Meaning From Within: Possible Selves and Personal Meaning

of Charismatic and Non-Charismatic Leaders

John J. Sosik Pennsylvania State University

Executive
The

Summary

leadership literature has identified both the leaders self-concept and personal meaning as sources of motivation for charismatic and non-charismatic leaders. However, while several versions of charismatic and non-charismatic leadership theory predict such effects, none of them explains how the content of a leaders personal meaning is influenced by the self-concept. This article seeks to advance leadership theory by addressing this fundamental problem. Based on theories of possible selves, personal meaning and charismatic leadership, this article describes how a leaders thoughts about his or her potential and future may influence the personal meaning of charismatic and non-charismatic leaders.

About the Author: John J. Sosik, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Management and Organization at the Pennsylvania State University, Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies in suburban Philadelphia. He received his Ph.D. in management from the State University of New York at Binghamton and is engaged in research in the areas of transformational/charismatic leadership, face-to-face and computer-mediated group processes and outcomes, and mentoring. Correspondence regarding this article may be sent via electronic mail to jjs20@psu.edu.

The charismatic leader is often described as an extraordinary individual who exercises diffuse and intense influence over others through his or her values, beliefs, and behaviors. Charismatic influence stems from visionary and inspirational messages, change agency, follower development, symbolism, and appeal to the values of followers. Constructive forms of charismatic leadership may result in new heights of individual and collective achievements, whereas destructive forms may result in individual and/or collective ruin (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). These processes and outcomes are in stark contrast with those of non-charismatic leaders who rely on exchange relationships, goals, and rewards to achieve expected levels of

performance (Bass, 1990).

the leaders self-image (Gardner & how the leader describes himself or herself in Avolio, 1998). Self-image encompasses terms of needs, beliefs, values and personal meaning. Provision of meaning is central to self-concept-based (e.g., Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993), psychoanalytic (e.g., Eisenstadt, 1968; Kets de Vries, 1988; Zaleznik, 1974) and organizational (e.g., House, 1977; Smircich & Morgan, 1982) explanations of charismatic leadership. A common theme in these theories is that followers who experience high levels of personal or collective stress search for leaders who give meaning to their experiences. However, there is no self-concept based explanation to account for the sources and content of personal meaning used by leaders to provide meaning to followers. The purpose of this article is to offer a theoretical basis for explaining how self-conceptions relate to the personal meaning of charismatic leaders and noncharismatic leaders. One The
Personal

important aspect of charismatic leadership is

Self-Concept as a Source of Personal Meaning

can

be defined as that which makes ones life most important, coherent and worthwhile. The extensive literature on personal meaning (see Wong, 1998 for a comprehensive review) is derived from seminal work on purpose-in-life (PIL) by Frankl (1992). PIL represents a positive attitude toward possessing a future-oriented self-transcendent goal in life. PIL can be described in terms of its depth (strength) and type (content) of meaning associated with the goal.

meaning

psychology (e.g., Beike & Niedenthal, 1998; Farran, Keane-Hagerty, Salloway, Kupferer, & Wilken, 1991) suggests that personal meaning (e.g., PIL) may stem from the self-concept. The self-concept represents the &dquo;compository of life span experiences, motivational states, and action orientations&dquo; (Cross & Markus, 1991, p. ~30). The self-concept is a complex dynamic phenomenon containing multiple aspects (i.e., past, present and future selfconceptions), which are ordered in a hierarchy based on salience (i.e., the strength or intensity over the individual) and/or situtational importance. Because the entire self Empirical
work in humanistic/existential

be held in memory at once, the most salient and accessible self-conceptions are contained in the working self-concept, which Markus and Nurius (1986) defined as &dquo;the set of self-conceptions that are presently active in thought and memory&dquo; (p. 957). Variations in an individuals psychological states and social contexts promote changes in the working self-concept, which in turn provides motivation for future behavior. Thus, the search for meaning involves finding opportunities to express the aspects of ones working self-concept.

