Charismatic and Attribution Leadership Comparison

Cite this

Leadership is an intrinsic capacity useful in influencing people to accomplish specific goals in life. Good leadership style is characterized by some values, and determining them is instrumental in ensuring the expected outputs are achieved. Moreover, leadership is strongly linked to the personality of an individual resulting in diverse types of leaders in various capacities in organizations (Stephen & Timothy, 2019). This paper compares and contrasts the charismatic type of leadership and the one exhibited in attribution theory. Detailed accounts are given on the principles in each type of leadership style concerning personality and how each leads to the success of the group.

Cut 15% OFF your first order
We’ll deliver a custom Organizational Behavior paper tailored to your requirements with a good discount
Use discount
322 specialists online

The leadership principle in attribution theory is based on the cause-effect basis while the charismatic theory is based on the charm of an individual in an organization. Occasionally, people use an evaluation method to find out the causes of the consistency of an event and relate incidents to specific experiences. In attribution theory leadership, leaders make observations on events and relate them to themselves and team members as an avenue of finding solutions to success (Seele & Eberl, 2020).

On the contrary, charismatic leadership is driven by the charm in the skills and personality of a given leader to facilitate the accomplishment of a group mission. The objectives are achieved based on how the leaders influence followers towards meeting organizational goals even at a personal level (Lovelace et al., 2019). It is therefore evident that leadership in attribution theory is based on results judgment while charismatic leadership is vision and mission-oriented.

The success of a group is based on the behavior of leaders in both attribution theory and charismatic leadership. Attribution theory proposes the formulation of opinions regarding the observations made from an individual’s action. Both the leader’s and the followers’ behaviors are monitored and used as the directives on making an appropriate judgment (Seele & Eberl, 2020). Consequently, charismatic leadership involves a team identifying the behavior of an individual to become a leader. The extraordinary abilities of the leader to coordinate activities of the group and establish a cohesive relationship within the team build the confidence of the followers (Lovelace et al., 2019). From both perspectives, it is clear that good behavior in leadership plays a significant role in ensuring organizational success.

Charismatic leadership is appropriate for organizations at the earlier stages of development or those almost failing, while leadership in attribution theory is useful for stable ones. Charismatic leaders are associated with self-sacrifice, being goal-oriented, confident in executing duties and high motivational skills to team members (Stephen & Timothy, 2019). As a result, these leaders are competent in managing risky situations in an organization. Leadership in attribution theory, on the other hand, entails having an understanding as to why an incident occurred. It makes its attribution applicable in ensuring consistency once the way to success has been established (Seele & Eberl, 2020). However, the two types of leadership are equally good at fulfilling the missions of organizations.

In conclusion, the two leadership styles differ significantly based on their method of acquisition but are similar in operational strategies towards success in missions. Since charismatic leadership is skills-oriented, it is the best kind of managing crises in organizations. Attribution leadership is cause-and-effect oriented and fits well in organizations where high-performance standards are to be maintained. Both leadership styles, however, monitor behaviors of people and leaders closely to ensure that expected objectives and social intactness within an organization are achieved.

On-Time Delivery!
Get your customised and 100% plagiarism-free paper done in as little as 3 hours
Let’s start
322 specialists online

References

Lovelace, J., Neely, B., Allen, J., & Hunter, S. (2019). Charismatic, ideological, & pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership: A critical review and agenda for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 96-110. Web.

Seele, H., & Eberl, P. (2020). Newcomers’ reactions to unfulfilled leadership expectations: An attribution theory approach. European Management Journal, 38(1). Web.

Stephen, P. R., & Timothy, A. J. (2019). Organizational behavior. Pearson.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

PsychologyWriting. (2022, February 2). Charismatic and Attribution Leadership Comparison. Retrieved from https://psychologywriting.com/charismatic-and-attribution-leadership-comparison/

Reference

PsychologyWriting. (2022, February 2). Charismatic and Attribution Leadership Comparison. https://psychologywriting.com/charismatic-and-attribution-leadership-comparison/

Work Cited

"Charismatic and Attribution Leadership Comparison." PsychologyWriting, 2 Feb. 2022, psychologywriting.com/charismatic-and-attribution-leadership-comparison/.

References

PsychologyWriting. (2022) 'Charismatic and Attribution Leadership Comparison'. 2 February.

References

PsychologyWriting. 2022. "Charismatic and Attribution Leadership Comparison." February 2, 2022. https://psychologywriting.com/charismatic-and-attribution-leadership-comparison/.

1. PsychologyWriting. "Charismatic and Attribution Leadership Comparison." February 2, 2022. https://psychologywriting.com/charismatic-and-attribution-leadership-comparison/.


Bibliography


PsychologyWriting. "Charismatic and Attribution Leadership Comparison." February 2, 2022. https://psychologywriting.com/charismatic-and-attribution-leadership-comparison/.