a method to operationalize max weber's analysis of
TRANSCRIPT
University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Amherst
ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014
1-1-1974
A method to operationalize Max Weber's analysis of charisma and A method to operationalize Max Weber's analysis of charisma and
a theory for its routinization. a theory for its routinization.
George Anthony Schlichte University of Massachusetts Amherst
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Schlichte, George Anthony, "A method to operationalize Max Weber's analysis of charisma and a theory for its routinization." (1974). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 5947. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/5947
This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected].
A METHOD TO OPERATIONALIZE MAX WEBER’S ANALYSIS OF CHARISMA
AND A THEORY FOR ITS ROUTINIZATION
A Dissertation Presented By
GEORGE ANTHONY SCHLICHTE
Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
February 1974
Business Administration
George Anthony Schlichte 1975
All Rights Reserved
A METHOD TO OPERATIONALIZE MAX WEBER’S ANALYSIS OF CHARISMA,
AND A THEORY FOR ITS ROUTINIZATION.
A Dissertation
By
George A. Schlichte
December 1975
To the Taxpayers
of
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
After many years of effort to establish and manage organized
groups of people,* I have become sensitive to the question of why
anyone would judge any organization to be legitimate. This paper
is a consequence of that curiosity.
To complete this research, I have received encouragement and
services from many persons to whom I am indebted. Some were indirectly
related, such as janitors, cafeteria workers, secretaries, and admin¬
istrators of the University of Massachusetts. Others were directly
related, such as faculty members, readers, typists, and especially
the Dissertation Committee. I owe particular gratitude to the tax¬
payers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Their financial support
makes the entire University complex possible, and as a consequence
provided the basic resources required for this study of the sources
of legitimacy.
To the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, among whom
are many personal friends, this work is dedicated in grateful apprecia¬
tion for their financial support of their University.
1 See Appendix, P- 96.
IV
A Method to Operationalize Max Weber’s Description of
Charisma and a Theory for its Routinization. (February, 1975)
GEORGE A. SCHLICHTE, B. S., United States Naval Academy
S. T. B., Gregorian University
Ph. D., University of Massachusetts
Directed by: Dr. Joseph E. Litterer
Three variables were identified as comprising Max Weber’s
description of charisma. The charismatic person is perceived as
extraordinary, as a source of hope, and as unique. Using Weber's
concept of charisma as the creator of legitimacy, it was possible
to combine these three variables into an operational statement.
Where an influence attempt is received from a source which is judged
to be performing works out of the ordinary, and further, these works
give hope of uniquely answering a personal need, that influence is
likely to be accepted as a legitimate power.
An instrument was developed to measure both the three variables
and legitimacy. A chi square pre test showed that the three variables
did discriminate from each other and legitimacy.
Three hypotheses were then tested:
1. Full time theology students will perceive a Great Leader
as a person who is extraordinary, whose works give them
hope to meet personal need, and who will be judged the
only source of such hope.
2. Volunteers for Senator McGovern for President will perceive
him as a person who is extraordinary, whose works give them
v
hope of meeting personal need, and who will be judged the
only source of such hope.
3. Non McGovern workers will not perceive Senator McGovern'
as extraordinary, nor will they judge his works to give
them hope to meet personal need, or perceive him as the
only source of such hope.
Measurement was made of deviations from expected value with
a chance, or .50, level of occurrence for all yes-no combinations of
responses to questions testing for the presence or absence of the
variables. The legitimacy assumptions were also tested.
The legitimacy assumptions were sustained at better than
the chance level, as were the predictions of all three hypotheses
with two exceptions. Contrary to the hypothesis, the variable
extraordinary was perceived by the non McGovern workers. This
result is consistent with theory. Perception of all three
variables is required in a charismatic situation. The other
failure was with the McGovern workers. Their perception of him
as unique fell within the chance range. This may have been caused
by the assumption of a uniform degree of legitimacy. Legitimacy
may have degrees, and the variable unique might be a critical
indicator of the degree of legitimacy. When McGovern workers were
divided into dedicated and less dedicated groups, the percentage
of perception of the variable unique increased notably for the
dedicated group. A limitation on the study was the small size of
the dedicated group. (N=21).
vi
According to the study, legitimacy of organization is a
consequence of the institutionalization of charisma. In the
beginning of an organization, charisma effects the coming into
being of legitimacy of the new order by generating acceptance
of the influence of a person. Initially, there is a need to be
met. When a person is seen performing the kinds of deeds which
give a unique hope of meeting the need, his influence is accorded
the prestige of being considered binding. Acceptance of this new
order establishes the organization. Once established, obedience
to the order, rather than to the person directly, can carry on
the organization.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . 1
Review of the Place and Importance of Charisma in Literature. Organization of this Study Charisma and Routine The Needs-Deeds Aspect of Charisma The Research Problem Design of Experiment
II. MAX WEBER'S ELEMENTS OF CHARISMA.28
III. LEGITIMACY.33
Weber's Analysis of Legitimacy Weber's Sources of Legitimacy Weber's Types of Legitimacy
IV. STATISTICAL TEST.42
The Pre Test Statistical Test
V. SOME CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY. ... 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY.79
APPENDIX.83
• • • VI11
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1. Table of Chi Square Tests with One Degree of Freedom
for Charisma Variables and Legitimacy Perceptions of a Great Leader. 49
2. Table of Chi Square Tests for Charisma Variables and Legitimacy with One Degree of Freedom for Perceptions of an Organized Religion. 50
3. Table of Correlation Coefficients Between Questions Testing Attitudes of 73 Respondents Towards a Great Leader. 51
4. Table of Correlation Coefficients Between Questions Testing Attitudes of 73 Respondents Towards an Organized Religion .. 52
5. Table of Chi Square Tests with One Degree of Freedom for Charisma Variables and Legitimacy for Present Perceptions of a Great Leader. 57
6. Table of Chi Square Tests for Charisma Variables and Legitimacy with One Degree of Freedom in Perceptions of an Organized Religion Now. 57
7. Responses of Forty Theologians to Legitimacy Questions . 59
8. Tabulation of Legitimacy Perceptions with Respect to a Focal Person. 64
9. Results of Testing Charisma Variables on Forty-six McGovern Workers ..... . 65
10. Results of Testing Charisma Variables on Thirty-eight Theology Students. . . 66
11. Results of Testing Charisma Variables on Thirty-six Non-McGovern Workers . 67
12. Twenty-one Dedicated and Twenty-five Less Dedicated Volunteers for McGovern Compared for Perceptions of the Charisma Variable Unique .... . 69
ix
13. Forty-six McGovern Workers as a Whole Compared with Twenty-one Dedicated and Twenty-five Less Dedicated Workers for Percentage Perceiving the Charisma Variable Unique and Percentage Perceiving the Variable Legitimacy. 70
14. Ranking by Percentage of Perception of Legitimacy for All Groups of the Test, Together with the Percentages of Perception of the Charisma Variables . . 71
15. Frequency Count of Responses of 73 Respondents to the Pre Test.90
16. Cross Tabulations of Responses to Questions About a Great Leader on the Pre Test.91
17. Cross Tabulations of Responses to Questions About Organized Religion on the Pre Test.93
x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
That people organize themselves at work and play is a fact of
human life. The choice of individuals to either subvert or support
their many organizations determines a group’s effectiveness as a team.
An effective organization would be one with rules which, in Max Weber's
definition of legitimacy, "enjoy the prestige of being considered
binding".^ A major interest of the present paper is to investigate
the elements Max Weber associates with legitimacy.
Legitimacy is the result of subjective evaluations. People
cooperate with those influences perceived by them as having a right
to give them directions. A simple example of this is the cooperation
given to the directions of traffic control officers. A more complex
example is the cooperation generated by the charismatic figures of
history.
When one observes human organizations, it is apparent that
cooperation with rules is essential in order for both the members
and the organization to reach professed goals. Yet, rules that fail
to enjoy the prestige of being considered binding can exist within an
organization. This situation can lead to the adoption of more rules
Max Weber, Economy and Society, ed. and trans. by Guenther Roth Claus Wittich, (3 vols. New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), I, 31. This is the first complete English edition of Economy and Society. It utilized a number of extant translations and footnotes, and it replaced completely many others. The editors had access to Winckelman's forthcoming fifth edition of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Economy and Society).
2
which lack legitimacy. Alvin Gouldner reports observing this phenomenon
in a gypsum plant.
Rules proliferate when a social organization is riven by the following tensions: (a) management distrust and suspicion become pervasive and are directed not only toward the workers, but also toward the managerial ingroup as well. (b) Disturbances in the informal system which result in the withholding of consent from the formally constituted authorities, the informal group is either unwilling or unable to allocate responsibilities and gives no support to management's production expectations. (c) The appearance of status distinctions of dubious legitimacy, in an egalitarian cultural context, which strain the formal authority relationships.^
Is there a way to reverse the chain of tensions which result in the
withholding of consent to organizational influences? Is there some
force which might be introduced to create legitimacy of rules, or
repair strained authority relations so that their legitimacy might
exist? According to Max Weber, charismatic authority is such a force.
When neither legal nor traditional authorities are able to maintain
cooperation, charismatic authority is a way to generate cooperation.
Weber characterizes charisma as "the specifically creative, revolu-
2 tionary force of history".
The focus of this study is charisma. The root meaning of the
word charisma is "gift" in the sense of something extraordinary or
rare. This study will consider charisma as something extraordinary
in the sense of being outside the ordinary or usual, activity.
"^Alvin W. Gouldner, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (Glencoe,
Illinois: Free Press, 1954), 180.
2 Weber, Economy and Society, III, 1117.
3
References to charisma in the literature are generally descriptive,
rather than analytical. The present study, based upon the work of
Max Weber, will develop an operational definition of charisma. It '
will give charisma a broad application. This definition says that
a charismatic person is one who performs what are considered to be
extraordinary deeds, and is perceived by others as a unique source
of hope to provide answers to personal needs. Adhering to Weber’s
theory that charisma creates legitimacy, the introduction of such a
person to a situation of deteriorating legitimacy would seem to
provide a source of hope to meet needs, and provide as well a means
for restoring organizational rules to a status of enjoying "the
prestige of being considered binding."
Review of the Place and Importance of Charisma in Literature
1. The continuing breakdown of legitimacy in organization.
Robert Michels thinks forces inherent within any organization operate
to deteriorate legitimacy. He equates organization with oligarchy:
By a universally applicable social law, every organ of the collectivity, brought into existence through the need for the division of labor, creates for itself, as soon as it becomes consolidated, interests peculiar to itself. The existence of these special interests involves a necessary conflict with the interests of the collectivity. Nay, more, social strata fulfilling peculiar functions tend to become isolated, to produce organs fitted for the defense of their own peculiar interests.
This phenomenon, known as goal displacement in bureaucratic
organizations, was further investigated by Paul Harrison. In his
1 Robert Michels, Political Parties, trans. Eden and Cedar Paul
(New York: The Free Press, 1966), 353.
4
study of the American Baptist Convention, considered one of the least
centralized voluntary organizations in the United States, Harrison
validates the conclusions arrived at by Michels. Here too, goal
displacement had taken place. Harrison reports that the needs of
organizational survival were being met at the expense of its goals.
In Harrison's words:
the effort to stabilize organizational coordination results in the displacement of the original goals by the method of bureaucratic procedure.
Goal displacement directs the energies of the organization to
purposes other than those for which the members initially cooperated.
Awareness of this change can result in a lessening of the members'
willingness to cooperate with organizational rules. Those who cease
to cooperate no longer accord to the rules "the prestige of considering
them binding"; the rules and the organization have lost legitimacy.
The exercise of authority can contribute to this bureaucratic
tendency to lose legitimacy. There is a large body of evidence which
indicates that the exercise of authority is associated with alienation
of workers. One example is put forth by Bonjean and Grimes who drew a
random sample from a population of 11,000. Interviews were conducted
with 104 business men, 108 managers, and 120 workers. Bonjean and
Grimes report:
Among workers the authority dimension of bureaucracy is more closely related to various types of alienation than any other
of the organizational dimensions.2
■Lpaul M. Harrison, Authority and Power in the Free Church Tradition
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 136.
2 Charles M. Bonjean and Michael D. Grimes, "Bureaucracy and Alienation:
A Dimensional Approach", Social Forces, XLVIII (March 1970), 370.
5
The pessimistic conclusion of Robert Michels was that:
...the majority of human beings, in a condition of eternal tutelage, are predestined by tragic necessity to submit to the dominion of a small minority, and must be content to constitute the pedestal of an oligarchy.^
✓
Thus, the above authors show forces at work within organizations
which strain that relationship which forms the basis for members
according the organization and its agents the prestige of considering
their orders binding. Organizations face a real dilemma. Continuing
legitimacy, or ongoing cooperation with organization rules, is essential
for organizational effectiveness in achieving professed goals. Yet,
unless countered by corrective influences, the demands for organizational
survival can displace these professed goals, create rules perceived as
illegitimate, and associate authority with alienation. The dilemma is
how to maintain legitimacy in the presence of forces which tend to
destroy it. Charisma is proposed as a remedy to this continuing
breakdown of legitimacy.
2. Charisma as a generator of legitimacy. Weber explicitly
identifies charisma as a generator of legitimacy. "In its pure form,"
he says, "charismatic authority may be said to exist only in statu
2 nascendi". Thus, charismatic authority is the first stage of authority.
It creates legitimacy, In Weber’s words, "It enforces an inner
3 subjection." Where an organization lacks legal and traditional
^Michels, op. cit., 354.
2 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 246. (lit.: in the state of
being born).
3 Ibid., I, 241-242.
6 «
authority, Weber's theory indicates that the presence of charismatic
authority, by enforcing an inner subjection to its influence, would
produce voluntary cooperation with rules when that charismatic
authority forms the grounding for the rules. Pursuing this theory,
it will be demonstrated that an affectual attitude of faith in one
who is proclaiming a new order can be a proper source for the creation
of legitimacy.
3. Literature on charisma. Although the studies of Max Weber
serve as a point of departure for later writings about charisma as
an organizational force, there has been no discoverable development
of his theory. The comments of subsequent authors can be classified
under two general headings: positive and negative.
The literature contains considerable negative comment about the
validity and/or usefulness of charisma as an analytical concept. For
example, Ratman considers charisma not only to be of no use, but also
to have "affected adversely our understanding of authority.""^ Lipman
and Pizzuro think charisma measures the defectiveness of any situation,
r\
because it is "based upon superstition rather than understanding."z
Further, they claim charisma "perpetuates a condition of servility
which genuine moral leadership has sought to correct." They admit,
however, that there may have been charismatic leaders "whose
K. J. Ratman, "Charisma and Political Leadership," Political
Studies, XII (October, 1964), 341-354.
2 Matthew Lipman and Salvatore Pizzuro, - "Charismatic Partici¬
pation as a Sociopathic Process." Psychiatry, XIX (February, 1956),
11-30.
7
constructive acts far outweigh the harm they have done, outweigh even
the deplorable passivity and dependency created in their followers."
Vedand did a study "to delineate the properties of charisma
which cause emotional and non-rational response on the part of an
actor."'*' He investigated product charisma in buying behavior and
based his judgement of charismatic
teristics of a product’s image:
1. Identification
2. Competence
3. Sacrifice
4. Unique
5. Attributes
appeal on the following charac-
Product identifies with a crisis situation, is seen as redeemer and hope to regain pride and identity.
The omnicompetence and omniscience element in the capacity of the object to perform.
