1.

Charismatic leadership theories place emphasis on the morals and ideology of the leader, to a
degree that allows for no room to question the leader’s views. However, while it is good that this
theory focuses on the actual morals of a leader, which is a first in leadership theories so far, how
can these guidelines be interpreted if the leader has questionable intentions?

The leader in this theory is unquestioned in both their motives and their way of leading, which
creates a situation in which the followers are blindly following whatever is dictated by the more
dominant individual who is their leader. This unquestioning loyalty appears with the most fervor
in times of uncertainty or crisis, which can lead to scenarios in which the leader can take
advantage of the situation and this can result in cult situations. In a cult, the leader is viewed as a
savior, or as someone that is never wrong, both of which are aspects of charismatic leadership.
Cult followers have strong affection for their leader and believe wholly in whatever the leader is
preaching. So in this way these qualities and effects on followers can be shown to have a dark
side when the leader’s intentions are bad. While it is good to trust your leader, affection and
unquestionable acceptance creates such a steep power imbalance that it is the perfect recipe for
cult like relationships.

2. The basis of charismatic leadership theory is in fact charisma itself, which is considered a trait.
However depending on individual perception this charisma can vary in levels for a leader. In what
way does this directly contradict the trait theories viewpoint, and how can this be used to explain
the divisive nature of politics?

As discussed in class, traits are inherent and do not vary depending on perceptions of others.
However charisma is very much so dependent on the perception of those around us. As discussed,
leaders of political parties are seen as incredibly charismatic, but not to the opposition’s
followers. This contradicts trait theory directly, in which it states that charisma is enherant from
birth and is just a fact about that individual. If charisma levels vary depending on who it is that is
being asked for their opinion then how can it be an inherent fact? This differentiation of
charismatic levels for individuals depending on external perception is especially key when
observing followers actions from opposing political parties. Does this mean
that in situations where there are two groups competing that leader charisma is on a continuum?
For example the more charismatic you find one leader the less you find the other? If it is on a
continuum this could be explanatory for why there is such intense opposition between followers
of different political parties.