing reported in Mohrs study has been done to members of the church who
were very involved and then fell on hard times. The church, acting under their all-powerful
leader, Bishop Sweet Daddy Bailey, turned its back on the members. When the previous leader
of the church, Reverend Donald Belton, had health issues that brought about financial difficulties
he went to Bishop Bailey for help. Bishop Bailey refused him help and told him he shouldve
been better prepared for the circumstances he was in. The investigative reporting even uncovered
that one of the churches top financial donors (and therefore one of the most important members),
had actually embezzled the millions of dollars given to the church from the nonprofit
organization where she was employed. Despite her criminal convictions the church never turned
its back on her. Money was clearly shown to be the most important thing in this churchs
functioning (Steven Furtick (Elevation Church) Exposed by TV NEWS, retrieved April 4, 2016).
Although this was part of the purpose of choosing this topic to research, finding
similarities like this yield negative implications for leader and follower relations in todays
extremist organizations.
Building Ones Sense of Self-Importance
Some leaders seek positions so they can feel better about themselves and have a sense of
self-importance. For them it is not just about having power over others but also about having
others recognize them as a leader. It creates a sense of importance and validation. For one
participant interviewed in Mohrs study, he explained his involvement was like a high. You felt
important, like you were doing something for your race (Mohr, 2013, p. 26). One of my original
parts of my hypothesis was what, if any, personality traits harmful leaders may have in common

with each other. I had guessed narcissism could be a common trait, so I was pleased and
interested when Mohr discussed narcissism in this section of his article.
In many cases, these leaders may be seen as narcissistic as they believe in their own
superiority, pursue power, and exploit others. The narcissistic leader tends to be motivated by
power and admiration rather than any genuine concern for others (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).
Though these leaders may be able to develop powerful and intense relationships with others, they
often use these relationships as a means to deceive, abuse, or manipulate followers (Conger &
Kanungo, 1998). Jim Jones is a perfect example of this as he was quoted as telling followers, If
you see me as your God, Ill be your God. It is these narcissistic tendencies that cause leaders to
ignore their followers and to act in ways that are detrimental to the organization and to
maintaining relationships with others (Mohr, 2013, p. 26).
Using Fear to Achieve Goals
When people are not easily converted to a leaders ideology or vision, fear becomes one
strategy for enforcing conformity. If nonconformists are treated badly and others lack courage to
challenge the leader, people will often keep quiet, stifle their doubts, and do what they have to so
they can get along (Kets de Vries, 2004). Commitment and loyalty come to exist in these
situations because followers fear punishment rather than having a deep investment in an
organizations mission or leadership (Mohr, 2013, p. 26).
This process summarizes what happened to the people of Jonestown when they started to
notice things werent right. Jim Jones used fear and the power of conformity in order to make
family members turn on each other. Hitler used the same approach, that of fear, once people
werent being as easily converted. Without the followers investment, the commitment and
loyalty only last as long as the leader can generate fear (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In terms of how

white supremacist organizations function, leaders use fear in two main ways. The first way was
to use fear as a strategy to recruit new members and the second way was to keep them loyal to
the group (Mohr, 2013, p. 26). This fear is based on causing harm to individuals or their
families if the members attempted to leave a group, so often times it is very effective in making
them stay committed (Mohr, 2013, p. 27).
Isolating Oneself from Others
Initially, harmful leaders may attract followers because the leaders appear to connect the
followers to a community and larger purpose. These leaders may be narcissists who are
successful at attracting followers and giving powerful speeches even when they are distrustful of
others and emotionally isolated (Maccoby, 2000). Such distrust leads to isolation (Mohr, 2013, p.
27). As one participant in Mohrs study explained, as he became a leader, he had few friends and
felt isolated from the members. He found it difficult to maintain relationships and, though he was
in a leadership role, he found himself keeping a distance from other members and found it
difficult to trust some of the group members (Mohr, 2013, p. 27).
Besides having narcissistic tendencies, the harmful leaders reliance on practices such as
fear and power abuse also lead to a sense of being more isolated from ones followers. To
maintain the fear and power, leaders must isolate themselves from their followers; otherwise, if
strong relationships developed, fear and power become more difficult to use to control others.
The leader also focuses on the needs of the organization rather than the followers (Mohr, 2013, p.
27).
The combination of charismatic strategies and other effective leadership strategies to
mask harmful leadership approaches can leave followers confused by leaders who seem to care
about them one moment and are then abusive in the next moment. It is this confusion that can

lead to followers staying with harmful leaders even if they are not sure about how they feel about
the leaders and their relationships (Mohr, 2013, p. 27).
The Harmful Leadership Approach
The harmful leadership approach is a process in which a leader uses beneficial strategies
such as developing a vision, empowering followers, focusing on follower needs, and building a
sense of community, trust and respect, along with detrimental approaches to achieve their goals
and purposes. The harmful leadership approach often masks a leaders selfish and narcissistic
personality traits. However, by the time the mask has been removed, followers are already
convinced of the leaders greatness and may have difficulty breaking away from the leaders
influence (Mohr, 2013, p. 28).
Some leaders may be more concerned about their own pursuit of power and protecting
their sense of self rather than meeting organizational goals. There is little that can help move
these leaders to more constructive leadership styles because they take pleasure in being harmful
leaders. However, other leaders sometimes get diverted from a path of constructive leadership
and mistakenly adopt more harmful leadership styles without fully realizing it. There are ways
these leaders could avoid becoming harmful leaders (Mohr, 2013, p. 29). This caught my
attention because it addressed one of my original questions, which had been whether harmful
leaders normally set out to be the way they are or whether sometimes harmful leaders start out
with good intentions that somehow go awry.
Although many characteristics of effective leaders were mentioned in the different
articles I studied, there were some similarities. Personality is extremely important. Being an
extrovert is common among leaders, as well as being self-confident (Judge et. al., 2002, 773).
Narcissism is common among harmful leaders. House et. al., bring up charisma, which seems to

be the key characteristic of harmful leaders in gaining power and followers. Mohrs study gives
an informative and thorough look into the importance and complexity of charismatic leadership,
as well as what strategies and approaches harmful leaders tend to use to gain and maintain
power. As the House et. al., article pointed out, the success of charismatic leadership depends on
the reaction of the followers (House et. al., 1991, p. 366).
There is a related field of research to be studied involving characteristics of people who
are likely to become followers of these types of leaders. Do they have similar personality traits?
What is it about people that make them vulnerable to harmful charismatic leaders? The articles I
read shed light on the followers perspectives of these types of leaders, but that is a topic I would
like to look into further. I think it would also be interesting and important to try to link some of
these and future findings to todays organizations that have powerful, charismatic leaders,
whether political, religious, or otherwise.

References

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S.
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36,
364-396. doi:10.2307/2393201

Jacobsen, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process

theory, simulation model, and tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 75-112. doi:10.1016/S10489843(01)00065-0

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership:
A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Mohr, J. M. (2013). Wolf in sheep's clothing: Harmful leadership with a moral faade.
Journal Of Leadership Studies, 7, 18-32. doi:10.1002/jls.21276

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.
doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577

Steven Furtick (Elevation Church) Exposed by TV NEWS [Video file]. (2015, July 27).
Retrieved April 4, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We4at1hFI3c