Max Weber was one of the leading social theorists of the 1900s. His focus was on the role of individuals in societies. He believed in certain “pure” types of authority. To him, there were three legitimate reasons for people to follow a leader. He distinguished between three types of leaders: rational, traditional, and charismatic.
Rational leaders derive their power from their position of authority. Their power comes from legal precedents and the order established around their position. Rational leaders only have power within the scope of their office. Obedience is not owed to the person; it is owed to their position. Traditional leaders inherit their power. The followers believe in the sanctity of their traditions and therefore follow the person who rightly claims the power. The leader must be a legitimate heir to a legitimate tradition.
Rational and traditional leaders are the most common types in our society, but the charismatic leader is in my opinion the one most capable of producing significant change. Charismatic leaders derive their powers from the personal trust of their followers. They are not followed because of a legal obligation or an honored tradition; they are followed because the people admire their characteristics and ideas. These leaders are believed to have virtues and characteristics that no common people possess. Their characteristics are even sometimes regarded as having a divine origin. They tend to perceive their followers more as equals than rational or traditional leaders do and their power depends totally on the recognition they receive from their followers. I believe that when people are following out of free choice and not out of obligation they are much more willing to go along with the causes introduced by the leader.
What type of authority do you think is the most effective for producing change? Which type of leader would you prefer to see in society?
Leadership for Social Change | Saint Louis University 
I believe that the authority given to leaders willingly by their followers is the most effective authority for producing change. This is because if the followers are willing to actually give authority to a leader then they must have a faith that the leader will do what is in the best interests of those who follow them. Both traditional and rational leadership leave the willingness of the followers out of their descriptions of authority. The authority is just given through laws (rational) or divine right (traditional). However, with charismatic, the authority comes from the devotion of the followers. There comes a personal relationship between the leader and the led. This is what I would like to see more of.
To some degree I think that there is some overlap between rational and charismatic leadership. For example, the president of the US has to be elected to office by a majority vote. In this way, the candidate must show some charismatic qualities in order to win over a large group of people. On the other hand, once the individual is appointed to office, this may not be the case. At this point the president acts primarily as a rational leader, rarely considering followers. Additionally, their power no longer relies on the backing of the people and they may not work as hard to please them.
In my opinion, the best type of leader would be a leader that has traits from both the charismatic and rational leader types. An effective leader must be trusted by their followers and have open lines of communication to them as well. However, a leader must maintain some sense of superiority over their followers in order to keep control. By being both a charismatic and rational leader, the leader would be able to connect with their followers while still keeping an organized goal and way of achieving that goal.
I agree that rational and charismatic leadership can overlap. In our society, most of the political leaders are elected based on their personalities and values. People who vote for them are the followers, and they most likely voted for the candidate because they see them as a charismatic leader. I think the charismatic leader is the most effective because they have the ability to inspire their followers, who tend to be more dedicated to the leader and the cause. Because of this, they are more passionate about what they are trying to accomplish and may be more successful in the end.
I think that to be an effective leader, one would have similar qualities between charisma and rationality. Followers must be able to trust their leader and believe in them. Thus, people vote into office candidates who they view as trustworthy, goal-orientated and charismatic. Therefore our voting system is charismatic as well as rational because we elect those we believe in to hold office and power. However, this rationality allows for our leaders to have authority and keep order and control. In a purely charismatic type of leadership, once the people no longer liked their leader they could replace him. Democracy and rational leadership permits structure, order, and organization in a society thus allowing for the fulfillment of goals.
In my opinion, the idea of a charismatic leader is the most effective for producing change because the followers are more devoted to the cause, Also, charismatic leaders foster excitement and motivation among the followers because they both feel passionately about the same issue.The only problem with charismatic leadership is that the distinction between leader and follower is blurred. If the followers do not like the leader then the leadership ends. Furthermore, when the issue is resolved the old charismatic leader steps down and a new one appears.
I agree with Barb in saying that the best type of leader is a charismatic one. The most effective way to get a group of people to follow and support your idea is to simply “charm” them. As with Hitler or other irrationally cruel leaders in society forcing people into following you will always create a sense of uneasiness. When you think about it, a follower is much less likely to revolt when they are the ones choosing to follow not only the cause, but that they genuinely like and respect the person in charge.
