Over the years, I have asked many of my clients if they could define what makes a leader more likely to inspire the troops. Over and over again, the notion of 'charisma' is cited as being a critical factor: the ability to speak with confidence and authority and to build relationships at all levels with skill.

Socialogical factors play a significant role in defining these types of leaders. A sociologist name Max Weber highlighted three kinds of leader:

i) Charismatic Leadership Type
ii) Rational Leadership Type
iii) Traditional Leadership Type

Weber explained that, unlike rational and traditional leaders, charismatic leaders' compel their colleagues and employees through the strength of their personality and their character.

The concept of character being an asset of a leader is new. Only 20 years ago, the focus was exclusively on the skill set of a successful leader - not their character traits.

It would appear that unlike other types of leadership, charismatic leaders rely more on the perception others have of them and the personal attributes they bring tho the table.

Take this example: if you did a straw poll of people in the USA, the majority would likely believe that Bill Clinton was a charismatic leader. In fact, his ability to make the person he was talking to feel like the most important person in the room, after just a couple of minutes of conversation, was legendary.

Some of the traits that memorable leaders have:

1. These leaders are highly persuasive
2. Are skilled at story telling
3. Are adept at reading and using body language
4. Are very empathetic
5. Can adapt their approach to suit the audience

This leadership above all others, is the most effective in Politics. It gets the most public appeal and following as it connects with people on a personal level. How often have politicians not made election because they were 'boring' or 'uninspiring'?

So, what other attributes are typically associated with charismatic leaders? Conger & Kanungo defined:

1. the ability to articulate a vision
2. Understanding the needs of their people and being sensitive to these needs
3. Understanding the changing tensions within the environment and responding appropriately
4. Not afraid to take risks
5. Not always acting like everybody else.

Leaders who are brought in to make transformational change in an company are often charismatic. Fair enough. It would be difficult to usher in genunine organisational change (with all the collateral damage that usually accommpanies it) without the persuasive skills commonly associated with charismatic leaders. In this sense, transformational leadership is very similar to charismatic leadership. However, charismatic leaders don't always want to focus on change. That is the difference betweem the two.

So what makes charisma different? Well, it can be abused for a start. If the charisma is positively intentioned, then hopefull positive results will occur, but if the charisma is negative, well then the outcomes are less clear.

Of course, there are many cases where organizations have turned the tide because of the driving force of an inspirational and charismatic leader.

Not every business needs a Bill Clinton leading from the front. In fact many companies simply do not need it at all. Introverted leadership styles that focus on 'substance over style' often win. So maybe we shouldn't always focus on the charismatic guys (and gals).

Like with all types of leaders, charismatic leaders have their share of negative traits:

imagine the scenario, the leader has such high levels of belief in his or herself that they ignore real issues or risks and are unwilling to accept that they need to learn (and therefore they don't). Their presence is so strong that succession planning becomes difficult.

To conclude, charismatic leaders can usher in great and positive change. But, for all its positive traits, in the wrong hands, charisma can also be a negative force acting againstthe longer term benefits of the organization.