Charisma or Character – The True Measure of Leadership
Danielle is the founder and principal of Archetype Learning Solutions where she produces materials that support adult and organizational learning. She is also an author and academic researcher with an interest in how physicians transition from clinician to leader.
For too long, we’ve referred to leadership in the context of a role, a title, or a position. As such, we’ve come to attribute “leadership” to individuals who are simply not worthy of having the title or the accolades. It conveys a false sense of what it means to lead and who gets the praise. Secondarily, we assign a value or qualifier around how leadership is operationalized. For example, we frequently see or hear phrases like, “she is such a good leader,” or “he has an awful leadership style.”
Good or bad, neither is a leadership qualifier, period, full stop. Leadership is leadership. You are either a leader or you’re not. Leadership is a set of behaviors that anyone, at any time, can exhibit. Putting a qualifier on management style is fine and fitting. Leadership, not so much.
In a recent conversation about this very topic with my husband, he suggested we call it “pseudo-leadership.” That moment stopped me in my dinner preparation. Of course, we should, and he was not the first to say it. It was born out of an academic conversation by two of the leading scholars in transformational leadership in the 1970s and 80s.
Before we get to that, let’s first have a “transformational leadership” refresher.
Transformational leadership was first coined by Downton in 1973 and later expanded upon by Burns in 1978. Transformational leadership is the opposite of a transactional approach, which uses positional and sometimes coercive power as a basis of compliance. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, uses influence. By definition, transformational leadership uses four key factors, as expanded on by Bass (1985):
Idealized influence
Inspirational motivation
Intellectual stimulation
Individualized consideration
Originally, Bass included charisma as part of the idealized influence factor, but it was heavily criticized by Burns because of the idea that charismatic leaders have the ability to negatively influence the behavior of team members. This includes obedience to feedback, often including confirmation bias or groupthink, gaslighting, a cult of personality, using charm for personal gain, and contributing to moral or ethical concerns. In a seminal academic treatise, he labeled this “pseudo-transformational” leadership.
Pseudo-transformational leaders mimic the look and language of real leadership but serve self-interest, disrupt team trust, and foster a culture where the ends justify the means. Authentic leaders, instead, prioritize ethical behavior, true empathy, and transparent collaboration. This idea has been at the center of my own definition of leadership.
A healthy influence-based relationship that is interactive, reciprocal, and non-coercive. Let’s break this down:
Healthy influence: Relies on the influence base of power rather than position or coercion. Health is an important addition because it reminds us that influence can be used in a manipulative way. Transformational factor, idealized influence.
Interactive and reciprocal: leadership is a relationship. In order to have a relationship, all communication must be a conversation based on trust and two-way dialogue. Transformational factor, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
Non-coercive: Based on mutual respect and recognition that our employees are humans with a need for thought-inclusion and respect. Transformational factor, inspirational motivation.
Based on what we know to be the transformational leadership style, part of what is referred to more broadly as participatory leadership, we can see that there is no room and no need for any qualifier. It is leadership, or it is not.
Leadership is not about authority, accolades, or charisma, it is about authentic influence rooted in values, trust, and reciprocal relationships. When organizations and teams look beyond the surface, they discover that genuine leadership is not measured by style or performance but by the consistent pursuit of the common good. In redefining leadership, we challenge ourselves to recognize the difference between those who inspire for collective benefit and those who manipulate for personal gain. The future demands leaders who foster empowerment, dialogue, and mutual respect, not the distractions of pseudo-transformational charisma.
Read more from Danielle Lord, PhD
Danielle Lord, PhD, Author, Researcher, and Content Creator
Dr. Danielle Lord is passionate about ensuring that employees have a meaningul and beneficial work experience. For over 30 years she has worked in organizations bringing about transformational change through adult and organizational learning, change management, employee engagement and leadership development. As the principal of Archetype Learning Solutions she researches and develops materials to support employees and leaders create a harmonious work environment. In addition, many of her products are used by coaches and other consultants to help support their own practice of maximizing the human experience at work.