system is

too enormous to

type of self-conception that has been linked to provision of meaning is the domain of possible selves. Markus and Nurius (1986) identified possible selves as reflections of &dquo;how individuals think about their potential and about their future&dquo; (p. 954). They enable an individual to recognize the gap between what he or she is (real self) and what he or she would like to become (ideal self). They provide an essential link between the self-concept and affective and motivational states by providing meaning to behavior. Possible selves include what one would like to become (hopedfor self) and what one is afraid of becoming (feared self. Hoped-for selves are positive self-images (e.g., trustworthy, articulate, visionary) that serve as motivators, goals or incentives for future behavior. Feared selves are negative selfimages (e.g., duplicitous, incoherent, mundane) that serve as threats to be avoided.
One
1 Cross and Markus (1991) developed a typology of possible selves that includes 11 domains: personal, physical, abilities/education, life-style, family, relationships, occupation, material, success, social responsibility, and leisure. For example, a hoped-for possible self in the material domain might be the rich self; a feared possible self in this domain could be the bag lady self The various possible selves possessed by an individual may influence personal meaning by acting as buffers against stress based on whether they represent selves that have small or large degrees of overlap within and between domains. According to Linville ( 1985), &dquo;when self-aspects are few and undifferentiated, a stressful event in one aspect tends to spill over and color thoughts and feelings about other aspects. For people who maintain more aspects and perceive greater distinctions among self-aspects, the impact of a negative event is likely to be confined to a smaller portion of their selfrepresentation&dquo; (p. 664). Self-complexity increases as &dquo;the number of different selfaspects in the individuals self concept and the semantic difference among them increases&dquo; (Niedenthal, Setterlund, & Wherry, 1992, p. 5). Self-complexity may influence personal meaning by promoting positive thoughts and self-feelings that buffer against other negative thoughts and self-feelings that result from stressful events (Beike & Niedenthal, 1998; Maddi, 1998).

Theoretical Framework and

Proposed Relationships

Valuation theory (e.g., Hermans, 1998) represents a useful framework for linking possible selves to the personal meaning of charismatic leaders and non-charismatic leaders. This theory of the self proposes that individuals possess an ordered set of valuations which provide two basic forms of life meaning: self-glorification and selftranscendence. A valuation is a unit of meaning associated with positive/pleasant (e.g., hoped-for self) or negative/unpleasant (e.g., feared selo affect or feelings for the individual. Markus and Nurius (1986) argued that possible selves relate selfcognitions to self-feelings or affect. For example, the affective connotation or selffeeling implicit in a hoped-for possible self from the social responsibility domain (e.g., the philanthropist selo may influence the affective component of an attitude (Breckler, 1984) such as purpose-in-life and therefore enrich personal meaning.

According

but complementary, basic motives are latent in the affective connotation of each valuation: self-glorification (the Smotive) and self-transcendence (the O-motive). The S-motive, based on selfmaintenance and self-enhancement, influences ones meaning of life experience by protecting, maintaining and aggrandizing ones self-esteem, and is consistent with self-aggrandizing/narcissistic orientations of destructive charismatic leaders. The O-motiv e, based on other-directedness, provides meaning through the longing for
to Hermans

(1998),

two

oppositional,

contact

and union with others, and is consistent with Frankls (1992) notion of PIL and altruistic and empowering orientations of constructive charismatic leaders. These motives parallel lower and higher stages of perspective-taking discussed in constructive-developmental theories of charismatic/transformational leadership (e.g., Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). These theories discuss the development of meaningmaking systems (e.g., self-conceptions) in which leaders progress from simple (selfcentered) to complex (self-transcendent) modes of understanding or perspectivetaking which in turn motivate behavior. Differences in personal meaning of non-charismatic and charismatic leaders may be a function of dissimilar contents (types) and intensities (salience) of possible selves of these leaders. An explanation of these differences may be informed by research that distinguishes charismatic leaders from non-charismatic leaders in terms of rhetoric (e.g., Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994) and personality (e.g., House & Howell, 1992). Regarding relevant rhetorical style differences, charismatic leaders use more relationship and collective metaphors, vague and distal visions versus short-goals, and self-sacrifice themes than non-charismatic leaders. Regarding relevant personality differences, charismatic leaders possess stronger achievement orientation; higher levels of work involvement, energy, and enthusiasm; stronger tendencies to be creative, innovative, visionary and inspirational; stronger collectivistic values, and higher needs for power and influence than non-charismatic leaders. determine whether the leader is a socialized charismatic leader, who possesses an egalitarian, self-transcendent, and empowering personality, or a personalized charismatic leader, who possesses a dominant, Machiavellian and narcissistic personality. Personalized charismatic leaders possess high need for power coupled with low activity inhibition, low self-esteem and external locus of control, whereas socialized charismatic leaders possess a need for power coupled with high activity inhibition, high self esteem, and internal locus of control (House & Howell, 1992). Such differences may influence the possible selves and personal meaning of these leaders.

Personality

traits

help

Hoped-For Possible Selves and Personal Meaning

self domains and their intensity in influencing the leader may differ among non-charismatic leaders, socialized charismatic leaders and personalized charismatic leaders. They will be discussed in relation to personal meaning provided by these selves to leaders. Examples of hoped-for possible selves are shown in Table 1.