It is rather difficult to relate this element to an object as compared to a person. However, we can visualize the element of sacrifice in the case of an object when we say that it is a classic and not the usual run-of-the-mill type.
Non-substitutable.
It must have high quality and prized attributes, both intrinsic and extrinsic.^
He did a statistical analysis of interview responses from 62 black
and 81 white owners of Cadillac automobiles. His major hypothesis,
based upon his assumptions of the characteristics of charismatic
Vedand, Role of Product Charisma in Buying Behavior: An Analysis of Black and White Ownership of Cadillacs (Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation,
Michigan State, 1970), 101.
2Ibid., 25-26.
8
appeal, was that blacks would show greater alienation and crisis
perception than whites. That hypothesis was confirmed. A second
hypothesis, that blacks would show more charismatic involvement than
whites, was not confirmed.^-
Julian Freund is another author who treats charisma in a
negative fashion. He thinks the foundation of charisma is "emotional
rather than rational, since the whole force of such activity rests on
trust" and Paul Turner introduces the notion of negative charisma
with reference to those persons who are disvalued but have unusual
influence over others. He applied the term to alleged incidents of
3 witchcraft among the Highland Chontal Indians of Oaxaca, Mexico.
More explicit than most others is the criticism of Weber by
Harold Wolpe. He points out two seeming contradictions in Weber’s
model.
Weber's notion of charisma seems to contain two mutually inconsistent models - a coercion model of obedience as well as a normative model. The former is apparently inconsistent with the view that charisma constitutes a
1 Besides Vedand, one other empirical study of charisma was by
James C. Davies, "Charisma in the 1952 Campaign", American Political
Science Review, XLVIII (December, 1954), 1083-1102. Three judges evaluated responses to open ended questions and unanimously agreed that 32 cases out of 1799 questionnaires showed charisma to be predominant in candidate perceptions. Evaluations were based on the theory of the pure charismatic being perceived by his followers as all-powerful, all-wise, and morally perfect. His methodology seems too subjective and his theory of charisma insufficiently developed.
2 Julian Freund, The Sociology of Max Weber, trans. Mary Ilford
(New York: Pantheon Books, 1968), 233.
^Paul R. Turner, "Witchcraft as Negative Charisma," Ethnology,
IX (October, 1970), 366-372.
9
basis of legitimacy . . . the latter leaves unexplained how factual or perceived qualities become so valued as to lead to obedience to the bearers of the qualities unless a prior evaluation system is implied.^
It is true that there is a coercive aspect to charisma, but it is
a freely accepted obligation of the subject. The charisma process
makes voluntary compliance the source of obedience. As Weber points
out, charisma "enforces an inner subjection"; actually, the subject
confers on the agent the right to give binding orders. It is also
true that there are normative aspects; these norms are need as
perceived by the individual. In the charisma process the deeds of
the agent cause the agent to be perceived as hope to answer the
subject’s need.
A conclusion to be drawn from the negative attitudes towards
charisma is that the concept persists, despite its elusiveness.
As Friedland points out, "the need to develop objective indices. . .
2 is one major problem in working with the concept of charisma."
This paper undertakes the development of these objective indices.
A review of the positive works on charisma indicates that the
concept remains unclear. Authors in this category demonstrate
efforts to identify various aspects of charisma.
Thomas Dow singles out transcendence as the important aspect of
charisma: . . ."with it charisma can be distinguished both conceptually
^Harold Wolpe, "A Critical Analysis of Some Aspects of Charisma," The Sociological Review, XVI (November, 1968), New Series, 310.
2 William H. Friedland, "For a Sociological Concept of Charisma,"
Social Forces, XLIII (October, 1964), 22.
10
1 and objectively from other forms of authority.” Ann Ruth Willner
says:
insofar as charisma can be seen as a quality of an individual,’ it lies in his capacity to project successfully an image of himself as an extraordinary leader.^
Shils sees charisma as a function of man’s need for order.
The disposition to attribute charisma is intimately related to the need for order. The attribution of charismatic qualities occurs in the presence of order creating, order disclosing, order discovering power as such.^
Reflecting the notion of charisma as an anti-routine force,
Lewin proposes "counter cultures," "ghettos, bohemias, and academias,"
as forces which engage the dominant culture in non-destructive
creative conflict. In this way, he says, human leadership can be
effective against the integrating power of technology.^
Mary Gallagher has what she calls an "eclectic" concept of
charismatic leadership. A charismatic leader, she theorizes,
believes himself to be under the guiding spirit of an "ultimate"
which assigns him a service. Through establishing his ethos, or
1 Thomas E. Dow, "The Theory of Charisma," Sociological Quarterly,
(Summer, 1969), 308.
2 Ann Ruth Willner, Charismatic Political Leadership A Theory
(Princeton University: Center of International Studies, 1968), 4-5.
3 Edward Shils, "Charisma, Order and Status," American Sociological
Review, XXX (April, 1965), 204.
^Harlan Johnathan Lewin, "Charismatic Authority and Technological Integration" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, XXX (April, 1970)
4514A-4515A.
11
his capacity to make himself credible to his audience, he makes his
"gift" credible. His task is to encourage others to make use of
their gifts in order for them to become "consubstantial" with the
leader. When there is this identification with the leader there is
routinization of authority. In a similar manner, Stanley and Inge
2 Hoffman use charisma in the sense of "communicated self confidence."
Edward Shils equates charisma with sacredness. Writing about
strong personalities who break out of traditional loyalties, he says
that under those circumstances:
to the tribe and the divinities of the tribe, their responsiveness to sacredness . . . does not necessarily die ... it seeks new objects. In some cases new syncretestic religions promise salvation, in others a territorial symbol, assimilating some of the charisma formerly attributed to symbols of tribe and village, become the object of attachment. The continuity is as significant as the disjunction.^
Friedrich would limit the field of charisma to religious
leadership. He places the foundation of charismatic leadership in
a god or gods; a presupposition of his theory is a religious conviction
of the existence of a divine being who can dispense favor. "Charisma
Mary B. Gallagher, "The Public Address of Fidel Castro Ruz: Charismatic Leader of a Modern Revolution" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, 1970), 20.
2 Stanley Hoffman and Inge Hoffman, "The Will to Grandeur:
DeGaulle as Political Artist," Daedalus, XCVIII (Summer, 1968), 865.
3 Edward A. Shils, "The Concentration and Dispersion of Charisma.
Their Bearing on Economic Policy in Underdeveloped Countries,"
World Politics, XI (October, 1958), 3-4.
12
serves to differentiate political from religious leadership which is
its proper and specific area of leadership.Apter, on the other
hand, thinks charisma operates beyond the religious world. He says
"charisma must be regarded as a normative phenomenon on the basis of
which legitimacy is established.
Some authors list conditions for the emergence of charisma.
T. K. Oommen uses the Bhoodangramdan (land gift) movement in India as
an example of his analysis of a charisma which calls for these
conditions: eruption of a crisis; submerged discontent; the failure
of measures previously taken to combat an existing evil; patronage
given by vested interests, i.e. to help the new leader. Leaders who
play one or more of the following roles will emerge as charismatics:
they must create awareness of social problems; unfold possibilities
of problem resolution thereby championing a felt need; evolve a new
approach to solve the problem; voice commitment to a goal widely
acclaimed by the people; or express the message in such a manner as
3 to appeal to a substantial portion of the population.
In an historical study, Downton proposes what he calls a
"transactional" approach . . . as an alternative to the application
of charisma as an explanation of follower commitment to rebel leaders.
He defines commitment as consistent lines of activity and suggests
^Carl J. Friedrich, "Political Leadership and the Problem of Charismatic Power." Journal of Politics, XXIII (February, 1961), 16.
2 David E. Apter, "Nkrumah, Charisma, and the Coup.", Daedalus,
XCVIII (Summer, 1968), 765.
3 T. K. Oommen, "Charisma, Social Structure, and Social Change,"
Comparative Studies in Society and History, X (October, 1967), 95-96.
the transactional method as a non-coercive basis upon which a
follower develops a consistent line of activity. He lists the
"conditions requisite for the formation and maintenance of a
transactional line of commitment" as "acceptance of the leader,"
which depends on "perception of the leader’s competence . . . high
compatibility of leader innovative initiatives with follower
experience and need disposition . . . and reinforcement for acceptance
from group associates."^
William Friedland calls genuine charisma that which is socially
validated. He singles out three reasons for its development in
Tanganyika following the second world war:
1. The leaders were expressing sentiments which had been inchoate in the society but which have been brought to consciousness only recently by a handful of people.
2. In expressing these sentiments, leaders were engaging in activities defined as hazardous by most people.
3. Africans recognized evidence of "success" in the activities of the leaders.^
Eisenstadt summarizes the present state of the art:
We know very little . . . about the conditions of development of . . . entrepreneurial, charismatic people, of the psychol¬ ogical and behavioral attributes and about the conditions under
James V. Downton, Jr., "Rebel Leadership: Revisiting the Concept of Charisma" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 1968), 191.
2 Friedland, "For a Sociological Concept of Charisma," 23.
14
which they may be capable of implementing their vision. There
exists descriptive studies and data, but as yet but relatively
few systematic analyses, which deal with this problem or with
the nature of the process through which specific charismatic
symbols and orientations become embedded in the more ordinary
institutional activities and exchange. All these aspects still
constitute an essential part of the challenge of Weber's work.^
This review of the positive category of writings on charisma
reinforces the conclusion that the concept remains elusive. Various
qualities and conditions associated with charisma have been identified,
but an analytically useful concept has not yet been developed.
Organization of this Study
This work will examine Max Weber's description of charisma in
order to develop an operational definition of it. The relationship
between charisma and legitimacy will be analyzed and charisma will
be shown to be a likely source of legitimacy.
Two preliminary investigations are in order. One will explore
the relationship between charisma and routine, and the other will
examine the needs-deeds aspect of charisma.
It will be necessary to develop an instrument to measure the
identified variables of charisma. This instrument will be tested
and the results reported. It will then be used to test the
operational hypotheses. Results of this test will be used to
support conclusions and suggestions for future study.
Max Weber, On Charisma and Institution Building Selected Papers,
S. N. Eisenstadt, ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968),
xl - xll.
15
Charisma and Routine
This section will examine Weber's place for charisma in the
creation of a legitimacy. This charismatic-based legitimacy in turn
develops into a routine which can be accepted as a rational authority.
In Weber's typology, charisma is one of four possible sources of
legitimacy.^ He assigns it the function of creating legitimacy
whenever there is no preexisting source from which grounding is possible.
Implicit in the analysis which follows is the premise that Weber's
preexisting sources of legitimacy are inoperative, and therefore there
exists no source of legitimacy other than a charismatic influence.
Some authors have voiced doubts concerning Weber's theories on
charisma as a likely source of legitimacy. Claude Ake questions the
utility of Weber's layout of charisma because there is "the notorious
problem of routinization which Weber himself tried unsuccessfully to
o
overcome.Shils says Weber's treatment of charisma "leaves unsettled
the question whether charisma 'evaporates' or becomes attenuated in
3 the course of its transformation," and Tucker asks "How can something
that has been defined as antiroutine and personal in its essence be
routinized and depersonalized?"^
■^Weber, Economy and Society, I, 36-37.
O
ulaude Ake, "Charismatic Legitimation and Political Integration,"
Comparative Studies in Society and History, IX (October, 1966), 4-5.
3 Shils, "The Concentration and Dispersion of Charisma," footnote, 3.
^Robert C. Tucker "The Theory of Charismatic Leadership.", Daedalus,
97 (Summer 1968), 753.
16
Those three authors express dilemmas which occur when attempts
are made to transfer qualities of a charismatic situation to a
non-charismatic one. Naturally, this cannot be done. However, there
can be a relationship between situations such that the function of
the charismatic situation is to create the legitimacy of the
non-charismatic one; thus, charisma can create the legitimacy of
a routine.
To establish a routine means to organize. Organization exists,
says Weber, so far as there is a probability of certain persons
acting in such a way as to carry out the order governing the
organization.^ As Bernard puts it, "Organization comes into being
2 when two or more persons begin to cooperate to a common end."
Charisma can bring organization into being by creating the probability
that cooperative action will take place to achieve the desired goal.
When neither traditional or rational authorities are able to
effect the cooperation necessary to reach the desired goal, the
charismatic process can be initiated by a person perceived as
proclaiming a new order. The deeds of the proclaimer are judged
as evidence that the proclaimer’s new order gives hope of meeting
personal need. In Weber's words, "affectual attitudes of faith in
one who is proclaiming a new order"^ can become the source of a new
IWeber, Economy and Society, I, 49.
2 Chester I. Bernard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938), 104.
3 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 36-37.
17
legitimacy. The new order can be accorded the prestige of being
considered binding when faith in the proclaimer is merged with the
follower’s personal interest in having the new order answer a need.'
An essential element of this charismatic process is the person
to person relationship of one’s faith in the proclaimer. Once
faith in the proclaimer brings about compliance with the new order,
and it is seen that compliance with this new order does in fact
answer need, this person to person relationship is no longer required
for maintenance of the legitimacy of the new order. Recognition that
this new routine answers need can give it a legitimacy of its own,
independent of the person who created it. Now, in Weber's words,
the source of legitimacy "derives from a voluntary agreement of
interested parties."^ The new routine becomes a rule whose legitimacy
can evolve into rational or legal, or traditional authority, and
there will be the relationship of persons to the rule.
For the purpose of illustration, let us consider an example
which will show how charisma first operates to create a new legiti¬
macy, and then see how this legitimacy can be transferred to the
new routine.
Suppose there are persons who know nothing about the
multiplication of force possible through the use of line and pulleys.
1 Weber, Economy and Society, I 36-37.
18
They have a perceived need to lift an object but are unable to
discover a suitable methodology. They hear of a sailor in a
nearby town who has begun to bring about an unheard of thing.
Men who follow his leadership are able to lift rocks as big as
horses. Off they go to see for themselves. It is true. They
judge the sailor as a unique hope for an answer to their need and
invite him to the site of their problem. Without explanation of
the laws of physics, he rigs the wheels and line, puts the two men
in their places, and instructs them to heave whenever he calls.
The two men willingly obey commands from the sailor and the object
moves. An order is established and its legitimacy created, or, as
Parsons describes it, charisma has been institutionalized:
That is to say, there is an inherent solidarity between the
things we respect (whether they be persons or abstractions)
and the moral rules governing intrinsic relations and
actions . . . Legitimacy is thus the institutionalized
application or embodiment of charisma.^
The example thus far shows the sailor fulfilling all the
2 requirements of the operational definition of charisma. He was
perceived as doing an extraordinary deed which gave the two men a
unique hope of meeting their need. The two men willingly complied
with the sailor's orders. They became organized. Legitimacy was
created through a person to person relationship.
^Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (New York:
The Free Press, 1968), 669.
2 See p. 3.
19
The question to be considered now is how charisma relates to
routine. The example thus far shows charisma generating legitimacy.
How can this legitimacy be carried on by rational authority?
Continuing with the example, suppose the two men who were
obeying the sailor learn how to rig the line and wheels. They also
perceive they can count cadence for themselves. They make an
equipment acquisition of wheels and line, and they rig these as
taught them by the sailor and heave according to their own cadence
count. Authority now comes from a rule. A significant development
has taken place. Obedience is no longer to a person, it is to an
order. The routine created by the sailor, operationalized as
legitimate through the workings of charisma in the sailor, is now
carried on without the sailor and by obedience to a rule, or on
rational grounds, as defined in Chapter Three.