I think I agree with most comments in saying that a good leader would be someone with a mix of rational leadership and charismatic leadership. I think it is important for there to be somewhat of a rational leader because it shows that the persons belongs in their position. Charismatic is seemingly of obvious importance to me because based on the majority of our class’s opinion, we all want a leader who can speak and inspire others. These people can truly be the ones to make a change because words are powerful. If you have a way of speaking that works in communicating with the masses then you have a step up on most.
I believe the most effective leader is a mixture of a rational and charismatic. To me a great leader must both have an effective agenda and the ability to motivate people to follow it. Rational leadership supplies this agenda and involves a leader who holds the legitimate requirements to hold office. A rational leader was given their position because they truly posses the ability to lead from their position effectively. On the other hand, I think that if this leader is to effectively direct people and implement the policies needed to improve society, they must posses some sort of charisma. No matter how logical someone’s credibility for office may seem people will still respond better to a charismatic leading style. For this reason, I believe a good leader needs to posses both of these qualities.
If put in a situation where I had to vote for my favorite leader, I know I would vote for the rational leader because I am heavily swayed by rational. However, I know that the charismatic leader would be best for society because they would push themselves the most to make change. Rational and traditional leaders believe that leadership is something they were born to do, but charismatic leaders believe that leadership is a privilege, not a right.
Charismatic leaders are extremely useful in their ability to motivate and organize because the followers and leader share the same vision. However, this motivation and “movement” must be completed within the theoretical attention span of the followers. Once the followers no longer share the vision of the leader, the charismatic leader is deemed useless. As history shows, especially within the Civil Rights Movement, a movement centered around charismatic leadership can only last a matter of years. Extended movements must reside in more cemented permanent leadership.
I think both traditional and rational leadership are effective, it just depends on the situation. When the public is able to choose or elect a leader, it gives them a voice. Within an organization, this is a great tactic because it helps give leadership to someone who has passion, goals, and the capability to lead. However, when choice is given, it can sometime push people to one side. This is often seen in the election. The public is given a vote, but it often causes the nation to be split into two groups with differing views. At times, the party label put with the candidate determines if people like them or not. Ignorance can lead to people making their decision before they actually look at the candidate’s views. On the other hand, rational leadership can be god and bad. If you look at the Queen of England, you can see a good example. She is very respected by her “followers” even though they had no say in who would be the Queen. However, rational leadership can also be negative if the power is abused or if the leader’s goals are different than the goals of the organization.
In today’s society, there are definitely more rational and traditional leaders than charismatic leaders. However, it’s the charismatic leaders that have the most devout passion towards their perspective mission. The charismatic leaders are the most effective for producing change, because they are the ones that are truly passionate for their cause, taking in consideration of their followers wholeheartedly as well. From the aforementioned reasons, I would prefer to see a charismatic leader in today’s society rather than a rational or traditional leader.
Of course, the charismatic leader is the ideal in today’s society. Many before me have already talked about the importance and effectiveness of him/her. I don’t want to be redundant.
I would like to say that Charisma is definitely something that is sought after already. The presidential elections are a prime example. The ability to speak and relate to others is a very important factor in a candidate’s campaign. It is the foundation of their platform. I simply cannot imagine a president who is not charismatic.
I think that rational leaders and charismatic leaders would be the most effective depending on the situation. Someone who inherits a position, especially if the person who held that position prior was respected, will be able to be very effective because some work has already been done. I don’t that some charisma in this position could hurt any, but the inheritance could make this leader effective anyway. I agree with most of the comments here stating that charismatic leaders are effective because they did not inherit their power, but rather their followers gave it to them. Because the followers have put their own choice in that leader, it makes it that much easier to have their support.
I think a leader who is both rational and charismatic makes the best leader. It is important that a leader has the ability to think things through and use common sense to make decisions. At the same time, a leader must also have the ability to lead with enthusiasm and passion in addition to being able to relate to followers. Charismatic leaders are also effective in that they have been elected by the followers rather than having inherited their position.
The most important and effective leader is a charismatic leader. Many people have said that it would be a combination of a rational and charismatic leader, but I believe that an entirely charismatic leader is more effective. A rational leader is sometimes needed but not always a good thing, especially when matters are out of the hands of a leader. The leader’s strongest outlet for success lies in the hands of the followers. The charismatic leader has the greatest emphasis on the role of the followers.
I think charismatic leaders are definitely the ones most commonly chosen in today’s society, but this isn’t the way it should be done. Just because our presidents’ are charismatic doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is what they believe. A leader absolutely must be both rational and charismatic in order to effectively gain folllowers and make a positive change.