Hoped-for possible

U)
$.4

a)

d (1)
b-)
U

.~
5 5
K

U
ci 0

4
b
a Q

e V)

9
U
(4-4

0
cn

<u

>

~3
V)
~2

Z (A
U)

CL<
w

~2

Cd

0 &dquo;c3

T~ C.)
4-4

Il
0..
et

cl 0
0
uJ

s
0
&dquo;~ _

Z
11

In
KJ

$ z

d) 9 x
S cs
E-~. w

i Zi
0

hoped-for selves may be particularly salient self conceptions for personalized charismatic leaders. These leaders are narcissistic, self-aggrandizing, and value personal dominance over others due to their low self-esteem (House &
Personal

Howell, 1992). However, valuation theory proposes that self-esteem is

one of two basic forms of life meaning. A hoped-for self in the personal domain may serve as an inner newsreel (Becker, 19 i 1) that &dquo;passes in constant review the symbols that give self-esteem, and make people feel important and good&dquo; (Hermans, 1998, p. 320). These selves may provide meaning to personalized charismatic leaders by protecting and aggrandizing their self-esteem and therefore satisfying their S-motive (striving for self-glorification) as proposed by valuation theory. For example, Benito Mussolinis delusions of grandeur (e.g., the Neo-Roman emperor self) may have provided meaning to him during his days as Italys dictator. Hoped-for personal selves may be somewhat important to non-charismatic leaders; however, they may be less important for socialized charismatic leaders, who are other directed. Socialized charismatic leaders are more likely to find meaning through the O-motive (striving for self-transcendence through union with others). For example, Mary Kay Ash describes her company vision of enhancing womens roles in the world and building their self-confidence as a powerful source of motivation for her (Conger &

Kanungo, 1998).
of the most salient or important selves for individuals because good health and physical well being are central to proper functioning (Cross & Markus, 1991). These selves may be considered important for both non-charismatic and charismatic leaders, whose physical well-being may be important to their effectiveness as a leader (Bass, 1990). However, these selves may

Physical hoped-for

selves

are

one

be
&

especially important for charismatic leaders

on

who

typically
and

are

narcissistic their

(House

Howell, 1992). Kets de Vries (1988) suggested that narcissistic leaders place great

importance

properly developing, maintaining,

presenting

physical

appearance. This obsession may be motivated by hoped-for selves from the physical domain, such as the muscular self, the beautiful self or the handsome self These selves may build self-esteem, a fundamental S-motive in influencing the persons meaning in life (Hermans, 1998). For example, J. Edgar Hoover desired a more impressive physical appearance and often used his physical presence to intimidate others (Theoharis, 1995). Similarly, Martin Luther King, Jr. dressed immaculately, but used his influence for more pro-social outcomes (Conger & Kanungo, 1998).

selves in the abilities/education domain may be important for noncharismatic and charismatic leaders because hoping for job-specific abilities and knowledge may motivate the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities required for effectiveness as a leader. However, these selves may be especially important for charismatic leaders whose self-presentation as competent, knowledgeable and successful often results in their being viewed as extraordinary (House, 1977). Politicians such as George W. Bush and Al Gore work hard at presenting themselves as capable to their constituents. Abilities and education may represent a possible self that arouses S-motives aimed at validating claims of extraordinary skills and wisdom.

Hoped-for

and material hoped-for selves may be self-conceptions held by noncharismatic and charismatic leaders. However, personalized charismatic leaders may consider these selves to be particularly important because they may motivate narcissistic behavior. Several writers (e.g., Deluga, 1997; Emmons, 1987; Kets de Vries, 1988; Shamir, 1991) have noted that psychoanalytic explanations of charisma

Life-style

narcissism consider a charismatic leader as an ideal object. Narcissistic personalized charismatic leaders may long for an opulent lifestyle with an abundance of material possessions because they may provide idealized symbols or images of status, power, superiority, and success. To the extent that society values materialism and living a &dquo;well-heeled&dquo; lifestyle, these selves may help narcissistic personalized charismatic leaders view themselves as being recognized by others as &dquo;an object of primary value in the universe&dquo; (Becker, 1971, p. 76). These selves may also build self-esteem and therefore arouse the S-motive of personal meaning in personalized charismatic leaders. For example, F. Ross Johnsons personal and professional extravagance and the importance he placed on supporting his opulent lifestyle may have motivated his unethical behavior as CEO of RJR Nabisco (Burrough & Helyar, 1990). In contrast, socialized charismatic leaders, who are motivated by otherdirected and egalitarian values, are likely to consider material selves as less important to their self image. They may consider selves such as the sacrificing self, servant-leader self, or altruistic self as important lifestyle self images. For example, Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela represent socialized charismatic leaders whose self-images downplayed the importance of materialism and selfon