Based on this analysis, charisma is related to routine as a
generator of its legitimacy. The person who performs the extraordinary
deed places an action, or an ordering, which is new to his hearers.
This action, or ordering, by a person gives a unique hope to others
of meeting personal needs. The routine proclaimed by this person
is accepted as a legitimate authority. The conviction that the
routine answers a need can carry it along on rational grounds,
t
independently of either the person who created it, or the person
who happens to issue the orders of this new routine.
20
The Needs-Deeds Aspect of Charisma
Having examined the charisma process, it becomes necessary to
analyze the persons involved in order to understand the totality of '
charisma. The analytical premise is that the followers of a
charismatic agent have needs to which deeds of the agent are judged
to respond.
For the charismatic process to function, it is essential that
the followers have a need which is not being met.
Writes Tucker:
Weber himself has made the crucial point . . . the key to
the charismatic response of the followers to the leader
lies in the distress that the followers experience.^
Tucker confirms this as a result of his own observations of totali¬
tarian leaders:
there is little evidence that these men seek power simply
for power’s sake . . . charismatic leadership is specifically
Salvationist or messianic in nature . . . The followers
respond to the charismatic leader with passionate loyalty
because the salvation, or promise of it, that he appears ^
to embody represents the fulfillment of urgently felt needs;
Ann Willner reviews the activities of several charismatic political
leaders and then concludes that a major crisis is the necessary, if not
3 the sufficient, precipitant. These needs of followers are correlated
Tucker, op. cit., 742 (emphasis added)
2 Ibid., 743 (emphasis added)
3 Willner, op. cit., 41.
21
with deeds of charismatic agents. As Weber points out, and emphasizes
in his text,
Pure charisma does not recognize any legitimacy other than one'
which flows from personal strength proven time and again . . .
his divine mission must prove itself by bringing well-being
to his faithful followers.^
Dekmejian considers Abdal-NasirTs successful confrontations with
the West as factors contributing to his acquisition of charismatic
2 authority.
It is logical then that failure to produce proper deeds results
in loss of legitimacy. An example of this is reported by Dow:
Kenyatta, Nyercre, and Ubote . . . unable to meet the economic
and social demands of their troops, witnessed their mass disobedience.^
Claude Ake comments further on this failure and makes no allowance
for exogenous factors which may be operating. He calls it
a serious indictment of the theory of charismatic leadership
that most of the leaders of the new states such as Kwame
Nkrumah of Ghana, Hubert Maga of Dahomey, Ben Bella of
Algeria, Abbe - Fulbert Youlu of Congo (Brazzaville),
Maurice Yameogo of Upper Volta, and Sylvanus Olimpio of
Togo, who adopted a personalistic style politics have not
succeeded in maintaining their authority or solving the
problems of nation building.^
1 Weber, Economy and Society, III, 1114.
2 Richard Hrair Dekmejian, "The Dynamics of the Egyptian Political
System: The Interaction of Charisma, Ideology, and Institutions,"
Dissertation Abstracts International, XXX (April, 1970), 4508A-4509A.
3 Thomas E. Dow, Jr., "The Role of Charisma in Modern African
Development," Social Forces, XLVI (March, 1968), 334.
4 Ake, op. cit., 13.
22
The leaders, of whom Dow and Ake write, did in fact fail to
produce deeds corresponding to the needs of their followers. Weber
considers this needs-deeds correlation to be essential for the
existence of charismatic authority. "Above all," he says, "if his
leadership fails to benefit his followers, it is likely that his
charismatic authority will disappear."^
The necessity of the leader producing deeds for the benefit of
the followers actually gives the followers control over the leader;
he must produce for their benefit, or lose his authority. True
charisma serves the needs of the followers.
An aid to understanding the forces at work in a charismatic
situation can be found in Korten's study of the structural
2 determinants of leadership. Inherent in the charismatic situation
is a goal to be reached, namely the meeting of a need, but there is
ambiguity about the path to the goal; in fact, no path is seen
leading to it. In the Korten model of leadership structure, if the
goal is important, the stress of not being able to attain it is
high. There will be a "natural" shift to an authoritarian style of
leadership.
In the charismatic situation, a need is perceived to exist. The
deeds of an agent are seen as giving unique hope of answering this
Weber, Economy and Society, I, 242.
2 David C. Korten, "Situational Determinants of Leadership
Structure," Journal of Conflict Resolution, VI (September, 1962),
222-235.
23
need. Assuming a need sufficiently high to create a high degree of
stress, the evaluation of the agent as a unique hope of meeting this
need gives a natural lock-in with an authoritarian influence, and '
the instructions of the agent will be accorded the prestige of being
considered binding.
The significance of this needs-deeds review is its highlighting
of a crucial point of Weber’s theory. A likelihood of legitimate
authority being created occurs when the follower perceives a
correlation between his needs and the deeds of the leader. The
follower is open to the charismatic process because he has perceived
needs to which existing influence attempts do not respond. Charismatic
leadership differs from other types in that the despair of the follower
makes him judge an unusual person to be a unique hope for relief from
this distress. It is the performance of this unusual person which is
the basis of the judgement that following his directions will result
in relief from the distress. The fact that the existing routine does
not answer this need causes the agent to be judged extraordinary.
Originally, the response is through the agency of an extraordinary
person, although the means of a response is actually indifferent as
to whether it is through a person or a rule. The critical element
is hope to meet personal need.
Conclusions
Monitoring the needs-deeds correlation is likely to help produce
legitimacy-maintaining orders. Organization changes which assume the
characteristics of the charisma process are likely to be accepted as
24
legitimate. The production by charismatic process of routines which
give hope of meeting the perceived needs of the membership is likely
to be a key to highly effective leadership. These new routines will
mean modifications of existing organizational rules or structures.
The deeds associated with these new orderings may, or may not promote
organizational goals. A concern of management should be to foster
those deeds which promote organizational goals, even though they may
mean organization change.
The inevitable conclusion to be reached after review of the
literature involving charisma is that the concept remains just
about where Weber left it, without definition or development. That
other writers have taken notice of it is highly evident. None,
however, have produced more than recognition and critical comment.
The purpose of the present study is to demonstrate that Weber’s
concept provides a workable base for the development of an analytical
concept of charisma.
The Research Problem
The central idea to be explored is that in the pure charismatic
process there is the intervention of a person. A relationship to
that person establishes the legitimacy of an influence. This
influence becomes institutionalized, as for example in the case
of an organized religion which carries on the work of a Great Leader.
Is the institutionalized influence the same thing as the charismatic
influence? Can this charismatic influence be measured? The central
25
question is whether charisma can be expressed in analytically useful
terms. If so, then there is hope that it can be measured and that
one can demonstrate whether it can be institutionalized. If it can, '
then charismatic influence may be applied to remedy the breakdown of
legitimacy in organization.
Design of Experiment
According to Weber, wherever the charisma qualities are operating,
legitimacy exists:
. . . the individual is treated as a leader . . . recognition
is freely given . . . and consists in devotion to the
corresponding revelation, hero worship, or absolute trust
in the leader.!
2 ... it enforces the inner subjection . . .
Therefore, following Weber, it is possible to state: where the
charisma variables are present, legitimacy is present. The operational
definition of charisma, which the present work develops, describes a
charismatic person as one who is judged to perform works out of the
ordinary which give a unique hope of answering personal need.
There are four distinct design problems.
1. Develop a test instrument utilizing the operational definition
of charisma and demonstrate with it whether or not the charisma variables
do differentiate, one from the other.
2. Measure legitimacy.
Weber, Economy and Society, I, 241-242.
2Ibid., III, 1116-1117.
26
3. Demonstrate that where the variables of charisma are present,
there is legitimacy, and vice versa.
4. Show that charisma can be institutionalized.
A pre test was used to develop the test instrument. A tabulation
of yes/no responses to questions on the pre test was subjected to the
chi square test. This procedure showed the likelihood of discrimination
between variables. The pre test also explored whether legitimacy can
be measured. The subject matter for these pre tests was the perceptions
of a Great Religious Leader and an organization started to carry on his
work, called here an organized religion.
Out of this pre test was developed the statistical test to
measure the charisma of a focal person. Three groups of persons made
up the sample population: full-time theology students for perceptions
of their Great Leader, volunteer workers for Senator McGovern for
perceptions of him as a candidate for the presidency of the United
States, and non-McGovern workers for their perceptions of him as a
candidate for president.
The legitimacy of these leaders was tested by asking questions
which indicated whether the leaders were perceived as having the
capacity to exercise an influence which others will follow. This
was specified with respect to Senator McGovern as the capacity to
influence judgement concerning policies which should be established
for the federal government. With regard to a Great Religious Leader,
the pre test specified the capacity to influence judgement concerning
behavior toward others.
27
According to the theory utilized in this study, wherever the
charisma variables are operating, the focal person is judged to have
the capacity to influence others. Therefore, assuming the McGovern
workers and the theology students accept the influence of their focal
person, and the non-McGovern workers do not, three operational
hypotheses were tested.
1. The theology students perceive their Great Religious Leader
as a person who is extraordinary, whose works give them hope to meet
personal need, and who is the only such hope.
2. Volunteers for McGovern perceive Senator McGovern as a
person who is extraordinary, whose works give them hope of meeting
personal need, and who is the only such hope.
3. The non-workers for McGovern do not perceive Senator McGovern
as extraordinary, nor do they judge his works to give them hope to
meet personal need, and they do not perceive him as the only source
of hope.
CHAPTER II
Max Weber’s Elements Of Charisma
A starting point for Weber’s analysis of charisma was the earlier
study of Rudolf Sohm. Sohm worked out the sociological character of
charisma with regard to the rise of ecclesiastical authority in the
early Christian church.^ Assessing the scope of Sohm’s treatment,
Weber says:
His treatment was bound to be one sided from the point of view
of historical diversity. In principle these phenomena are
universal, even though they are often most evident in the
religious realm. ^
Expanding on this work of Sohm, Weber produced the first
application of charisma to non-religious situations. His analysis
follows:
All extraordinary needs, i. e. those which transcend the
sphere of everyday economic routines, have always been
satisfied in an entirely heterogeneous manner: on a
charismatic basis. The further we go back into history,
the more strongly does this statement hold. It means
the following: that the "natural leaders" in moments
of distress — whether psychic, physical, economic,
ethical, religious, or political — were neither
appointed office holders nor ’professionals’ in the
present day sense (i.e. persons performing against
compensation, a "profession" based on training and
special expertise) but rather the bearers of special
gifts of body and mind that were considered "supernatural"
(in the sense that not everybody could have access to them).
^Rudolf Sohm, Outlines of Church History, trans. by Mary Sinclair
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), first published in 1887.
2 Weber, Economy and Society, III, 1112.
3Ibid., III, 1111-1112.
29
At the beginning of a chapter on "Charismatic Authority", he writes:
The term "charisma" will be applied to a certain quality of
an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered
extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural,
superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or
qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the
ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or
as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual
concerned is treated as a "leader" ... It is recognition
. . . which is decisive for the validity of charisma . . .
this recognition is freely given and guaranteed by what is
held to be a proof, originally always a miracle, and consists
in devotion to the corresponding revelation, hero worship,
or absolute trust in the leader . . . Psychologically,
this recognition is a matter of complete personal devotion
to the possessor of the quality, arising out of enthusiasm,
or of despair and hope ... If proof and success elude
the leader for long . . . above all if his leadership
fails to benefit his followers, it is likely that his
charismatic authority will disappear.^
In a section entitled "The Foundations and Instability of
Charismatic Authority," he writes:
The charismatic hero derives his authority, not from an
established order and enactments ... He claims and
retains it solely by proving his powers in practice . . .
Most of all his divine mission must prove itself by
bringing well-being to his faithful followers; . . .
It is clear that this very serious meaning of genuine
charisma is radically different from the convenient
pretensions of the present "divine right of kings,"
which harks back to the "inscrutable will of the Lord,
to whom the monarch alone is responsible." The very
opposite is true of the genuinely charismatic ruler,
who is responsible to the ruled - responsible, that is,
to prove that he himself is indeed the master willed
by God.2
1 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 241-242.
2Ibid., Ill, 1116-1117.
30
Out of this description of the charisma process, the following
formulations of charisma can be listed:
The would-be holder of charismatic authority is appraised
by others.
His deeds are judged to be extraordinary.
These deeds give hope in time of despair, or generate enthusiasm.
Recognition is freely given, consists of absolute trust in
the leader, and arises out of enthusiasm, or out of despair
and hope.
Benefits are provided to the followers.
Weber contrasts the revolutionary force of bureaucracy with the
subjective forces operative in the charismatic experience. The
bureaucratic force effects its change in men from outside themselves;
charismatic belief is the result of inner forces, of a change in the
followers’ basic attitudes. In Weber’s words:
the bureaucratic order merely replaces the belief in the
sanctity of traditional norms by compliance with rationally
determined rules, . . . but charisma disrupts rational rule
as well as tradition; ... it enforces the inner subjection
to the unprecedented and absolutely unique ... In this
purely empirical and value-free sense charisma is indeed
the specifically creative revolutionary force of history.^
On the basis of this comment a list of the following additional
elements of charisma can be developed:
Others evaluate the doings of the charismatic as unique.
An inner subjection is enforced.
Weber, Economy and Society, III, 1116-1117.
31
The elements of charisma thus elicited can be combined under
the following three qualities of the focal person:
1. Performs works out of the ordinary.
Bears special gifts of body and mind.
Disrupts rational rule as well as tradition.
Gives a proof for recognition, originally
always a miracle.
2. Works give hope to meet needs.
Recognition arises out of enthusiasm, or out of
despair and hope.
Leadership benefits followers, or it is likely
that charismatic authority will disappear.
Proof of divine mission is to bring well being
to his faithful followers.
3. Is unique.
An inner subjection is enforced to the unprecedented
and absolutely unique.^
These characteristics can be combined to form an operational
definition: the charismatic is one who performs works out of the
2 ordinary which give a unique hope of meeting personal needs.
In the two passages quoted above, Weber also describes the
influence of the charismatic:
The charismatic is treated as a leader.
Recognition consists in absolute trust.
Recognition is a matter of complete devotion
Enforcement of inner subjection
Weber is speaking here of the uniqueness of the influence, as
well as of a consequence of charisma, which is the voluntary submission
to this influence.
2 See pp. 17-19.
. 32
The responses elicited from followers by a charismatic leader
constitute a definition of legitimate authority: an order which
enjoys the prestige of being considered binding.^ Hence, a direct
result of charisma operating through a focal person is the creation
of legitimacy. By further refining Weber’s analysis, charisma is
identified as a generator of legitimacy.
An operational statement thus can be made regarding charismatic
authority. It reads: Where an influence attempt is received from
a source which is judged to be performing works out of the ordinary,
and, further, where these works give hope of uniquely answering a
personal need, that influence is likely to be accepted as legitimate.
1 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 31.
CHAPTER III
LEGITIMACY
Weber defines legitimacy as "the quality of an order which
enjoys the prestige of being considered binding.He says of
o charismatic authority that it "enforces an inner subjection."
Thus, charisma can create legitimacy. Examination of the concept
of legitimacy will show more precisely how it relates to charisma.
The more recent commentary of French and Raven notes
"legitimate power . . . involves some value or standard accepted
by the individual by virtue of which the agent can assert his
power." They define legitimate power as "that which stems from
internalized values . . . which dictate the right to influence . . .
and obligation to accept."^
Legitimacy, therefore, is conferred by an individual upon an
influence. His motives and reasons are entirely subjective; the
resultant decision to recognize legitimacy is a personal one. Reasons
and motives for the granting of legitimacy can be found even in
response to a coercive influence. The coercive influence, under
1 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 31.
