Max Weber’s contribution to social writings concerning charisma has without a doubt been the greatest contribution made to understand the social force. Max’s sociological writings serve as a point of departure for most scholars researching on Charisma and its relation to leadership. In his works, Max defines charismatic leadership as a leadership style that serves for individuals who lead extraordinarily due to their possession of certain traits. Such a leader holds such a superior charismatic power that makes him/her capable of rallying diverse people behind him including those who are prone to conflict.
Charismatic leadership is not all flowery as it may seem. The problem sets in when it starts being based on a form of messianic ability that looks to overhaul an unjust system. However, such leaders can be easily found. For instance, Nelson Mandela’s charisma is what made him the popular leader he was in South Africa and the world too. However, his charismatic days started fading at the end of his leadership term as democracy, which demanded rationalization, began taking root in the country. As much as Nelson Mandela united his people in the midst of diversity and geared them towards goals that seemed insurmountable at that time, rationalization still took center stage and hence the Mandela fell prey to the powers of routine.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In my opinion, charismatic leadership ultimately falls prey to the powers of rationalization. This happens in three ways. The first is that rational-legal constraints are on one’s neck in any democratic nation or organization. Secondly, it tends to underpin democracy by metamorphosing bonds within the charismatic community into a more routine consent. Lastly, once the second point takes root and the spirit of free thinking and opinion takes over, people begin to base the popularity of the said leader in more mundane criteria.