based

indulgent lifestyles.
Family and relationship hoped-for selves are likely to be considered more important by charismatic leaders than non-charismatic leaders. Charismatic leaders motivate collective action by emphasizing the need for followers to make personal sacrifices for the good of the group, organization, or country. Their rhetoric is replete with collective references and metaphors (Shamir, 1991). Using Freudian theory, Shamir described charismatic leaders as primal fathers. Followers look up to the charismatic leader as a &dquo;father-figure&dquo; or ego-ideal against which they measure themselves and their efforts to help &dquo;support the family.&dquo; Hoped-for selves in the family and relationship domains may provide themes consistent with encountering followers, building relationships with followers, and motivating collective action. Such themes may provide meaning by satisfying O-motives longing for contact and union with others. In contrast, non-charismatic leaders engage in more task-related pursuits than charismatic leaders and therefore may not consider family and relationship selves as important. Occupational hoped-for selves may be important for all leaders; however, they are likely to be more salient for charismatic leaders. Specifically, charismatic leaders possess higher levels of work involvement than non-charismatic leaders, and are often zealously committed to their occupation and mission. They emphasize hard work, sacrifice and physical and mental toughness to overcome challenges, hardships or crises (House & Howell, 1992). Occupation represents a possible self that may arouse the charismatic leaders O-motive and provide personal meaning by working toward the mission through ones occupation. Thus, leisure is not likely to be a salient possible self that provides meaning for charismatic leaders.
Self-conceptions of success are important for maintenance of self-esteem in all individuals (Becker, 1971). However, charismatic leaders present themselves as extraordinarily successful. Because their attributions of charisma largely depend upon their continued success (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), hoped-for selves in the success domain may be a key element of their self-image and_ may provide a theme for satisfying the S-motive and attaining desired outcome of the work or mission.

10

The socially responsible self is likely to be valued by charismatic leaders, but this self conception may be especially prized by socialized charismatic leaders. Both socialized and personalized charismatic leaders encourage followers to subordinate their individual interests in favor of collective causes and highlight social responsibility to the collective. However, socialized charismatic leaders articulate visions of positive social change, equity among individuals and community harmony. In contrast, personalized charismatic leaders may limit their view of social responsibility to a particular group, nation, and race at the expense of others. Social responsibility on a more broad or global level represents a salient possible self that may provide a theme consistent only with socialized charismatic leaders who may find meaning through the O-motive. For example, Winston Churchills sense of responsibility for protecting his followers and the democratic institution may have provided motivation to change followers attitudes toward unavoidable suffering required during the Battle of Britain.

Hoped-For Self-Complexity
Possible

self-complexity has been linked to positive affect and focus on future goals (Niedenthal et al., 1992) and hardiness in combating depression and stress-related illness (Linville, 1985). Possible self complexity entails a greater degree of independence among selves within and between domains and therefore success or failure in one self or domain may have minimal implications for feelings (e.g., anxiety) or self-evaluations in other selves or domains (Linville). Thus, possible selfcomplexity may serve as a buffer against leader anxiety and depression, fostering hardiness that may strengthen personal meaning.
Hardiness is a more concrete manifestation of courage, which can be defined as high level of self-confidence and self-reliance in stressful times (Maddi, 1998) or a willingness to accept risk (Bass, 1990). Hardiness can be described in terms of three interrelated beliefs that are consistent with notions of personal meaning. First, individuals strong in the commitment component believe that total involvement in causes or missions allows them to find what is most interesting and worthwhile to them. An interesting and worthwhile pursuit is a primary source of personal meaning (Frankl, 1992). Second, individuals strong in the control component &dquo;believe that through struggle they can usually influence the outcome of events going on around them&dquo; (Maddi, p. 9). Internal locus of control may be required for the active pursuit of personal meaning. Third, individuals strong in the challenge component believe that ultimate fulfillment entails growing in wisdom through change and learning experiences, both positive and negative. Rather than wishing for comfort and security, they take calculated risks and view changes as interesting possibilities. Viewing change in ones life as rich and interesting rather than chaotic and threatening can make ones life meaningful. These components of hardiness may provide personal meaning for charismatic leaders who generally possess strong commitment, internal locus of control and a propensity to take risks (House &

Howell, 1992).
&dquo;Great Man&dquo; theories of

leadership (e.g., Borgatta, Couch, & Bales, 1954) identify courage as one dispositional attribute possessed by leaders who motivate followers to outstanding achievements. Courage is integral to the charismatic appeal of leaders such as Moses (leading the Jews out of Egypt), Abraham Lincoln (leading the U.S. through civil war and freeing Negro slaves), and Martin Luther King, Jr.