2 Ibid., I, 241-242.
3 Bertram H. Raven and John R. P. French, Jr., "Legitimate Power
and Observability in Social Influence," Sociometry XXI (June 1958), 83.
4 John R. P. French, Jr., and Bertram Raven, "The Bases of Social
Power," in Group Dynamics Research and Theory, D. Cartwright and A. Zander,
ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 265.
34
given circumstances, may be seen as an answer to individual needs
and, as such, is accorded legitimacy.
Interviews with refugees from the Soviet Union support the
compatibility of coercion with legitimacy. During the year between
September, 1950 and September, 1951, 9,748 refugees from the
Soviet Union completed questionnaires and 1,364 refugees were
interviewed. These refugees, it is generally agreed, come from a
system which sees man in terms of his social relationships, rather
than in terms of his intrinsic qualities as an individual. The
collectivity makes decisions, the individual complies.^ It is a
coercive system. As Lenin said, "Very soon the necessity of
observing the simple fundamental rules of everyday social life in
2 common will become a habit.11
Lenin was correct. Observance of these rules did become a
habit. Beyond this, the rules became internalized to the extent
that sixty percent of the refugees from the Soviet Union who
answered the questionnaire indicated that they were not voluntary
exiles. They were cut off from the Soviet Union by military
development. In the interview group it is estimated that the
percentage is higher.
James A. Gregor, Contemporary Radical Ideologies (New York:
Random House, 1968), 112.
2 V. I. Lenin, State and Revolution (New York: International
Publishers, 1932), 84
35
From two thirds to three fourths of the persons whom we
interviewed would return to the homeland if it were not
for the fear of suspicion and ill treatment with which
returnees were being greeted in the Soviet Union.^
That the Soviet style of government has been generally
internalized can be seen in the report: "Soviet emigres are
frequently perturbed that in America people are not made to do
2 things for their own good."
Through their experiments, Raven and French have tested the
effects of coercion on legitimate power. They examined the reactions
of 113 subjects who were divided into groups of 8 to 11 persons each.
These groups were assigned to one of two categories; one elected
supervisors and the other had supervisors imposed. Half of the
groups in each category were given a "fine" for non-conformity,
and the other half were not "fined" for non-conformity.
The following hypotheses concerning P, the recipient, and
0, the agent of influence, were supported statistically:
The more P perceives that 0 has a legitimate right to his
position, the greater will be the attraction of P toward 0.
The ability of 0 to punish P for non conformity will not
increase the private influence of 0 over P.
1 R. A. Bauer, A. Inkles, and Kluckhohn, How the Soviet System
Works (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 10.
Ibid,, 131. A follow up study might examine experiences of
Soviet refugees who have taken up residence in Israel.
36
The following were not supported statistically:
The more P perceives that 0 can punish him, the more
will 0 be able to exert public influence over P.
The attempt by 0 to use coercive power will reduce
the legitimacy of 0 as perceived by P.^-
The decisive element in legitimacy appears to be the freedom
of decision utilized by the individual who chooses, for whatever
reasons, even under a system of institutionalized coercion, whether
or not to cooperate. Support for this comes from Peter Drucker.
There is no absolute legitimacy . . . legitimacy is a power
when it is justified by an ethical or metaphysical principle
that has been accepted by the society. Whether this principle
is good or bad ethically, true or false metaphysically, has
nothing to do with legitimacy.2
Similar support comes from Peter Blau who asserts authority
is an observable pattern of interaction and not an official definition
3 of a social relationship.
From the Netherlands comes evidence of the insight that
authority is a bargain made by the individual. Until this bargain
has been made, says Pieter Bruyn,
nothing, absolutely nothing will happen regardless of how
powerful or mighty the agent A, heedless of the consequences
for P when he does not submit himself to A’s authority.^
Raven and French, "Legitimate Power and Observability." 94.
2 Peter F. Drucker, The Future of Industrial Man (New York:
Mentor Books, 1965), 34. Emphasis added.
3 Blau, Bureaucracy in Modern Society, 71.
4 Pieter Bruyn, "Authority Without Results Cancels Itself,
Training and Development Journal, XXII (November, 1968), 52.
37
Bruyn relates a pertinent personal experience as a prisoner
of war in the hands of the Japanese in Burma in 1942.
One of our man was obliged, after an unsuccessful attempt to escape, to ask forgiveness by saying "forgive me sir” to one of the camp guards or else he would be tortured to death. He refused and the cruel process of torture started. When one of the guards secretly gave him a hint just to pronounce the words because nobody was able to control what he thought at that moment, he refused even then. Three days later, we buried him. Authority, might, power, coercion were all reality to us appalled spectators but to the victim they were irrelevant.!
Clearly one authority was relevant. He chose to obey it,
despite maximum coercive force to the contrary. He also chose not
to accept another, despite its promise of the maximum reward of life
itself. The crucial task is to locate the sources of the decision
to consider an order binding.
Weber's Analysis of Legitimacy
Weber views legitimacy in terms of probability:
The legitimacy of a system of domination may be treated sociologically only as the probability that to a relevant degree the appropriate attitudes will exist and the corresponding practical conduct will ensue.^
The probability factor takes on more importance in the light of
Weber's position that legitimacy is based on a belief.
1 Ibid., 53.
2 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 214.
38
Custom, personal advantage, purely affectual or ideal motives
of solidarity, do not form a sufficiently reliable basis for
a given domination. In addition there is normally a further
element, the belief in legitimacy.1
He adds to this subjective element of belief another subjective
element as the motive base for legitimacy: an interest in obedience.
This interest seems to be the root source of the voluntary co-operation
of the individual.
Says Weber:
Every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary
compliance, that is, an interest (based on ulterior motives or
genuine acceptance) in obedience.2
It is personal interest which triggers the decision to cooperate
with another in order to achieve organized purpose. The individual
accords legitimacy to the orders connected with this interest and,
as a consequence, considers them binding. The agent of influence is
then judged to be a legitimate power. The individual cooperates
freely.
Weber's Sources of Legitimacy
Weber says that legitimacy and the resultant consequence of being
considered binding may originate in any one of four ways:
Tradition. "Valid is what has always been." Tradition is "the
oldest and most universal type of legitimacy." Its force comes from
1 Ibid., 213.
2 Weber uses "domination" and "authority" interchangeably.
See I, 212.
39
belief inspired by what has gone before. Weber also points out that
vested interests in conformity help perpetuate tradition.
Tradition can not be a source of legitimacy, however, when
individuals have neither belief nor interest in the tradition invoked.
For the conditions of special interest to this study, it will be
assumed that such a non-belief, non-interest situation exists with
regard to influences being exerted.
Value-rational faith. Validity is deduced from an absolute.
Legitimacy derived from this source requires a universally accepted
value system from which an agent can assert his power with authority.
An example of this is the concept of "natural law." Weber states
the influence of this source lags far behind its theoretical
formulation, hence, it is unrealistic as a source for the immediate
establishment of legitimacy.
Positive enactment. The act is believed to be legal. Using
this source, legitimacy "derives from a voluntary agreement of
interested parties", and "is imposed by an authority held to be
legitimate and therefore meets with compliance." Requiring as it
does that the issuing authority be accepted as a legitimate authority
prior to an agreement, "positive enactment" cannot create the
legitimacy of that authority wherever there is neither belief nor
interest in the issuing agent; neither can there be voluntary agreement
between interested parties where there is no belief or interest in
the issuing agent. Therefore, positive enactment cannot be a source
for creating legitimacy where the authority upon which it would rest
lacks legitimacy at the outset.
40
Affectual attitudes. There is faith in one proclaiming a new
order, i.e., "valid is what is newly revealed." Using this source
to obtain legitimacy, a person proclaims a new routine, or gives a '
new example. It is a proper source for the creation of legitimacy
since a person can be introduced to a situation, proclaim a new
order, and there can be interest in this new order and faith in
the one proclaiming it, with the result that the new revelation
can be judged valid.
Therefore, of Weber's four possible sources of legitimacy,
only one is applicable to the research problem of the present study.
To introduce legitimacy where it is lacking requires affectual
attitudes of faith in one who is proclaiming a new order.
Weber's Types of Legitimacy
In Weber's typology, the four sources of legitimacy operate
through three types of legitimate domination. They are based upon
rational, traditional, and charismatic grounds.'*'
Rational.
resting on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the
right of those elevated to authority under such rules to
issue commands (legal authority).
This type of legitimate authority cannot be used where there is
neither belief in the legality of rules, nor the presence of any
person with recognized rights to issue commands.
1 Weber, Economy and Society, I, 36-37.
41
Traditional.
resting on an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial
traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority
under them (traditional authority).
This type of authority cannot be used if there is no tradition
because the situation is new or if the belief in the validity of the
tradition has vanished.
These two types of legitimacy postulate prior conditions likely to
be missing in either a new situation, or a deteriorating one. Weber’s
third type depends upon neither traditional nor legal sources of
legitimacy.
Charismatic.
resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or
exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative
patterns or order revealed or ordained by him (charismatic authority).
This type is the one most likely to create legitimacy. A person
can be introduced to circumstances for which no authority is accepted
by a group, be evaluated as exceptional, proclaim a new order, and
generate a devotion to himself which becomes the grounding of a new
legitimacy.
Therefore, of Weber's three types of legitimacy, only one is
applicable to the problem of creating legitimacy. It is charismatic
authority based upon affectual attitudes of faith in one who is
proclaiming a new order.'*'
David Miller suggests Weber should have a fourth type of authority
which would apply to religious sects and political parties. It would be
called "ideological", and be based on faith. This would seem to call
for an artificial distinction because authority in religious sects and
political parties can be explained by Weber's typology. David E. Miller,
"Max Weber's Missing Authority Type.", Sociological Inquiry, XXXVII
(Spring, 1967), 231-240.
CHAPTER IV
STATISTICAL TEST
PART I
The Pre Test
1. Introduction. This study postulates an operational definition
of charisma. It states that a charismatic is one who is perceived as
extraordinary, gives hope of meeting needs, and is unique. These three
variables were developed to express Max Weber's description of charisma.
The object of the pre test is to develop an instrument which will
measure these three variables, and thereby measure the charisma of a
focal person as expressed by these variables.
The validity of the instrument is to be tested by an operational
statement based upon Weber's theory. When charisma, which will be
measured by these variables, is present, legitimacy is likely to be
present. This statement reads: where an influence attempt is
received from a source which is judged to be performing works out of
the ordinary, and further, where these works give hope of uniquely
answering a personal need, that influence is likely to be accepted as
a legitimate power.
2. Qualification of religion as a means to measure charisma and
test the instrument. Religion is a general area of influence where
large numbers of people have been experiencing shifting attitudes of
legitimacy.
43
Religion can be divided into two distinct agents of influence:
a Great Leader, and an organization started to carry on his work,
called here, organized religion. The operation or non-operation of
the variables can be tested by asking respondents whether or not
they ever did, or now do, perceive these variables as operating with
respect to these two agents of influence.
Drawing a distinction between a Great Leader and an organized
religion makes it possible to operationalize the charisma statement
in the following ways:
1. Where a Great Leader is perceived to perform works out of
the ordinary which give hope of uniquely answering a felt personal
need, that Great Leader is likely to be accepted as a legitimate
power.
2. and conversely.
3. Where an organized religion is perceived to perform works
out of the ordinary which give hope of uniquely answering a felt
personal need, that organized religion is likely to be accepted as
a legitimate power.
4. and conversely.
3. Incorporation of the three charisma variables and legitimacy
into a test instrument. The testing for the three charisma variables
was accomplished by asking about each of them as they relate to the
perception of a Great Leader, and then as they relate to an organized
religion established to carry on the work of this Great Leader.
44
Respondents were asked to indicate, by checking yes or no, whether
or not they perceived the variables as operating under a given set
of circumstances.
The test instrument was divided into three parts. A prelim¬
inary part asked about personal relations to religion. The primary
purpose of this section was to get the respondent thinking about
religion. The second part questioned attitudes toward a Great
Leader. The third part asked about attitudes toward organized
religion. Within each of these last two parts, two sets of questions
were used. One asked whether the respondent had ever judged the
particular variable to be operating. The other asked whether the
particular variable is presently operating.
For the purpose of this study the concern is with the three
charisma variables and legitimacy. Eight questions specifically
asked about the presence or absence of these variables with respect
to a Great Leader. Ten questions asked about them with respect to
organized religion. Nine other questions in each section were thought
useful to help set the target questions in a more analytical frame of
reference. The variable extraordinary requires two questions when
applied to organized religion. There are those who judge organized
religion to be extraordinary by reason of its sacraments or liturgy.
Others interpret extraordinary to mean the production of non-routine
conduct in human affairs through the influence of organized religion.
There are also some who interpret extraordinary in both senses.
~^A Dictionary of Christian Theology, Alan Richardson, ed.
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 330.
45 «
In brief, the logic of the test instrument was to ask whether
certain variables were operating under a given set of circumstances,
one relating to the past and one relating to the present. Although
other questions were included on the questionnaire, only those
relating to the charisma definition and legitimacy are of interest
to this study. These variables are: "extraordinary," "hope,"
"unique," and "legitimacy." Respondents were asked to indicate the
presence or absence of these variables with respect to a Great Leader
and organized religion.
4. Methodology to evaluate the test instrument. Having designed
the instrument to test for the presence or absence of the three
charisma variables and legitimacy,^ the next step was to determine
whether questions about these variables did in fact discriminate
between qualitatively different factors. A chi square test was
used for this purpose.
Higher chi square values indicate that it is less likely for
the yes-no combinations to be the result of chance, and more likely
that the two variables are measuring qualitatively different factors.
The result of chance would mean a probability of fifty per cent for
the answer to be either yes or no. This would be the case of any
1 See appendix p. 83.
46
respondent who might check off answers indiscriminately, heedless of
the content of the questions. Also, it would be the case if the
questions did not discriminate one from the other. A chi square
value of 0.455^ would indicate for any combination of variables with
one degree of freedom the probability of fifty percent being the
likelihood of that combination.
What percent likelihood of a probability of fifty percent,
or chance, being related to the yes-no combinations of responses to
the variables is to be acceptable? Given the highly subjective
nature of the test in this experiment, it seems unrealistic to
select a particular level of significance, such as the 0.05 level,
and propose that the questions should be considered as having
discriminating power if they reach this level, and no discriminating
power if they do not. A basic reason for this is the probable
impossibility of designing questions in a way that each respondent
will perceive exactly the same meaning for each question. Therefore,
it was decided to compute the chi square tests, which are designed
to show whether there is a diagonal relationship between variables,
and then interpret the data.
Calculations were made from the respondents’ data which were
key punched on cards and run on the "Cross Tab" program of the
x 2 Catherine M. Thompson, "Table of Percentage Points of the X
Distribution", Biometrica, XXXII (1941), 187-191, as abridged in
Kyohe Sasaki, Statistice for Modern Decision Making (Belmont,
Calif.: Wadsworth, 1969), 521.
47
computer center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This
program generates frequency counts, cross tabulations, correlations,
and chi squares on all requested combinations of variables.
