Charisma Weber applies the term
charisma to In the modern era, some psychologists have defined charisma in terms of practical outcomes (i.e. charismatic leaders are effective). However, such a definition is circular in reasoning. The conclusions derived from such definitions (and measures) cannot be refuted given that the proponents claim something akin to
if effective, therefore charismatic. Charisma, however, can be studied scientifically if seen as a costly signal, using values, symbols, and emotions. It was shown to correlate strongly with general intelligence and observers infer that those signaling charisma are more competent. Its economic value in consequential settings has also been scientifically examined. Thus Weber's insights were valuable in naming the construct of charisma, although his definitions and insights did not allow for its scientific study. Modern social science however, has found supports for the notion that charismatic leaders can, under certain conditions, be very persuasive.
Authority Weber interchanges authority and dominance[H]as been considered in
sociological terms as indicating the
legitimate or socially approved use of power. It is the legitimate power which one person or a group holds and exercises over another. The element of legitimacy is vital to the notion of authority and is the main means by which authority is distinguished from the more general concept of power. Power can be exerted by the use of force or
violence. Authority, by contrast, depends on the acceptance by
subordinates of the right of those above them to give them orders or directives. Charismatic authority is often the most lasting of regimes because the leader is seen as infallible and any action against him will be seen as a crime against the state. Charismatic leaders eventually develop a
cult of personality often not by their own doing. Leadership is the power to diffuse a positive energy and a sense of greatness. As such, it rests almost entirely on the
leader. The absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority's power dissolving. However, due to its idiosyncratic nature and lack of formal
organization, charismatic authority depends much more strongly on the perceived
legitimacy of the authority than Weber's other forms of authority. For instance, a charismatic leader in a
religious context might require an unchallenged
belief that the leader has been touched by
God, in the sense of a
prophet. Should the strength of this belief fade, the power of the charismatic leader can fade quickly, which is one of the ways in which this form of authority shows itself to be unstable. Charismatic leaders not only inspire followers through vision and emotion, but also draw significantly more attention to their communications, since a study shows that followers spent longer reading both consistent and inconsistent messages when delivered by high-charisma leaders. In contrast to the current popular use of the term
charismatic leader, Weber saw charismatic authority not so much as character traits of the charismatic leader but as a relationship between the leader and his followers. The validity of
charisma is founded on its "recognition" by the leader's followers (or "adepts" – ). His charisma risks disappearing if he is "abandoned by God" or if "his government doesn't provide any prosperity to those whom he dominates".
Routinizing charisma Charismatic authority almost always endangers the boundaries set by
traditional (coercive) or
rational (legal) authority. It tends to challenge this authority, and is thus often seen as
revolutionary. Usually this charismatic authority is incorporated into society. Hereby the challenge that it presents to society will subside. The way in which this happens is called
routinization. By routinization, the charismatic authority changes: In politics, charismatic rule is often found in various
authoritarian states,
autocracies,
dictatorships and
theocracies. To help to maintain their charismatic authority, such regimes will often establish a vast
personality cult. When the leader of such a state dies or leaves office, and a new charismatic leader does not appear, such a regime is likely to fall shortly thereafter, unless it has become fully routinized. ==Charismatic succession==