11

(advancing civil rights in America). Each of these leaders may have derived personal meaning by courageously facing and overcoming numerous challenges.
Feared Possible Selves and Personal

Meaning

Feared possible self domains and their intensity in influencing a leader also may differ among non-charismatic leaders, socialized charismatic leaders, and personalized charismatic leaders. Examples of feared possible selves are shown in Table 2.

11)

t3 <u
a
u

Ei
~=!

.~2

z
0

~7_
t3

9 U 1 c~

E
.9 x
U
4r

0
w

i it
U

OQ

S
0

.2

oi

co
u

EL.
-0
8l U

or
0 z
11

w
4-r

0
1.11,

:!5
z

_N

cd

9
x

F-

0
z

12

A non-charismatic

or socialized charismatic leader whose self-image includes a salient feared self from the personal domain (e.g., being a selfish person) may reduce personal meaning by ignoring self-transcendence. Self-images structured around personal concerns may be associated with negative life themes and destructive personal decisions (Mumford et al., 1993; OConnor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connolly, 1995). Destructive personal decisions and negative life themes/psychological states are negatively related to PIL (e.g., Harlow, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1986). These feared selves may retard O-motives that provide selftranscendent personal meaning.

Personal feared selves may be important domains for personalized charismatic leaders who are generally motivated by S-motives rather than O-motives. Whereas feared selves from the personal domain involving self-derogation may erode PIL (Harlow et al., 1986), they may provide a stimulus for S-motives involving protection of self-esteem. For example, Oyserman and Markus (1990) argued that some personal feared selves may be necessary to identify behavior that is to be avoided for self-protection. They proposed that some feared selves are required to balance expectations defined by hoped-for selves. Without balance between these selves in important domains, the initiation and maintenance of self-derogation may occur. For example, Malcolm X described his past failings leading to his imprisonment as motivation for his subsequent transformation into the charismatic leader of the Nation of Islam (Haley, 1964). His identification of the criminal personal feared self, coupled with a hoped-for personal self of builder of the selfesteem of his people, may have motivated him toward more pro-social action.

Physical feared selves that are salient may be detrimental to personal meaning of non-charismatic and charismatic leaders. In his review of the health, well-being and leadership literature, Bass (1990) noted that a leaders motivation depends, in part,
his or her physical health and worrying about health concerns represents a form of mental ill-health that is detrimental to self-efficacy. A salient feared self from the physical domain (e.g., having an incurable disease) may reduce the O-motive and PIL if there is no meaning attached to the physical suffering. Moreover, a physical feared self may reduce the S-motive by potentially damaging self-efficacy and selfesteem. For example, New York city mayor Rudolph Giulianis coming to terms with his prostate cancer may represent a feared physical self that motivated him to withdraw from the New York state senate race against Hillary Clinton. Similarly, Hamilton Jordans health concerns may have prompted him to scale back his political activities.
on

Abilities/education feared selves may promote

wish to find

meaning for charismatic leaders who meaning through the S-motive. For example, a charismatic leaders lack of requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities may be particularly detrimental to the projection charismatic images of being wise and extraordinary, but may be overcome by initiating work toward self-improvement. During the early days of his political career, John F. Kennedy worked hard to overcome skill deficiencies and improved his speaking, self-presentation and critical thinking skills (Mills, 1988).
feared selves that are salient may have both positive and negative effects leaders personal meaning. A socialized charismatic leader who begins to engage in questionable behavior may be motivated by a life style feared self (e.g., the criminal self) to correct his or her behavior. Such motivation may provide personal meaning by engaging the S-motive for improvement of ones character or the 0-

Life-style
on

13

motive for righting wrongs committed against others. In contrast, a personalized charismatic leader or non-charismatic leader who fears giving up luxurious living may be motivated to maintain his or her standard of living by avoiding a life-style feared self (e.g., the working class self). Such motivation may provide meaning through self-maintenance (the S-motive) rather than self-transcendence (the 0-

motive).
Worrying about material belongings or the manipulation of persons as objects may lead to self-destructive acts (Mumford et al., 1993). In fact, Kets de Vries (1988) identified such paranoia on the part of leaders as self-destructive and inconsistent with pro-social action. A charismatic leader whose self-image includes a feared self from the material domain (e.g., middle class self) may reduce personal meaning by focusing on accumulating personal wealth at the expense of others. Such a selfconception may be more likely to be associated with personalized charismatic leaders who possess Machiavellian dispositions. These leaders may define personal meaning through arousal of the S-motive (self-aggrandizement). For example, the popular press has highlighted Imelda Marcos obsession with accumulating material possessions, including a vast collection of womens shoes, while she and her husband Ferdinand Marcos ignored the social and economic issues of the Philippine people (Ellison, 1988). Similarly, Leona Helmslys legal battles with the Internal Revenue Service over material possessions (Waggoner, 1993) and Howard Hughes quirky self-indulgent lifestyle (Brown & Broeske, 1996) may have stemmed from fear of returning to the poor lifestyles of their youth.