5. Test of the legitimacy question on the test instrument.
A chi square test can show whether questions asking about perceptions
of variables do discriminate from each other. It can say nothing
about the qualities which variables measure. One quality which
needs measuring is the legitimacy of an influence. One question
of the test instrument asked whether the influence is perceived as
having the right to give the respondent directions in the area of
how to behave towards others. This should be one way to test for
the presence of legitimacy. Whether this question does measure
legitimacy was tested by asking those who may be presumed to see
these two agents of influence, a Great Leader and an organized
religion, as legitimate, to respond to these questions. It was
assumed that full time students of theology in a seminary who
rate themselves as dedicated to active participation in an organized
religion would perceive both a Great Leader and an organized
religion as legitimate. It was predicted they would give affirm¬
ative answers to the questions testing the legitimacy of a Great
Leader and organized religion. One would presume almost 100 percent
of these students would perceive these influences as legitimate.
Due allowance has to be made for the human condition which may be
questioning these influences. Therefore, in light of this and the
difficulty of designing questions for guaranteed uniformity of
48
interpretation, it was expected that one would find a percentage of
perception which could be reasonably accepted as close to 100 percent.
6. Method of sampling for evaluation of the test instrument. '
The sampling was for two purposes: to test whether the variables
discriminate, and to test whether the legitimacy questions measure
legitimacy. Two separate groups were used for each test. For the
chi square test, three categories of persons were used in order to
increase the likelihood of a range of attitudes towards religion:
junior college students, university students, and adult non-students.
Twenty-five persons were sought for each group. The junior college
students were from one class in a public junior college, the other
respondents were volunteers located through third parties. Except
for the junior college group which responded to the questionnaire
as part of a class room program, all respondents answered the
questions in private and had the opportunity to return the test
instrument in sealed envelopes.
For the test of the legitimacy questions, a group of forty
students of theology were used. They were volunteers requested by
one of their professors. They responded in private and maintained
anonymity.
7. Results of chi square tests. Seventy-three persons ranging
in age from seventeen to fifty-seven completed the questionnaire.
A variety of religious persuasions was represented, as were atheists.
The sample is composed of twenty-six students in one class of a
public junior college, seventeen public university students, and
thirty adult non-students.
Chi square values and correlation coefficients for all possible
combinations of the charisma variables, related to each other, and
to the legitimacy question in the corresponding time frame of
reference, are listed in the following tables. Frequency counts
and cross tabulations are located in the appendix.
Perceptions of the three charisma variables can be combined in
fifteen different ways with respect to a Great Leader. Table I
displays the chi square values for each of these combinations.
All have a chi square value greater than 7.88. Statistically,
variables with one degree of freedom have a probability of less
than .005 for their yes-no combinations of responses to be the
result of a fifty percent, or chance level, of probability.'*'
The three charisma variables were combined with the legitimacy
questions corresponding to the time of reference of each of the
charisma variables. The resulting chi square values are displayed
in Table I. The lowest chi square value is 5.73. Statistically,
variables with one degree of freedom have a probability of less
than .025 for these yes-no combinations to be the result of a
2 fifty percent, or chance level, of probability.
These results are interpreted to show little likelihood of the
existence of a diagonal relationship among the charisma variables
1Ibid., 521.
2Ibid., 521.
Table
of
Ch
i S
quare T
ests w
ith
One D
egre
e
of
Fre
edom for
Ch
ari
sm
a V
aria
ble
s
and
Legit
imacy
Percepti
ons
of
a G
reat
Lead
er.
50
'O- CM
m vo CM CM CM
oo <y> cm CM CM CO
>1 O CO zl cn
<u X •• p
a) co o p G P G PH
6 -a ri a) 0) P rC 00 *H 4J
TO 00 G a) G o ^ n
CM CO
o O', • •
r^ vO rH i rH
CO <J- r>.
• •
uo m t—i i I
CO o CM CM o
£ • • • • • o O', CT\ o o
53 CM rH rH rH CO
CO cd P
CO Td G <u > ••
PH 'd- CO m VO
•H CU CU • • • • <U G X 00 o o rH o cr 4-i CM rH H rH rH P *H CU G G
PL, X
O', m £ • • • o rH 'd- P5 CM rH CM <r
CO cd 4-1
CO Td cd cu PH <r > 00 CM
•H CU • • CU • • X vO m o cu p CM rH u PH cu O G
PH Pd •H
>1 o m S3| CN
CO Jo u
G G P G co
Td *h G a) Td ph > u
•h o a) cu g ,G O P P P P <u x g
pH W *H
cd -d- CM
m
co CO
CO 00 G
• Td 4-1 G
cd a;
cu X 6 G P
G
I co rH G o
•H a
4-> G CO CU p Td
CU CU p
XI G p o
•H G Td o G
•H CO p CO cu CU
rH 6 HO G cd G
p G G o >
•H p a) CO X CU p G cr <p
o o p co
G p o CU •H
<P p (U PH P cu
o CO p co <u
PH X
CxO o G p o P a) X p p G
I—1 cu
CM P
CO CO u p cu <u
rQ X s e G G
G
cu CO <u X H
Crit
ical
valu
es for ch
i sq
uare dis
trib
uti
on are,
for
one degre
e
of
freedom
: 5.0
2 for
p
=
.975,
6.6
3 for
p
=
.99,
7.8
8 for
p
=
.995.
Fro
m S
asak
i,
Sta
tisti
cs for
Modern D
ecis
ion
M
akin
g,
52
1.
51
CN
W a
9 H
M O 4|
S o
TO a) QJ V4
pt-i
4-4 O
0) a) u 50 <u Q a) a o
g o
43 50 4-1 *H •H H £ a)
** O T3 g a) g n
•H *H 4-i C *H G 50 50 a) m
41 o
T) g G
co a)
rH 43 G
a G
44 o
CO c o
U 4-1 cd CU > a)
o cd M §o
p-i •H M cd
43 U
Vi O
4-1
CO 4-1 CO a) H a) M cd
cr C/3
X! U
44 O
0) I—I 43 cd H
CO to SO r>» 00 OS o CO -d- <r 'd- -d- >d- m m
<r -d- rH OS <r
a > • • • • o o o <r I 00 I o I -d- 1 so 1 O 4-1 S3
co cd LO rH CN rH
Rel.
giti
St
00 so cu cd <1- os m o
• 41 P4 • • • • 50 co rH 1 rH 1 CN 1 CO 1 Vi CO G LO rH rH O cd *H
o -d- 00 m
a) £ to r>- SO so -d OS CO
• • • • • • • a s o O CN NT -d- o r"- m
-S-S-* to rH CN rH
50 (3 •H C3 rH 0) CO 4-1
pci cd co n- CN CN rH to Cd 00 r^. rH CN oo
• a pm • • • • • • 50 (U OS CN CN o o rH OS >4 o g O CO iH
-d-
rH 00 os
rH
00 CO 00 OS r^. G £ • • • • • o a) o 00 rH co rH m
•H •<r rH CN 50 O
*H 03 rH a) CD 41
pG cd co SO 00 SO VO cd SO i—i 00
• a P4 • • • • 50 a) CO CO co in 4 o G O CO t4
'd- 00 • o CO CO
o £ • • • u o SO o CN 00
4-1 Z <!• CO X
T3 W rH M CO O Cd 41 £2 CO
^3 cd G (0 P-i CN
•H > o CO *H <U • •
co a) 43 lO o o 4 O 4J *4 M
<r
o a) G 12 f4| rl
• CO T3 >1 •
M O <r o a *sj- CN
I cd Vi Vi (U 4-1
JX, x W 4J
CO CO 4-1 CO Cd G cd P-i <u cd B H Q) co cd a) 43 M > 4-1 a iH cd a) G
CD O H
'd-
o rH a
• tn O OS
■* li o
CU u
u Cu o •
44 vi rH o CN
SO 41 tn rH O rH 0K
• »d- • o 00 4-1
• • *H CO CO O 50 • • G g * •
•H o O Cu T3 T3 OS o
• cd 0) • 4-1 a) a) o rs G 43 u •H <D 41 II 4«5 g G 3 g 44 Cu CO u 3 o G
4-1 rH Vi C/3 CO O <D o G O cu 44 g
•H u o G 50 SO Vi
4-1 •rl O o P4 CO T3 I-"- O TO • 4-1 a) o CN •
4-1 G m <u cd o OS
43 o m OS 4-1 •H 43 r- •
4-1 • o G G •H o O •H > li
II
CO CO ' II
cu u 0) 0) Cu O rH U Vi
43 43 G Vi O g cd O 44 3 ♦H G 44 G U o Os
G •H CO r>- G > 4-1 CN 00 O G CO •
*H a) 43 • 4-1 43 •H rH CO 4-1 M •s 0) 4-1 •t OS G 44 G o os cr O •H tn •
'O • o o CO o
4-1 G O II O u li
u •H G a, o 4-> G cu
44 CU cr Vi a) O w u O >4 O o 44
U •H 44 «sT O 43 m m cu O m CO
tn so 43 o M >d- • 50 4-1 O • SO G 44 o O a) * u 4-1 CO •s m
43 cd a) m r>. -P rH G CN os
a) rH • • co u G o o <r >
CO II n co M rH u 0) G Cu CU o 43 O
43 g •H V4 Vi g G 4-1 o o G G *H 41 44 z M
cd 0) O CN CO O CN o rH O
43 • • H O m
52
fn o CO
•S 4-1 *H 60 G
£ o
z
CO
CO CM
cO to vo rs. oo ov cm co CM CM CM CM CM CO CO
CO CO ,
rs CM VO CO
G
G TO M G > O
g H CD <D CO
4-1 > 4-1 G O (D 0)
PQ T3 G G
CO O 3 4-1 CM cr G CO •H CD G G
•H pc; o
•H CO M 4-1 VM rs G G <4-1 T3 G
CO CD CM G CM O O G
w O ►J 3 CO PQ G CD 4J
<3 O 'O G H *H 3 G
4-1 4-1 M G •H O
iH 4-1
CD 4-1
M c U O 60 u G
•H > CM 4-1 O o G 35
CD CD H G
r—1 CM 33 G O G C 33 H o
•H 4-1 4-1 G G G G CM
&
o\ CM
00 CM
rs CM
vO CM
MO I sr
ir> vo I vO st
rs o\ i o> St
CM iH CO OV | 00 st CO CM
30 u cO G
*H T3 M O cO U 4J X w
£ o
z
4-1 CO
CO CM
rs m st CM
G ctv is. st vo co CM • •
o a\ o i o\ vo co in st
t-H Ov N N |
st co co st
•
CO 60 G
•H • T3
4-1 CO CO <1) (D 33
G r—1 G O
*H O
4-1 4-1 G G G
4-1 TO G
G A CM 4-1 •H
4-1
G G O G
T3 G •H Ml G G
-O G iH
3 33 G G
•H G Mi O G
•H > 4-1 G G G 33 3 4-1 cr
CM o O
4-1 G
M G G O
CM •H G 4-1
U CM G
CO O CO Mi
G -G CM 60 3 O O 4-1 Ml
33 Mi 4-1 G
CM G
CM Mi
G G Ml Ml G G
33 33 a 3
35 G
(D CO CD
rC H
53
CO ra u CD £ O
£ H CD a) CO J* 4-1 4-1 £ CD CD
PP "d £
co o 4-1 a, •
£ co £ CD CD o
•H pd •H o 60
*H CO •H LM IS rH 4-1 CD
sr CD 44 p< O O
w O X) X CO CD pq £ CD N < O 'd •H H •H £ £
4-1 4-1 cD CD •H 00
rH 4-1 >4 CD 4-1 o U < U £ O 60 cD u £
t4 44 4J O CO
CD CD H
rH HP CO
cD £ H o
•P CO CD
S'
CD sr sT
lo vo rs oo ol o sj- ^ si- -<r lo
CO sr m m
^ o sr o a m co
4-1 •H 00 4-1 0) CO
»-l Cd CO pH LO
I
CTv
I 00 sr
LO co sr sr i
o oo a <■
(X o a
4-1 CO cd
Ph
is sr
rs co o CO LO i LO
o o cm cm lo sr co i
fo £ u o cd a £
rO u o CD U 4-1 X
4-1 CO CD
W Ph
LO sr
uo sr
00 CM O OL CM sr rH CO
o> co
sr lo sr sr o lo rs cm cm .cm
• • • | • I
to > n o cd a £
sr sr
TO M O cD 44 4-1
4-1 CO K CD
W Ph
CD CO ^D-
LO
rs CT\ rH lo 0> LO O rH CM CM rH CM
LO CO
CO O CM -d- rs rH o
• O CM rH CM CM • • • • •
i
4-1 £ CD 6 £ U
4-1 CO £
•H
4-1 CO CD •
4-1 CO 60
CD £ X •H 4-1 X>
CD £ CD o X
CO £ 44 H CD 9 X rH B o £ O £
4-1 £ CD O t4 X) 4-1 CD CO •H CD 44 £ •H cr 4-1
£ o CD
4-1 X) •H
u CD CO
44 CD CD rH 44 X
cD sr •H LO U
cD X > 60 £ O O 4-1 u X 44 4-1 CD
44 CO CD sr 44
CO CO M 44 CD CD
HP X B £ 9 a £
cD <D CO (D X H
54 «
themselves, and between each of them and legitimacy. With respect
to a Great Leader, the test instrument does discriminate between
the charisma variables themselves, and between them and legitimacy.
For an organized religion, the charisma variables can be
combined in twenty-eight different ways. Table 2 displays the
chi square values for these combinations. Twenty-two of these
combinations involve the variable extraordinary, six do not. The
lowest chi square value for these six is 7.45. Statistically,
these six combinations of yes-no responses with one degree of
freedom have a probability of less than .01 for their combinations
to be the result of a fifty percent, or chance level, of probability. ^
With regard to the variable extraordinary, seventeen of its
twenty-two combinations have a minimum chi square value of 2.60.
Statistically, this is interpreted to mean that these seventeen
combinations of yes-no responses with one degree of freedom have a
probability of less than .12 for their combinations to be the result
2 of a fifty percent, or chance level, of probability.
The five other combinations of the variable extraordinary had
chi square values below 0.455, with one exception which had a value
of 0.71. These lower values were in combination with the variable
extraordinary as perceived in past perceptions of works in the
1 Ibid., 521.
2Ibid., 521.
55
world of organized religion, and extraordinary as perceived in
present perceptions of works in the world of organized religion.
Both of these variables had lower chi square values when combined
with extraordinary as perceived in past perceptions of the sacraments
or liturgy of organized religion, and with the variable unique as
perceived in past perceptions of organized religion. The variable
extraordinary as perceived in past perceptions of works in the world
of organized religion also had a relatively lower value in combination
with the variable extraordinary as perceived in past perceptions of
the sacraments or liturgy of organized religion.
These lower chi square values tend to support the original
assumption that there are two points of view from which the variable
extraordinary can be perceived. Almost half the respondents
considered either the works in the world or the liturgy to be
extraordinary, but not both. The other half considered both or
neither to be extraordinary. The fairly even diagonal grouping of
these attitudes prevents high chi square values. There was also a
negative correlation between past perceptions of the liturgy as
extraordinary, and of the works in the world as extraordinary. This
tends to support the split attitudes towards the two kinds of
extraordinary.
The lower chi square values for the variable unique in
combination with the variable extraordinary as perceived in past
and present perceptions of works in the world of organized religion,
could be a consequence of interpretation of need. The variable
56
unique was tested by asking whether the respondent ever perceived
organized religion as the only answer to personal need. Need can
be interpreted in a spiritual or material sense. Extraordinary as '
perceived in the works in the world of organized religion is used
only in a visible sense. A consequence could be fairly even grouping
of respondents on opposite diagonals.
