When the public role becomes detached from the leader and the organization, that is when trouble is about to ensue

Season 2, Episode 1

The myth of the heroic leader – the original leader archetype, reinforced by modern bureaucracy! Although some leadership scholars view the archetype with skepticism, there are instances where the presence of someone in a leadership position is equated with effective leadership (“presence,” for example, is an explicit quality expected of military leaders). Call it charismatic leadership a la Conger and Kanungo or fulfilling the role of ‘figurehead’ a la Mintzberg, scholars have been pursuing constructs that capture the essence of a leader who ‘looks’ or ‘acts’ like a heroic leader.

And then there is the leader as ‘celebrity,’ as one whose public presence goes beyond what is typically associated with serving in a leadership position. Steve Jobs may be the best contemporary example as he exemplified more than Apple but he evoked a spirit of innovation. I served for leaders who were similarly thrust into the spotlight (generally unwillingly) and whose name became somewhat of a brand. In this episode, I explore the question as to whether this is good or bad (or even if such measures apply), and when.

Works Referenced:

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage Publications.

Hartley, J. (1996). Popular reality: Journalism, modernity, popular culture. Arnold.

Ludwig, D. C., & Longenecker, C. O. (1993). The Bathsheba syndrome: The ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(4), 265-273.