Family and Relationship feared selves may be very important self-images for providing personal meaning by activating O-motives in socialized charismatic leaders. Specifically, interpersonal networks and sense of family represent the social fabric that binds socialized charismatic relationships (Shamir, 1991). Thus, a socialized charismatic leader whose self-image includes a feared self from the family or relationship domains (e.g., eroding trust and respect between leader and followers) may discover meaning in life by re-building relationships with followers. Motivation to engage in such behaviors may not be as strong for personalized charismatic leaders, who are self-concerned and lack empathy, and non-charismatic
leaders who may be more task-oriented than charismatic leaders. For instance, fear of de-stabilized relationships among ethnic groups in the Balkan region has prompted German foreign minister Joschka Fischer to draft a stabilization pact to make the Balkans more democratic, law-abiding and tolerant (&dquo;Rebuilding the

Balkans,&dquo; 1999).
of occupational commitment to charismatic leaders (House & charismatic leader whose self-image includes a salient feared self from the occupation domain may discover meaning in life by stepping up role modeling behaviors of putting in long work hours for the good of the organization. This manifestation of the O-motive may provide meaning through personal sacrifice. In contrast, a salient feared self from the leisure domain is likely to attenuate

Given the

importance
a

Howell, 1992),

personal meaning because leisure is generally passive and unrelated to organizational objectives, whereas personal meaning involves an active pursuit of goals (Wong, 1998). Steve Jobs return to Apple Computer illustrates how a leaders fear of losing ones company to mismanagement may motivate increased commitment to ones occupation.

14

key to the maintenance of a charismatic image (Conger & Fear of failure may be especially salient for personalized Kanungo, 1998). charismatic leaders whose self-esteem may be shaky. A charismatic leader whose self-image includes a feared self from the success domain (e.g., the failed self) may discover meaning in life through the S-motive by creating work to overcome
Success
as a

leader is

adversity.
Social

responsibility is central to socialized charismatic rhetoric and visions (Holladay & Coombs, 1994; Shamir et al., 1994). A socialized charismatic leader whose self-image includes a salient feared self from the social responsibility domain (e.g., perpetrator of an environmental accident) may discover meaning in life by building relationships with the community and stepping up safeguards. Such meaning may be provided by activating the O-motive to make a positive difference in the community. Mitroff and Denton (1999) provided a relevant example of a CEO of a furniture manufacturing firm who could no longer deny that chemicals used by his firm were highly toxic and extremely dangerous to the environment. When
interviewed, the CEO commented
&dquo;To my dismay, I realized that I had become an unwitting agent of evil... this does not fit in with my self concept... Ever since that realization, I feel as if I carry a spear in the middle of my heart... I struggle every day to pull that spear from my chest.&dquo; (p. 87)

Feared Self Complexity

Prior research (e.g., Linville, 1985; Niedenthal et al., 1992; Oyserman & Markus, 1990) noted above suggests that greater feared self complexity may strengthen the S-motive of personal meaning associated with personalized charismatic leaders. For example, Oyserman and Markus proposed that individuals with few hoped-for selves and many feared selves may drift toward anti-social and self-centered acts. &dquo;As they become increasingly elaborated, negative expected selves will begin to dominate the less-elaborated conventional positive expected selves&dquo; (p. 151). Thus, an increasing number of semantically different feared selves, with their associated negative affective and emotional influences, may replace pro-social and self-transcendent personal meaning derived from the O-motive.