The variable extraordinary produced two negative correlations
involving past perceptions of the works in the world of organized
religion. One was with past perceptions of unique, the other was
with past perceptions of liturgy. This may reflect the opinion of
some respondents that organized religion should be concerned with
social as well as ceremonial factors.
8. Analysis of present attitudes. Perceptions of past attitudes
may be colored by the passage of time, faulty memory, immersion in
present circumstances, and other factors. These disturbances may
be eliminated by analyzing only the present attitudes. Tables 5 and
6 give chi square values for all combinations of present perceptions
of the charisma variables and legitimacy with regard to both a Great
Leader and an organized religion. With such a restriction, the
lowest chi square value for yes-no combinations of perceptions of
the variables with regard to a Great Leader is 15.4. Statistically,
this is interpreted to mean for variables with one degree of freedom a
probability of less than .005 for their yes-no combinations of responses
to be the result of a fifty percent, or chance level, of probability.^-
1Ibid., 521.
Tab
le
of
Chi
Square T
ests w
ith
One D
egree
of
Fre
ed
om fo
r
Chari
sm
a V
aria
ble
s
and
Legit
imacy
in P
resent
Percepti
ons
of
a G
reat
Lead
er.
.57
G £ «G O 0
53 O o TO
4-1 CU a) ■M o o\ sr <D
TO CO • • • M
ge
im
33
VO m Cu rH iH rH
TO 4-1 3 -H
>"3 60 G
CO G IS
o
CO
* £ TO O G ^ >
•H G a) cm o o u w g
cm
CO 25 cO
to TO M a) G > G
•H •H <0 TO o M M O <U cO
cm M 4-1 K
W
eg
m eg
vo
W hH
m
sr eg
G m eg
4-1 O
a) a) u 60 G Q
a> g o
is o
TO 53 *H at O CM IS G > CU • • o
•H to OV r^ 1 to *H CU cr CM rH rH O 60 o •H G tH M G 0 rH CU 22 •rH CU cm 4-> P5
60 TO g aj
N •H
TO G a G G 60
m co o 0)
rH G rO CO G
rs eg
o\ eg
M G > G 0 CO
•H M CO
rG u
M O
<4-1
CO 4-) CO G H
a) u cO 3 cr
co
-G o
<0 I-I rO c0 H
CO a o
*H 4-1 a a) o M G Pi
|S O
a) z ,o
0) o 4-1
4-> C0
TO I 0) 4-> 60 <H
TO 60 3 0)
CO • cO |S
O TO 25 g > <u •h s <u cr o *rl M G a) to
cm
co
^ is TO o a) 25 >
•H G a) cm <j o u tn a)
cm
is o
co jz; cO
to m
5 § •H -H a) to cj u u o a) co
cm u u X w
is o
CO 53 cO
>•> TO M a» co > g
•H *H G TO O M V4 O a) co
cm u 4-1 X w
sf LO
OO ST
VO sf
Sf sr
sf sr
•
oo o rH
CJV
sr eg
vo
sr rs
•3- m
o m
ov •
rs eg
oo co
o\ OO
CO
00 CO
•
eg
cO sf vo sr sr
oo sf
o m
m m sr u
CU • CO o cm <U
jC mi H .. o
0 41 o
• TO sf 4-1 • G CM G CO G O cu 60 U • {3 G 4i m 3 •H u TO 41 * 4-1 G o m CO CU <T* G rG G •
•H G G mi ii
4-1 H 60 CO 3 g cm CU r-l TO 4-1 O mi
O G o CU G 41
rG G o 4-1 •H rH
>1 Sf G TO O OO O (U 41 •
4-1 CO • co G •* rH M O G * CM CU •H m o lo
-12 TO G a\ 0 G • ^ to •H G O • G O 4-i
CO H II H G (U 4-1 O O rH 3 cm
•H rO rG 4J G •H M cm CO •H MOO (U mi 4-1 41 3 G CO •> cr > H vO H
GOA! o G rs G
4-1 * G • co 4-1 M CM G
mi G C/3 cu 41 3 »
141 O cr un 0 cu co rs o M CO • M
G H O pi o O rG m •H O II
4-1 • ,G cm m cm ov 60 <u O OV 3 o 41 M • O mi o M G m 4i ii
rG cm G 4-1 3 co cm
o rH CM m 4-1 G CO M CM > • o
G rH 41 CO 4-1 rH M G G r m (U H O O CO
-O G •H vo vO 0 mi 4J • • 3 •H vo
25 G M 11 G mi O
G cm m X> r- g M CJV o o • G 41 O
58
For organized religion, the lowest chi square value for all
possible combinations of present perceptions of the charisma
variables and legitimacy is 2.38. Statistically, this is interpreted
to mean for variables with one degree of freedom a probability of
.12 or less, for their combinations of yes-no answers to be the
result of a fifty percent, or chance level, of probability.^"
9. Conclusions of the chi square tests. The chi square tests
for all possible combinations of the charisma variables with each
other and with legitimacy with regard to present perceptions of a
Great Leader and organized religion show the test instrument does
measure different factors with each of the charisma questions and
legitimacy. A chi square value of 0.455 would indicate for variables
with one degree of freedom the probability of a diagonal relationship
between them."*" It would indicate a lack of discrimination between
the two questions. The values of all chi square tests for all
combinations of present attitudes toward both the charisma
variables and legitimacy are at a level that indicates little
likelihood of a diagonal relationship between any combination.
The reader may wish to set a level of significance, or to interpret
this data differently. However, it does seem reasonable to conclude
from the chi square values of present perceptions that the data
indicates discrimination between variables, and between them and
legitimacy.
1Ibid., 521.
.59
10. Results of legitimacy test. Forty students of theology
enrolled full time in a seminary volunteered to respond to the test
instrument. They answered all the questions, but only their responses
to the legitimacy questions were used in this study. It was predicted
that close to 100 percent of them would respond in the affirmative
to the questions testing for legitimacy in their perceptions of
both a Great Leader and organized religion. The results are tabulated
in Table VII. There was almost complete unanimity of affirmative
answers. The prediction was sustained.
TABLE 7
Responses of Forty Theologians to the Legitimacy Questions.
Yes No No Answer Accuracy
Does a Great Leader have
the right to give you
directions in the area of 39 1 0 97%
how to behave towards
others?
Does organized religion? 38 0 2 100%
11, Conclusion of pre test. The pre test demonstrates that the
three variables of the charisma definition do discriminate from one
another and from legitimacy at better than the .50, or chance level,
of probability. The legitimacy questions do measure legitimacy.
PART II
. 60
Statistical Test
1. Introduction, Following the analysis of Max Weber, charisma
has been operationalized as a generator of the legitimacy of an
influence. Three variables have been identified as measuring the
charisma of a focal influence. These variables are: an agent is
perceived as extraordinary,.the agent gives hope of meeting personal
needs, the agent is judged as a unique source of this hope. When
these three variables are operating, then it is likely for the agent
to be judged a legitimate influence.
A chi square test has demonstrated that questions asking for
perceptions of these variables do discriminate from each other and
from legitimacy. The pre test also demonstrated the legitimacy
questions do measure legitimacy.
2. Format of the test instrument. Separate questions were
designed for each variable. A three-fold perception was thereby
called for with respect to Senator George McGovern, then a candidate
for the Presidency of the United States. Another set of questions
asked whether or not these variables were perceived with respect to
a Great Religious Leader. A fourth question tested for the presence
of legitimacy.
In addition to the four test questions, respondents were asked
to evaluate their participation in religious and political organi-
61
zations and activities.^ All questionnaires were completed just
prior to the national elections for President of the United States
in 1972.
3. Method of sampling. Three categories of persons were
sought. One consisted of volunteer workers for McGovern, another
of non-workers for McGovern. The third was composed of full time
theology students in a seminary, a group different from the one used
in the pre test. Respondents were located by third parties who
asked persons in these categories to complete the questionnaire.
Forty persons were sought for each group.
4. Hypotheses to be tested.1. The volunteers for McGovern
will perceive Senator McGovern as a person who is extraordinary,
whose works give them hope of meeting personal need, and he will
be judged the only source of such hope.
2. The non-McGovern workers will not perceive Senator
McGovern as extraordinary, nor will they judge his works to give
them hope of meeting personal need, and they will not perceive
him to be the only source of such hope.
3. The theology students will perceive their Great Religious
Leader as a person who is extraordinary, whose works give them
hope to meet personal need, and he will be judged the only source
of such hope.
See appendix p. 88.
62
It was assumed that the McGovern workers would judge their
focal person to be a legitimate authority and that the non-McGovern
workers would disagree. The test also assumed that the theology
students would judge their focal person to be a legitimate authority.
The validity of these assumptions was tested by asking whether the
focal person had the capacity to influence.
No specific level of significance was set. The reasons for
this decision are: the highly subjective nature of these variables,
the theory that legitimacy is, at most, a probability, and the
impossibility of designing questions so that each respondent might
perceive exactly the same meaning. Instead, the percentages will
be reported and the data interpreted. It is predicted that the
McGovern workers will perceive all three charisma variables
operating at better than a chance, or fifty percent level.
Similarly, the theology students will perceive all three charisma
variables at better than a chance level with respect to their
Great Leader. The group of non-McGovern workers will perceive all
three charisma variables with respect to Senator McGovern with at
best a chance level of occurrence.
An analysis of deviations from expected value with a chance,
or .50, level of occurrence will show the likelihood of any yes-no
combination falling within the range of a chance level of perception.
5. Results of statistical test. Forty six volunteers for
McGovern responded to the test instrument. They were located through
the services of the McGovern headquarters in Boston. One of the
persons on duty requested that random workers respond to a survey
being taken in connection with a doctoral dissertation. Thirty-
eight theology students completed the questionnaire. They were
those who volunteered in response to a request from one of their
professors. Thirty-six non-McGovern workers were found by asking
persons whether or not they were volunteers for McGovern. The
first thirty-six who indicated a negative response were asked to
complete the questionnaire.
6. Report of legitimacy test. The test sustained the
legitimacy assumptions well beyond the chance, or .50, level.
Eighty-seven percent of the McGovern workers and ninety-eight
percent of the theology students accept their respective focal
persons as legitimate authorities.
The results of the legitimacy test are displayed in Table 8.
Calculations of number of standard deviations from expected value
with a probability of .50 show there is little likelihood of these
yes-no combinations falling within the chance level of perception.
7. Report of test of hypotheses. Results of the experiment
with the forty-six volunteers for McGovern show that 72 percent
perceive the variable extraordinary, 91 percent perceive the
variable hope, and 55 percent perceive the variable unique. These
percentages are beyond the chance level of perception. However,
calculations of the number of standard deviations from expected
value with a .50 level of probability indicate only two of the
variables as being outside the chance range of perception. These
Tabula
tion of
Legit
imacy P
ercepti
ons w
ith R
espect
to
a F
ocal
Perso
n.
64
54 O 4-1
P«4 O
M W ■u a) S3 rl ,0 O H 0 *H •H 3 4-1 43 55 Cfl
CO *H ^ W > O iH 0) U 43 Q
PH H
I X> X Pi W rC tO
n3 e cO
I
4J 4-4 <U CO 3
co i—i in 4-4 a to • o o >
•H II 4 4J T3 4) t0 tt) ft
43 *iH 44
e > o 3 4) 4)
55 Q a
o 43 5>n
o to 5
a) Ph 4-> a <u *h >4 O 60
o a)
4-1 a
P4 <J i-q
o o
o o
o
m vo
vO 'O-
r^- oo
oo co
oo on
o o
vO
CO
vO CO
on 1—I
o tO •H 44 pH CO 44 o vO r- pH r-. o\ 43 rH CO PX co CM O CO <u a) c o O S3 tH 54 CO O CO O co o 44 -H CO a) cu PI <U 53 QJ S3 cO O
p-i 5>n So 5>n So 44 pq pH S3
CU O 43 ^ O 44
43 •H *H 44 CO H CO JJ
l •H 54 S3 44 > S3 a) O O *H CO
54 CO 4*5 44 fl PI O CO a) 44 o 54 54 54 Sn 3 *H 54 o > S3 44 a) O 44 0) 54 44
>n a) 44 o 0) no O > 0) X) CO U 4*5 o vO X) 44 tO 00 0) o vO > 54 B O 54 44 o O O <U co S3 SX O CO co <0 60 O O a 44 a) pj 54 co a CO x) 43 0) > 0J II CO CX II <U a) a II •H S3 44 44 a. 54 CO 44 > 54 cO tO tO S3 to O S3 >N <u to PI o 54 S3 44 44 S u 54 0) 44 60 54 <u o 43 O H CO
<D 54 tO O 54 u 44 44 pH <U > a i—1 43 O a *H cO 0) 44 O a) o 44 i £ S3 0) *H O co a) •H cO S3 0) u q O 43 £ O CO 43 nH
S3 H a H PH
•P i—|
a 3
X) U to
XJ S3 to 4-1 to
<u 43 4-1
CO a)
$
o 00
CNJ #v vO
ON CO 1—I
a) iH pH
>> CO S3 SU a)
a) o
S3 43 o
►"3
4-1 S3 0) u
PH
on t-j on
a) a <U 44 no*
43 co 4-1 >1 44
4-1 44 a *H iH tO H i—I
43 -H u 4.1 43
CO TO a) 43 u o O 54 ^ 0 PH 1—1
a) 44 co 60 o p:
43 W (3 4J O *H
O O
iH 44 CO to
> (0
CO PI
_ O (3 *H O 44
to 44 to
to *H pH
§ a a
•H X) <J
65
are extraordinary and hope. Deviations of the variable unique fall
within the chance range of probability. The hypothesis was not
sustained with regard to the variable unique. Results of the test
are displayed in Table 9.
TABLE 9
Results of Testing Charisma Variables
on Forty-six McGovern Workers.
Variable Percent
Perceiving
Number of Standard
Deviations from Ex¬
pected Value With
p = .5
Probability
of this Number of
Deviations
Extraordinary
yes 34
no 12
72 (46) 3.2 < .001
Hope
yes 42
no 4
91 (46) 5.6 < .001
Unique
yes 25
no 21
55 (46) 0.6 0.000 4 P < .683
Results of the experiment with the thirty-eight theology
students indicate that 98 percent perceive the variable extraordinary,
90 percent perceive the variable unique, and 100 percent perceive
the variable hope. These percentages are beyond the .50 level of
perception. Calculations of the number of standard deviations from
an expected value with a .50, or chance level of probability indicate
1 Ibid., 180.
little likelihood for these yes-no combinations to fall within the
range of chance. The hypothesis was sustained. The results are
displayed in Table 10.
66
Variable
TABLE 10
Results of Testing Charisma Variables
on Thirty-eight Theology Students.
Percent Number of Standard Probability
Perceiving Deviations from Ex- of this Number of
pected Value With Deviations
p = .5
Extraordinary
yes
no
37
1
98 (38) 6.1 < .001
Hope
yes
no
38
0
100 (38) 6.1 < .001
Unique
yes 34 90 (38) 4.8 < .001
no 4
Results of the experiment with the thirty-six non-McGovern
workers show 39 percent perceive the variable extraordinary, 22
percent perceive the variable hope, and 13 percent perceive the
variable unique. These percentages are below the .50 level of
probability. Calculation of the number of standard deviations
from expected value with a .50 level of probability show there is
1 Ibid., 180.
little likelihood of only two variables falling within the chance
range of probability. These are hope and unique. Deviations of
the variable extraordinary fall within the range of chance. The
hypothesis was not sustained with regard to the perception of
extraordinary. Results of the test are displayed in Table 11.
