Charisma In The Workplace

Send this Article to a Friend!

Television producer Mark Goodson invariably responded to the question, “How do you select people to appear as contestants on your shows?” with the same answer: “We look for three things. Personality, personality and personality.” Mr. Goodson’s response applies not only to the selection of people to appear on TV reality and game shows, but to applicants for high-level management jobs.

Next May, AOL Time Warner Chairman Steve Case will step down to be replaced by current CEO Richard Parsons. This is the latest in a series of top executive step downs, for one reason or another, leaving positions of power up for grabs.

When jobs of this caliber are vacated, there are many qualities to be considered in an applicant, qualities such as capability, experience, and education. But the quality that is most likely to facilitate acquiring such lucrative positions, and there’s no doubt about it among the experts, is that part of some personalities called charisma.

Not everyone has charisma, the quality that gives a personality influence over large numbers of people, people who follow not because they have to, but because they want to. Jack Welch, GE’s former Chairman and Chief Executive, has genuine charisma. So does actor Jack Nicholson, and the late columnist, Mike Royko. Mark Goodson himself had it. Harry S. Truman had it, and Seabiscuit, the Thoroughbred racehorse, had it.

Charisma can be a trait that, while helping employees in management get to the top of their professions, can cause some serious problems later, if a dark side shows itself. Some top executives who look good to their peers and their bosses and who do well on most assessments, turn out to be terrible for their companies, and end up being costly by creating poor morale, excessive turnover, and reducing productivity. Sometimes they can ruin a company altogether.

Many corporations hire experts to handle the job interview, experts who know how to differentiate between genuine charisma, of which self-confidence is the basis, and variations of it, which have a dark side, an almost grandiose sense of certainty with a disdain for subordinates.

One whose assessments expose the dark side, if it’s lurking within a charismatic job candidate, is Robert Hogan, Ph. D., President, Hogan Assessment Systems (HAS), Tulsa OK. HAS pioneered the use of personality measures for making organizational decisions by predicting on-the-job performances, particularly aspects associated with “attitude.” Dr. Hogan’s 25 years of development, refinement and validation supply the tools which provide valuable information for in-depth developmental feedback.

“Besides intelligence and a knack for strategic planning, good managers have enormous charm and energy,” said Dr. Hogan. “Charisma ... concerns sparkling, shining, and seeming very attractive.” The key word is ‘seeming.’

“Three of the 10 major personality disorders are also characterized by charisma,” said Dr. Hogan, “they are Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Histrionic personalities. Narcissism is about being charming but arrogant – think Bill Clinton. Narcissists act as though normal rules don’t apply to them.”

“Psychopathy is about being charming but utterly untrustworthy – think (former Enron CFO) Jeffrey Fastow. Histrionic is about being charming but capable of only superficial relationships, and being distractible – think any movie star. (Charismatic) people light up a room and make a huge impact on strangers...”

When asked if two people were eligible for the same position, would the one with the attractive personality get the job even if the other had better qualifications, Dr. Hogan answered emphatically: “Charisma trumps accomplishments and integrity every time.”

One way to tell the difference between charisma and narcissism, says Dr. Hogan, is “the degree to which they are willing to share credit for success, and to accept blame for failure. Narcissists won’t ... accept blame. They are particularly good at ingratiating themselves with their seniors but brutalize their juniors.”

To the question, “Do women employees trust a male leader more than a female leader,” Dr. Hogan replied, “My wife does.”

Others do not disagree with Mrs. Hogan.

Howard S. Schwartz, Ph.D., Professor of Organizational Behavior at Oakland University, Rochester, MI, and author of “Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay: The Theory of the Organization Ideal,” (New York University Press) believes there’s a difference between male and female charismatics.

Dr. Schwartz theorizes that male charisma has to do with strength, while female charisma has to do with sex. “It wasn’t Menelaus’ face that launched a thousand ships, it was Helen’s. Anybody who doesn’t think (sex) has to do with power just isn’t thinking.”

Within the confines of a charismatic personality in corporate life, Dr. Schwartz theorizes that “women are more inclined to act in accordance with what is going on within the relationship,” whereas “men are not so much involved with the specifics of relationships but are more tied into the rules that structure the organization, living more in the abstract.” “That’s why,” he says, “how (men) feel at the moment doesn’t have that much bearing on how they act. (They) can work productively with people that they hate. Women have a harder time doing that.”

But Schwartz agrees on the dangers of narcissistic management. He says it insulates managers from reality: “If the top management of an organization does something that causes the organization to head toward a cliff, (it) is going to go over the cliff and the only thing most people can do is to cross their fingers and update their resumes.”

Sandra Davis, Ph.D, founder and CEO of MDA Consulting Group in Minneapolis, utilizes HAS, in part, to help cull job applicants for MDA’s corporate clients. Dr. Davis herself is a fascinating conversationalist, a charismatic one-time classical pianist whose taste in music ranges from Brahams to Willie Nelson and the Rolling Stones.

In divining the difference between charisma and narcissism in job applicants for corporate clients, Dr. Davis, who practices objectivity with a heart, interviews with such questions as:

Tell me about the last time you made a mistake.
Tell me about when something didn’t work out the way you wanted it to. When was the last time you got feedback from someone who didn’t agree with you? What will people who know you say is your downside?

These are intriguing questions which, Dr. Davis has found, “Narcissists are incapable of answering, except with glib responses,” because “A person turned inside truly cannot see themselves as having made any mistakes and can’t accept feedback.”

In discussing criteria for leadership, Dr. Davis, who believes corporations can make mistakes when hiring someone from outside their organization, because “that person has not demonstrated the ability of leadership to the employees,” states “Initial charisma isn’t quite the same as being attracted to human spirit, depth of character, (or having) the thought, ‘I’ll follow them...’”

Although it appears to be difficult to uncover a genuine charismatic, it’s not impossible. One executive, whose name was repeatedly mentioned throughout these interviews as an ideal, intellectually flexible and charismatic leader, was Xerox Corporation’s recently elected (2000) President and CEO: Anne M. Mulcahy.

Colleagues describe Anne Mulcahy as a problem-solving optimist who can deliver bad news well, bring the required players to the table, and keep them talking and inspired. When she took over leadership of Xerox, the company was struggling to right itself after managerial mistakes had plunged it into deep financial trouble.

Mulcahy (50) frequently speaks of having learned teamwork in her youth, where she was treated by her parents no differently from her four brothers. She is one of only 10 women in the United States to lead a Fortune 500 company. Today, she says, “It always felt absolutely natural to be the only woman in a room full of men.”

In view of the recent rise in known executive misbehavior, perhaps it would be universally beneficial for medical research to concentrate on cloning not sheep, but charismatic leaders.