Conclusion
This articles goal was to provide a more theoretically based explanation for the connection between the self-concept and personal meaning of charismatic leaders and non-charismatic leaders than has yet been considered. To this end, it was argued that the type and salience of a leaders possible selves influence the content of a leaders personal meaning. Hopefully, this article helps researchers and managers to better understand how the self-concept and personal meaning of charismatic and non-charismatic leaders differ. At least two research implications can be derived from the above discussion. First, this article has expanded explanations of charismatic leader motivation beyond needs for power, achievement and affiliation discussed elsewhere (e.g., House, 1977). By identifying valuation theory (e.g., Hermans, 1998) as a possible explanation of charismatic leader motivation, this paper provides a base for future theoretical and

15

empirical

work

charismatic leaders and

exploring the role of S-motives and personalized charismatic leaders.

constructs

O-motives for socialized

of possible selves and personal meaning to leadership researchers. Methodologies exist to measure these constructs. Regarding possible selves, Cross and Markus (1991) developed a procedure in which respondents are asked to identify possible selves after reading a standardized set of instructions. Items from respondents self-generated lists of possible selves are then coded by two independent judges into only one of 11 categories noted above. Interrater agreement indices (e.g., Cronbachs alpha) are then computed to assess the reliability of the measures. Personal meaning may be measured using the 20-item PIL Test (Crumbaugh, 1968). Measures of possible selves and personal meaning may be used to examine relationships proposed in this article. Practical implications also can be derived from the prior discussion. For example, self-awareness is a dispositional attribute that is often emphasized in leadership programs (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1996). However, managers may not have the time to adequately consider aspects of their self-concepts. Therefore, trainers might use possible selves to help managers understand their self-images and how their self-concepts may inspire their subordinates to identify with them. Such identification may lead to enhanced subordinate satisfaction and performance (Shamir et al., 1993). In addition, ratings of self and others (superiors, subordinates, and peers) in terms charismatic leadership may help determine whether a manager is self-aware.

Second, this article has introduced the

development

a process of self- and other-rating into self-aware, over-estimator, and under-estimator agreement classify managers categories. Self-aware managers produce self-ratings similar to others ratings on charismatic leadership. In contrast, over-estimators produce self-ratings that are significantly higher than others ratings of their charismatic leadership. Underestimators produce self-ratings that are significantly lower than others ratings of their charismatic leadership. Feedback on possible selves and perceptions of charisma by followers may be given based on these categories. Such feedback may help managers see themselves as others see them and help them adjust their future behavior to be more consistent with their hoped-for possible selves.

Atwater and Yammarino

to

(1992) developed

practical implication concerns the congruence between leader and follower possible selves. The degree of similarity between leader and follower possible selves may be used to match compatible individuals in mentoring dyads. There has been a proliferation of formal and informal mentoring programs in organizations to develop leadership potential (Bass & Avolio, 1996). Research on mentoring (see Ragins, 1997, for a review) has indicated that perceived similarity between mentor and protege is a key predictor of prot6g6 attraction to the mentor and mentoring effectiveness. Possible selves may provide a rich description of mentor and protege self-images and highlight areas of similarity and difference.
Another
a first step toward understanding how selfinfluence the personal meaning of charismatic leaders and nonconceptions charismatic leaders. As organizations increasingly deploy emotional intelligence training, upward and 360-degree feedback and self-management policies,-the need for leaders to understand their self-conceptions, motives and personal meaning will no doubt increase. The pro-social or self-centered personal meaning of a leader may

In

conclusion, this article represents

16

tremendous success or harm for individuals and organizations, underscoring the importance of conducting empirical research on self-conceptions of leaders. References
Atwater, L. E., &
Does

result

in

Yammarino, F. J. (1992). self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-164.

Deluga,

American

(1997). Relationship among presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 8,49-65.
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1968). On charisma and institution building. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ellison, K.W. (1988). Imelda: Steel butterfly
of the

R.J.

Bass, B.M. (1990).

ofleadership.

Bass & Stodgills handbook New York: Free Press.

B.J. (1996). Full range Multifactor development: leadership Leadership Questionnaire manual. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio,

Philippines. New York: McGraw-Hill. Personality

and

Emmons, R.A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory

and measurement. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 11-17.

Becker, E. (1971). The birth and death of

meaning: An interdisciplinary perspective on the problem of man. New York: Free Press.
Beike, D.R., & Niedenthal, P.M. (1998). The
process of temporal self-comparison in selfevaluation and life satisfaction. In P.T.P. Wong & P.S. Fry (Eds.) The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological and clinical applications (pp. 71-89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Farran, C.J., Keane-Hagerty, E., Salloway, S., Kupferer, S., & Wilken, C.S. (1991). Finding

meaning:
Alzheimers

An

Gerontologist,

alternate paradigm for disease The caregivers. 31, 483-489.

Frankl, V. E. (1992). Mans search for

meaning: An introduction to logotherapy (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Gardner, W.L., &
charismatic

Borgatta, E.F., Couch, A.S., & Bales, R.F. (1954). Some findings relevant to the great man theory of leadership. American , Sociological Review. 19 755-759.
Breckler, S.J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct
components of attitude. Journal of Personality
and Social

Avolio, B.A. (1998). The

A of

perspective. Haley,

relationship: Academy

dramaturgical
Management
of

Review, 23, 32-58.