TABLE 11
Results of Testing Charisma Variables on Thirty- •six Non-McGovern Workers •
Variable Percent Number of Standard Probability Perceiving Deviations from Ex- of this Number of
pected Value With Deviations p = .5
Extraordinary
yes 14 39 (36) 1.3 .683 ^ P <.954 no 22
Hope
yes 8 22 (36) 3.3 < .001 no 29
Unique
yes 5 13 (36) 4.3 < .001
no 32
1 Ibid., 180.
8. Commentary on tests of hypotheses. The predictions of all
three hypotheses tested were sustained with two exceptions: the
variable extraordinary as perceived by the non-McGovern workers,
and the variable unique as perceived by the McGovern volunteers.
a. The variable extraordinary as perceived by the non-McGovern
workers. The charisma definition which is being tested says all
three charisma variables are present in the charismatic situation.
The data for non-McGovern workers not only says two of the variables
are not operating, but it also says there is a strong indication they
are not operating. The theory is sustained.
b. The variable unique as perceived by McGovern volunteers.
The forty-six McGovern volunteers were fairly evenly divided as to
whether or not they perceived Senator McGovern as unique. They can
be classified into two groups: dedicated and less dedicated.
Twenty-one of these volunteers rated themselves as dedicated
to active participation in a political organization. The remaining
twenty-five rated themselves as, at the most, interested in active
participation, or with a maximum of occasional participation in
political activities. Comparative figures are given in Table 12
for these groups’ perceptions of the variable unique.
69
TABLE 12
Twenty-one Dedicated and Twenty-five Less Dedicated
Volunteers for McGovern Compared for Perceptions of the Charisma Variable Unique.
Percent Perceiving
Number of Standard Deviations from Ex¬ pected Value With
p = .5
Probability of this Number of
Deviations
Group as a whole
yes 25 no 21
55 (46) 0.6 0 4 P < 0.683
Less dedicated
yes 9 no 16
36 (25) 1.4 .683 4 P 4 .954
Dedicated
yes 16 no 5
76 (21) 2.4 .954 4 P < .997
1 Ibid ., 180.
The dedicated group has its variations encompassed by 2.4
standard deviations, which are less than three. Therefore, statis¬
tically the yes-no combinations are within the range of chance.
The sample size here has become so small that a change of two
persons' attitudes towards the variable unique will place the
responses of the dedicated workers beyond the .50, or chance level
of occurrence.
The comparison demonstrates that an increased dedication within
the group brings about an increased percentage of those perceiving
70
the variable unique. A comparison of the percentages of those who
perceive the variable unique shows that these increases are not
accompanied by equal changes in those who judge Senator McGovern
to be a legitimate power. Table 13 displays comparative figures.
TABLE 13
Forty-six McGovern Workers as a Whole Compared with Twenty-one Dedicated and Twenty-five Less Dedicated Workers for Percentage Perceiving the Charisma Variable Unique
Percentage Perceiving the Variable Legitimacy.
% Perceiving % Perceiving % Change of % Change of Legitimacy Unique Legitimacy Unique
Less dedicated n = 25 85 (25) 36 (25) — -
Group as a whole n = 46 87 (46) 55 (46) 2 19
Dedicated n = 21 90 (21) 76 (21) 3 21
Based on the data in Table 13, the variable unique is a more
impressive discriminator between groups than the variable legitimacy.
The questionnaire assumed that legitimacy was a quality either present
or absent. This data raises a question as to the validity of this
assumption. "Does legitimacy have degrees?" Further, "What are the
practical considerations attendant upon this question?"
Table 14 ranks groups of the study in order of increasing
perception of legitimacy. The percentages of perception of all
charisma variables are given for each group.
71
TABLE 14
Ranking by Percentage of Perception of Legitimacy for All Groups of the Test, Together with the Percentages of
Perception of the Charisma Variables.
Legitimacy Extraordinary Hope Unique
Non-McGovern Workers n = 46 19 (46) 39 (46) 22 (46) 13 (46)
Less Dedicated Workers n = 25 85 (25) 60 (25) 85 (25) 36 (25)
Dedicated Workers n = 21 90 (21) 81 (21) 100 (21) 76 (21)
Theology Students n = 38 98 (38) 98 (38) 100 (38) 90 (38)
Examination of Table 14 shows increasing perception of
legitimacy to be accompanied by increasing perception of the
charisma variables. At the extremes of maximum and minimum, the
data sustain the charisma theory, as has been seen earlier.
Perceptions at the extremes may be more uniformly well defined.
Possibly, both legitimacy and the charisma variables have degrees
and increase at different rates.
9. Conclusions. 1. The hypothesis which states that McGovern
workers will perceive Senator McGovern as a person who is performing
extraordinary deeds, whose works give them hope of meeting personal
need, and who is the only source of such hope, was not sustained
with regard to the variable unique. It was sustained with regard
to the variables extraordinary and hope.
72
2. The hypothesis which states that theology students will
perceive their Great Leader as a person who is extraordinary, whose
works give them hope to meet personal need, and who is the only
source of such hope, was sustained.
3. The hypothesis which states non-McGovern workers will not
perceive Senator McGovern as extraordinary, will not judge his works
to give them hope of meeting personal need, and will not perceive
him as the only source of such hope, was not sustained with regard
to the variable extraordinary. It was sustained with regard to
the variables hope and unique.
4. The legitimacy assumptions which stated that the McGovern
workers and the theology students perceive their focal person as
legitimate was sustained. The assumption that the non-McGovern
workers do not perceive Senator McGovern as legitimate was also
sustained.
5. The failure to sustain the variable unique in the hypothesis
concerning the McGovern workers is attributed to a lower degree of
legitimacy in the group than was assumed. The failure to sustain
the variable extraordinary in the hypothesis concerning the
non-McGovern workers is consistent with theory.
CHAPTER V
SOME CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY
This study expressed charisma as an analytical concept,
measured it, and showed its institutionalization.
Max Weber was used as a source to establish the function of
charisma as a generator of voluntary cooperation. Charisma gives
birth to legitimacy, or the prestige whereby an order is considered
binding. Three variables were developed to contain Weber's
description of the charismatic situation. They are the following:
an agent performs extraordinary deeds, which give hope of meeting
needs, and the agent is perceived as a unique source of hope.
It was demonstrated that the three variables do discriminate
from each other. Where there was legitimacy, all of the variables
were present. Where there was no legitimacy, not all of the
variables were present. The perception of these variables by
persons two thousand years removed from the focal person and his
extraordinary deeds demonstrates the institutionalization of
charisma. Inherent in this institutionalization is a view of the
organization as an extraordinary focal influence which offers a
unique hope of meeting ongoing personal need.
Basic to the charisma process is the needs - deeds link.
Charisma is effective because there is a perceived correlation
between needs of the follower and deeds of the agent. The fact
that need exists to which no other influence is judged to be
74
responding, makes the agent appear extraordinary. When the agent
is also perceived as the only source of deeds offering hope to
relieve the distress, then all the conditions for a charismatic
situation are present, and the agent's influence is likely to be
accepted.
According to this study, legitimacy of organization is a
consequence of the institutionalization of charisma. In the
beginning of an organization, charisma effects the emergence of
legitimacy of the new order by generating acceptance of the
influence of a person. Initially, there is a need to be met.
When a person is seen to be performing the kinds of deeds which
give a unique hope of meeting the need, his influence is accorded
the prestige of being considered binding. Acceptance of this new
order establishes the organization. Once established, obedience
to the order, rather than to the person directly, can carry on the
organization. For this legitimacy to continue independently of the
charismatic influence, it must be sustained by rational or legal
or traditional authority. This requires perception by the members
that observance of the routine does answer the need. The benefit
conferred by the charismatic personality is in winning the acceptance
of a routine which does answer need, and which can then be carried
on by other types of authority. What differentiates charismatic
leadership from other types is its function of winning this
acceptance of a routine which is interpreted as a response to some
distress of the followers.
75
An implication of this study is control over legitimacy within
an organization. Highly effective organizations would be those
which seek to promote legitimacy-fostering conditions. Hitherto
legitimate orders may be perceived as not responding to members’
needs, or the needs for which some orders were established may
have been fulfilled. Needs of the membership are likely to be
changing constantly. However, monitoring the needs - deeds
correlation within an organization provides data to help foster
legitimacy-maintaining orders. The challenge to management would
be to distinguish organizational goal-promoting charismatic
situations from those which may be counter-productive.
The needs - deeds link at the base of charisma has implications
for the role of religious leadership. Charisma is a neutral value.
Its base is a perceived need which an individual seeks to meet
through cooperation with an influencing agent. The correlation
of needs with deeds may, or may not., result in an order which
promotes the common well being. Charisma is basically amoral.
The results of the experiment suggest legitimacy has degrees
to which differing perceptions of the charisma variables correspond.
A comparison by groups of increasing perceptions of legitimacy shows
perceptions of all charisma variables to be increasing, but not at
uniform rates. There was a notable lag with which the variable
"unique" increased. It was the variable least perceived by the
theology students, and the one most strongly rejected by the
non-McGovern workers. There was a sharp contrast in the perceptions
76
of it by the two groups of McGovern workers - 76% by the dedicated
group and 36% by the less dedicated.
This variable appears to be a more critical discriminator than
the other two. It may be that to produce deeds perceived as
extraordinary and to be judged as a hope to meet need are conditions
more easily met than the requirement of being the unique hope. Is
it, as Weber says, the "unprecedented and absolutely unique" which
enforces the inner subjection whereby cooperation is freely given?
The other two variables would then be more related to the speci¬
fications of the material concerning which the influence is judged
to be unique. This may mean that "unique" could be a simple test
for the presence of maximum charisma, or for the greatest probability
of the legitimacy of an influence.
A limitation of the study is the caution which must be used
before definitive conclusions can be reached. Certain exploratory
efforts need further testing. A basic limitation is derived from
the completely subjective nature of both legitimacy and perception
of the charisma variables. The classification of respondents into
four groups was based on the behavior of these persons. Theoretically,
their legitimacy attitudes should correspond to this behavior.
However, ten percent of the dedicated McGovern workers did not
perceive him as a legitimate influence, while 19% of the non-McGovern
workers did. One could advance many reasons for these results, as
well as for the two percent of the theology students who did not
.77
perceive their Great Leader as a legitimate authority. The data
demonstrates the difficulty of designing questions concerning such
highly subjective elements so that each respondent will not only
understand the exact same meaning, but will respond without influence
by exogenous factors as well.
A practical limitation comes from the small sample size which
resulted when the McGovern workers were classified into dedicated
and less dedicated groups. The small sample size would make it
possible for a change in the attitudes of two persons in the dedicated
group to cause the hypothesis about them to be sustained. Ten percent
of this group report that they do not consider Senator McGovern as
a legitimate influence; actually this ten percent is two persons.
One suggestion for future study is to examine how charisma
develops within an existing organization. Situations might be
identified where routines, or orders, are being established which
are not part of the organizational plan. Who initiated these
routines? Why do others follow them? Can these routines become
part of the organization’s plan? If not, can a new routine be
devised which both meets the need and sustains organizational goals?
If so, would a person who is introduced to this situation, who meets
Weber’s charisma requirements, and proclaims this new routine, be
given automatic legitimacy?
Given the highly subjective nature of both legitimacy and the
perception of charisma variables by the follower, what might be the
.78
relationship to charisma of distance from the leader, or of
non-charisma variables? Can charisma be developed, or maintained,
by manipulation of need, either by reinforcing its existence or
blaming non-fulfillment on the failure of followers to observe the
routine properly?
To the extent that some professions require voluntary cooperation
of others in order to achieve effective delivery of their services,
these professionals may need a charisma quotient. Studies might be
undertaken to discover the role of charisma in such people-oriented
occupations as nursing, teaching, ministry, and others. A practical
result might be an indicator which showed that some persons interested
in these professions may be more effective in a laboratory, rather
than in a delivery system calling for a certain level of charisma.
A final suggestion is to develop a test with the variables
of the present work. The presence or absence of these variables
with regard to a focal person might be analytically useful for
holders or seekers of positions dependent upon the voluntary
cooperation of others. When correlated with expressed needs and
attitudes of respondents the test might help them determine an
objective base for their authority. Such a test would be useful
for investigating the variable "unique" as a measure of maximum
legitimacy, while the other two variables define its limit.
79
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Bauer, Raymond; Inkles, Alex; and Kluckhohn, Clyde. How The Soviet System Works. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957.
Bendix, Reinhard. "Reflections on Charismatic Leadership." Max Weber. Edited by Dennis Wrong. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1970.
Blau, Peter M. Bureaucracy in Modem Society. New York: Random House, 1956.
Dekmejian, Richard H. "The Dynamics of the Egyptian Political System: The Interaction of Charisma, Ideology, and Institutions." Vol. XXX of Dissertation Abstracts International. Edited by University Microfilms. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1970.
Eruend, Julien. The Sociology of Max Weber. Translated by
Mary Ilford. New York: Pantheon Books, 1968.
Gouldner, Alvin W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1954.
Harrison, Paul M. Authority and Power in the Free Church Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959.
Lewin, Harlan J. "Charismatic Authority and Technological Integration." Vol. XXX of Dissertation Abstracts International, Edited by University Microfilms. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1970.
Michels, Robert. Political Parties. Translated by Eden and Cedar Paul. New York: Free Press, 1966.
Parsons, Talcott, The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press, 1968.
Contains a careful analysis of Max Weber’s theory of charisma and relates it to legitimacy.
Raven, Bertram; and French, John R. "The Bases of Social Power." Group Dynamics Research and Theory. Edited by D. Cartwright and A. Zander. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
Sohm, Rudolf. Outlines of Church History. Translated by May Sinclair. Boston: Beacon Press, 1958.
80
Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Edited and Translated by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. 3 vols. New York: Bedminster Press, 1968.
This is the first complete English edition of Economy and Society. It utilized a number of extant translations and footnotes, and completely replaced others. The editors had access to Winckelmanrs forthcoming fifth edition of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.
Weber, Max. On Charisma and Institution Building, Selected Papers. Edited by Samuel N. Eisenstadt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Willner, Ann Ruth. Charismatic Political Leadership, A Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Center of International Studies, 1968.
ARTICLES IN JOURNALS
Ake, Claude. "Charismatic Legitimation and Political Integration." Comparative Studies in Society and History, IX (October,
1966), 1-13.
Bonjean, Charles M.; and Grimes, Michael D. "Bureaucracy and
Alienation: A Dimensional Approach." Social Forces, XLVIII (March 1970), 328-338.
Bruyn, Pieter. "Authority Without Results Cancels Itself." Training and Development Journal, XXII (November, 1968), 46-52.
Davies, James C. "Charisma in the 1952 Campaign." American Political Science Review, XLVIII (December, 1954), 1083-1107.
Dow, Thomas E. , Jr. , "The Role of Charisma in Modem African Development." Social Forces, XLVI (March, 1968), 328-338.
Dow, Thomas E. , Jr., "The Theory of Charisma." Sociological Quarterly, X (Summer, 1969), 306-318.
Friedland, William H. "For a Sociological Concept of Charisma." Social Forces, XLIII (October, 1964), 18-26.
Friedrich, Carl J. "Political Leadership and the Problem of Charismatic Power." Journal of Politics, XXIII (February,
1961), 3-24.
81
Hoffman, Stanley; and Hoffman, Inge. "The Will to Grandeur: DeGaulle as Political Artist." Daedalus, XCVLL (Summer, 1968), 829-879.
Korten, David C. "Situational Determinants of Leadership Structure." Journal of Conflict Resolution, VI (September 1962), 222-235.
Lipman, Matthew; and Pizzuro, Salvatore. "Charismatic Participation as a Sociopathic Process." Psychiatry, XIX (February, 1956), 11-30.
Miller, David E. "Max Weber’s Missing Authority Type." Sociological Inquiry, XXXVII (Spring, 1967), 231-240.
Oommen, T. K. "Charisma, Social Structure and Social Change." Comparative Studies in Society and History, X (October, 1967), 85-99.
Ratnam, K. J. "Charisma and Political Leadership." Political Studies, XII (October, 1964), 341-354.
Raven, Bertram H; and French, John R. "Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social Influence." Sociometry, XXI (June, 1958), 83-97.
Rosenberg, Morris; and Pearlin, Leonard J. "Power Orientations in
the Mental Hospital." Human Relations, XV (November, 1962), 335-350.
Shils, Edward A. "The Concentration and Dispersion of Charisma. Their Bearing on Economic Policy in Underdeveloped Countries." World Politics, XI (October, 1958), 1-19.
Shils, Edward A. "Charisma, Order and Status." American Sociological Review, XXX (April, 1965), 199-213.
Tucker, Robert C. "The Theory of Charismatic Leadership." Daedalus, 97 (Summer, 1968), 731-754, and ref. 756.
Turner, Paul R. "Witchcraft as Negative Charisma." Ethnology, IX (October, 1970), 366-372.
Wolpe, Harold. "A Critical Analysis of Some Aspects of Charisma." The Sociological Review, XVI (November, 1968), New Series,
305-318.
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Downton, James V. "Rebel Leadership: Revisiting the Concept of Charisma." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of California, Berkely, 1968.
Gallagher, Mary B. "The Public Address of Fidel Castro Ruz: Charismatic Leader of a Modem Revolution." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1970.
Vedand. "The Role of Product Charisma in Buying Behavior: An Analysis of Black and White Ownership of Cadillacs." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State, 1970.
83
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRE TEST
A. Preliminary Fact Sheet
1) Age_ 2) Occupation_
3) Highest level of education:
Check one (grammar) (high) (college) (post college)
4) Are you a parent? (yes) (no)
5) Did religious values ever have any influence in your past life? (yes) (no)
6) Do religious values influence your way of life now? (yes) (no)
7) Did organized religion ever help you to make sense out of life? (yes) (no)
8) Does organized religion help you now to make sense out of life? (yes) (no)
9) How would you rate your most active Past participation in organized religion?
Check one: (dedicated) (interested) (casual) (neglectful)
(never participated in any such organization)
10) If associated, what was the name of this organized religion?
11) How do you rate your present amount of active participation in organized religion?
Check one: (dedicated) (interested) (unproductive)
(slight) (none)
12) If involved now with an organized religion, what is its name?
13) Did you ever think that in order to live according to religious values it was also necessary to belong to an organized religion?
(yes) (no)
84
14) Do you think so now? (yes) (no)
15) How would you rate your most active PAST financial support of organized religion?
Check one: (regular) (occasional) (neglectful) (none)
16) How would you rate your present financial support of organized religion?
Check one: (regular) (occasional) (neglectful) (none)
17) Do you hold a full time assignment sponsored by an organized religion? (yes) (no)
18) Did you ever participate in weekly religious ceremonies?
Check one: (regularly) (occasionally) (rarely) (not at all)
19) Do you participate now in weekly religious ceremonies?
Check one: (regularly) (occasionally) (rarely) (not at all)
20) Did you ever think organized religion was necessary for you? (yes) (no)
21) Do you think present day working of organized religion is
necessary for you? (yes) (no)
B. Questions in the following section ask your reactions to a Great Leader.
The title "Great Leader" is used to mean that person who is the source of your inspiration to live according to religious values. This would mean such personalities as Moses, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.
22) As you understand the personality and teachings of a particular
Great Leader, did they ever have any influence upon you in the area of how you should behave towards others? (yes) (no)
23) Do they have any influence now? (yes) (no)
24) Did you ever think this Great Leader did anything beyond the powers of ordinary persons? (yes) (no)
25) Do you think so now? (yes) (no)
85
26) Did you ever think that what he did and what he said gave you hope to meet one or more of your personal needs? (yes) (no)
27) Do you think his words and deeds give you hope today of meeting one or more of your personal needs? (yes) (no)
28) Did you ever have a need which you thought could have been met only with his influence? (yes) (no)
29) Do you think you have such a need now? (yes) (no)
30) Did you ever think anyone else to be a better source than this Great Leader in the area of showing you how you should behave towards others? (yes) (no)
31) Does anyone else equal him now in this respect? (yes) (no)
32) Did you ever think this Great Leader had the right to give you directions in how you should behave towards others? (yes) (no)
33) Does he have this right now for you? (yes) (no)
34) Did you ever want to follow his directions in the matter of how you should behave towards others? (yes) (no)
35) Do you want to today? (yes) (no)
36) In general would you say that you once tried to follow the way of life outlined by this Great Leader? (yes) (no)
37) If so did you feel you were being forced? (yes) (no)
38) In general do you try today to follow what you consider to be his way of life? (yes) (no)
39) If so do you feel you are being forced? (yes) (no)
C. The next section asks your reactions to the organization which was started to carry on the work of this Great Leader.
The title "organized religion" is used to mean the temple, synagogue, assembly, community, ward, parish, church, etc. through which you heard about the teachings and works of a Great Leader.
40) Did organized religion ever teach you about the teachings and works of a Great Leader? (yes) (no)
86
41) Did organized religion ever inspire you to follow the way of life taught by this Great Leader? (yes) (no)
42) Does organized religion inspire you today to follow the way of life taught by this Great Leader? (yes) (no)
43) When taking part in the sacraments or ceremonies of organized
religion, did you ever believe you were experiencing something out of the ordinary? (yes) (no)
44) Do you believe so today? (yes) (no)
45) Did you ever see works in the world produced by organized religion which you thought were beyond those produced in the course of ordinary human activity? (yes) (no)
46) Do you see it producing such works today? (yes) (no)
47) Did you ever think that what organized religion was doing gave you hope of answering one or more of your personal needs? (yes) (no)
48) Do you think that the present doings of organized religion give you hope of answering one or more of your personal needs? (yes) (no)
49) Did you ever have needs which you thought could have been met only by organized religion? (yes) (no)
50) Do you have needs now which only organized religion can answer? (yes) (no)
51) Did you ever think any other institution was the equal of organized religion when it came to showing you how to behave
towards others? (yes) (no)
52) Does any other institution now equal organized religion when it comes to showing you how to behave towards others? (yes) (no)
53) Did you ever think organized religion had the right to show you
how to behave towards others? (yes) (no)
54) Do you think organized religion has such a right today? (yes) (no)
55) Did you ever want to follow what organized religion said was the teaching of a Great Leader? (yes) (no)
56) Do you want to follow what organized religion today says is the teaching of a Great Leader? (yes) (no)
87
57) In general, did you ever try to follow what organized religion said was the way of life of a Great Leader? (yes) (no)
58) If so, did you feel you were being forced? (yes) (no)
59) In general, do you try to follow today what organized religion says is the way of life of a Great Leader? (yes) (no)
60) If so, do you feel you are being forced? (yes) (no)
I
88
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STATISTICAL TEST
1. How would you rate your present amount of active participation in a political organization?
Check one: (dedicated) (interested) (casual) (slight) (none)
2. How do you rate your present amount of active participation in an organized religion?
Check one: (dedicated) (interested) (casual) (slight) (none)
3. Did you vote in the recent primary election for president?
(yes) (no)
4. Do you participate in weekly religious ceremonies?
Check one: (regularly) (occasionally) (rarely) (not at all)
5. Do you participate in political activities?
Check one: (regularly) (occasionally) (rarely) (not at all)
Note: Questions in the following section ask your reactions to Senator McGovern as a leader in political affairs.
6. Do you think Senator McGovern is executing deeds beyond the perform¬ ance of the average person? (yes) (no)
7. Do you think Senator McGovern gives you hope of meeting one or more of your social goals or personal needs? (yes) (no)
8. Do you think you have a need or social goal which can be met presently only through the influence of Senator McGovern? (yes) (no)
9. Do you think Senator McGovern has a capacity to influence you in the area of what policies should be accepted for the federal government?
(yes) (no)
Note: Questions in the following section ask your reactions to a Great Leader. The title Great Leader is used to mean that person who is the source of your inspiration to live according to religious values. This would mean such personalities as Moses, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.
10. Do you think this Great Leader did anything beyond the performance of the average person? (yes) (no)
. 89
11. Do you think that this Great Leader gives you hope of meeting one or more of your social goals or personal needs? (yes) (no)
12. Do you think you have a need or social goal which can be met presently only through the influence of this Great Leader?
(yes) (no)
13. Do you think this Great Leader has a capacity to influence you in the area of how to behave towards others? (yes) (no)
90
TABLE 15
Frequency count of responses of 73 respondents to the pre test.
Question number yes no
24 56 14
25 46 24
26 56 15
27 50 21
28 45 26
29 30 41
32 50 21
33 41 31
43 35 30
44 28 43
45 27 41
46 18 50
47 41 30
48 23 47
49 34 39
50 19 53
53 43 28
54 25 46
91
TABLE 16
Cross tabulations of responses questions about a Great Leader on the
to pre test.
Q 28: Across Q 29: Across Q 28: Across Q 29: Down Q 27: Down Q 27: Down
yes no yes no yes no yes no 26 - no 20 1 no 15 6
yes 15 30 yes 21 29 yes 11 39
Q 29: Across Q 28: Across Q 27: Across Q 26: Down Q 26: Down Q 26: Down
no yes no yes no yes no 14 1 no 11 4 no 15 -
yes 26 29 yes 14 41 yes 5 50
Q 29: Across Q 28: Across Q 27: Across
Q 25: Down Q 25: Down Q 25: Down
no yes no yes no yes
no 21 2 no 14 9 no 15 8
yes 18 28 yes 10 36 yes 4 42
Q 26: Across Q 29: Across Q 28: Across
Q 25: Down Q 24: Down Q 24: Down
no yes no yes no yes
no 11 13 no 13 1 no 10 4
yes 3 43 yes 26 29 yes 14 41
Q 32: Across Q 33: Across Q 33: Across
Q 26: Down Q 25: Down Q 27: Down
no yes no yes no yes
no 8 7 no 18 6 no 17 4
yes 12 43 yes 11 35 yes 14 36
92
TABLE 16 (cont.) '
Q 33: Across Q 32: Across Q 33: Across Q 29: Down Q 28: Down Q 32: Down
no yes no yes no yes no 26 15 no 15 11 no 20 1
yes 5 25 yes 6 38 yes 11 39
Q 32: Across Q 27: Across Q 26: Across Q 24: Down Q 24: Down Q 24: Down
no yes no yes no 10 4 no 9 5 no no yes
7 7
yes 10 45
Q 25: Across Q 24: Down
no yes no 14 -
yes 10 46
yes 10 45 yes 7 49
93
TABLE 17
Cross tabulations of responses to questions about organized religion on the pre test.
Q 46: Across Q 47: Across Q 48: Across Q 45: Down Q 45: Down Q 45: Down
no yes no 41
no yes no 21 20
no yes no 31 10
yes 8 18 yes 7 19 yes 13 12
Q 49: Across Q 50: Across Q 44: Across
Q 45: Down Q 45: Down Q 54: Down
no yes no 21 20
no yes no 34 7
no yes no 33 12
yes 15 12 yes 16 11 yes 9 15
Q 46: Across Q 48: Across Q 50: Across
Q 54: Down Q 54: Down Q 54: Down
no yes no 37 6
no yes no 39 6
no yes no 40 5
yes 12 12 yes 6 17 yes 11 14
Q 43: Across Q 45: Across Q 47: Across
Q 53: Down Q 53: Down Q 53: Down
no yes no 13 11
no yes no 18 7
no yes no 18 9
yes 15 24 yes 23 19 yes 10 32
94
TABLE 17 (cont.)
Q 46: Across Q 47: Across Q 48: Across Q 43: Down Q 43: Down Q 43: Down
no yes no 21 7
no yes no 16 13
no yes no 22 7
yes 24 9 yes 11 24 yes 21 14
Q 49: Across Q 50: Across Q 43: Across Q 43: Down Q 43: Down Q 44: Down
no yes no 20 10
no yes no 25 5
no yes no 28 13
yes 16 19 yes 23 12 yes 1 22
Q 45: Across Q 46: Across Q 47: Across Q 44: Down Q 44: Down Q 44: Down
no yes no 25 15
no yes no 32 8
no yes no 21 21
yes 15 12 yes 17 10 yes 8 20
Q 48: Across Q 49: Across Q 50: Across
Q 44: Down Q 44: Down Q 44: Down
no yes no 32 10
no yes no 27 16
no yes no 36 7
yes 14 13 yes 12 16 yes 17 11
95
TABLE 17 (cont.)
Q 48: Across Q 49: Across Q 50: Across Q 47: Down Q 47: Down Q 47: Down
no yes no yes no yes no 30 no 23 7 no 27 3
yes 17 23 yes 15 26 yes 25 16
Q 49: Across Q 50: Across Q 50: Across Q 48: Down Q 48: Down Q 49: Down
no no yes 31 16 no
no yes 44 3
no yes no 36 3
yes 6 17 yes 8 15 yes 17 16
Q 47: Across Q 48: Across Q 49: Across Q 46: Down Q 46: Down Q 46: Down
no no yes 25 25 no
no yes 39 11
no yes no 28 22
yes 3 14 yes 5 11 yes 8 10
Q 50: Across Q 44: Across Q 45: Across
Q 46: Down Q 43: Down Q 43: Down
no no yes 42 8 no
no yes 28 1
no yes no 16 12
yes 8 10 yes 13 22 yes 20 13
Q 49: Across Q 53: Down
no yes no 22 6
yes 15 28
96
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
OF
GEORGE A. SCHLICHTE
1974 to Present. Technical and Administrative Consultant in the office of Health Care Planning and Development of Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.
1972-1974. President, Belknap College, Centre Harbor, New Hampshire, a small private, non-sectarian, co-educational, liberal arts college with a science orientation.
1962-1969. Founding President and Treasurer, Pope John XXIII National Seminary, Weston, Massachusetts, an innovative and unique professional school for men from professional and business careers who wished to study for the ministry.
1961-1963. Vice Chancellor of the R. C. Archdiocese of Boston, the number two position in the office of general management of the affairs of the R. C. Archdiocese of Boston.
1958-1961. Vice Rector North American College, Rome, Italy, the Executive Vice President of the four year residential college for 300 students selected from philosophy classes throughout the United States.
1953-1958. Business Manager of North American College, Rome, Italy. Prepared and managed the budget, served as purchasing agent, recruited and supervised a non-professional staff of 70 persons.
1951-1953. Assistant Pastor, St. Mary’s Parish, Charlestown, Massachusetts, an urban Boston parish of 10,000 members.
1942-1945. Served from Ensign to Lieutenant as a line officer on the USS Philadelphia. Awarded the Bronze Star for performance as anti-aircraft Control Officer. Earned five battle stars and Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon.