A. (1964). The autobiography Malcolm X. New York: Random House.

Psychology, 46,

1191-1205.

Harlow, L.L., Newcomb, M.D., &

Bentler,

Brown, P.H., & Broeske, P.H. (1996). Howard Hughes: The untold story New York: .
Dutton. & Helyar, J. (1990). Barbarians the gate: The fall of RJR Nabisco New . York: Harper & Row.

P.M. (1986). Depression, self-derogation, substance use, and suicide ideation: Lack of purpose in life as a mediational factor. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 5-21.

Burrough, B.,
at

Hermans, H.J.M. (1998). Meaning

as

an

Conger, J.A.,

&

Kanungo,

Charismatic leadership in Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

R.N. (1998). organizations.

organized process of valuation. In P.T.P. Wong & P.S. Fry (Eds.) The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological and charismatic leaderinical applications (pp. 317334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holladay, S.J., & Coombs, W.T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8,
165-189.

Cross, S., &

selves
across

Markus, H. (1991). Possible

the life 34,230-255. span. Human

Development, Crumbaugh,
,74-81. 24

Cross-validation of based on Frankls purpose-in-life concepts. Journal of lndividual Psychology.

J.C.

(1968).

test

17

(1977). A 1976 theory of leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R.J.
charismatic

Oyserman, D.,
selves
157.

in

delinquency.

Markus, H. (1990). Possible balance: Implications for Journal of Social Issues 46. 141&

Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J.F. (1999). Putting people

House, R.J.,
charismatic Personality Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108.
Kets de & and

Howell,

J.M.

(1992). leadership.

first for

organizational success. Academy 37-48. Management Executive, 13,

of

Vries, M.F.R. (1988). Prisoners of

261-280.

leadership. Human Relations, 41,

Kuhnert, K.W.,
Transactional
& and

Ragins, B.R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 22, 482-521.

Lewis,

P. (1987). transformational

Rebuilding
Kosovo.
45-47.

the Balkans:

leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review,

, 12 648-657.

(1999, June 19).

Ending conflict in The Economist. 351.

Linville, P.W. (1985). Self-complexity and

affective into one
94-120.

extremity: Dont put all of your eggs cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3,
S.R.

B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81-104.

Shamir,

Maddi,

(1998). Creating meaning through making decisions. In P.T.P. Wong & P.S. Fry (Eds.) The human quest for meaning:
A handbook of

House, R.J. The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: (1994). A theoretical extension, a case study, and implications for research. Leadership

Shamir, B., Arthur, M.B., &

psychological

, 25-42. Quarterly, 5
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. (1993).
The
motivational effects of charismatic based theory.

applications
Erlbaum.

(pp. 3-26).

and clinical Mahwah, NJ:

Marcus, H., &

selves. American

Nurius, P. (1986). Possible

leadership: A self-concept Organization Science, 4, 1-17.

Smircich,
257-273.

, Psychologist, 41

954-969.

Mills, J. (1988). John F. Kennedy. New York:

F. Watts.

& Morgan, G. (1982). The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18,

L.,

Leadership:

Mitroff, I.I., & Denton, E.A. (1999).

of

study
Sloan

spirituality in the workplace. Management Review, 40, 83-92.

Theoharis, A. G. (1995). J. Edgar Hoover,

and crime: An historical anecdote. Ivan R. Dee.

sex,

Chicago:

Mumford, M.D., OConnor, J.A., Clifton, T.C., Gessner, T.L., Johnson, J.F., & Connelly, M.S.

(1993). Background predicting security

measurement

data risks:

procedures

for Extensions of and validation

measures

J. (1993, April 16). Inspectors get bad guys, little attention. USA Today, p. B 1.

Waggoner,

evidence (Tech. Rep. CBHS 93-1). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Center for Behavioral and Cognitive Studies.

P.M., Setterlund, M.C., & M.B. (1992). Possible selfand affective reactions to goalrelevant evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 5-16. Niedenthal,

Wong, P.T.P. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and the development of the personal meaning profile. In P.T.P. Wong & P.S. Fry (Eds.) The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological and clinical applications (pp. 111-140). Mahwah, NJ:

Wherry, complexity

Erlbaum.

Zaleznik,
consensus

A.

(1974).
leaders: Bulletin

comparison.
OConnor, J.O., Mumford, M.D., Clifton, T.C., Gessner, T.L., & Connelly, M.S. (1995).
Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: A histriometric study. LeadershipQuarterly, Zabeznik,
529-555.

Charismatic and A psychological of the Menninger

Clinic.

38 222-238.