IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v15y2025i6p223-d1674754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Charisma Heuristic as Cognitive Bias: An Informal Category Theoretic Risk Analysis of the Leadership Influence Process

Author

Listed:
  • James K. Hazy

    (Robert B. Willumstad School of Business, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY 11530, USA)

Abstract

The notion of charisma has been an important, albeit mysterious, aspect of leadership research for decades. Traditionally, its definition has centered on an individual who, by virtue of possessing certain traits, skills, or behaviors, is considered a natural leader. More recently, however, there has been increasing recognition that charisma is an experience that is actually felt by followers, and therefore perhaps the charisma experience could be better understood by taking a follower’s perspective. This theoretical article addresses this question. It takes the perspective of a follower who reports a charismatic experience and asks the following: What are the benefits and risks to the follower who, by assigning “charisma” to the influence of another, effectively surrenders a measure of individual autonomy by becoming a follower of a leader? This article uses ideas from mathematical category to explore and demystify the notion of charisma in leadership theory and practice. By doing so, it argues that the choice to follow what is considered to be a charismatic other is essentially a decision-making heuristic that carries benefits and risks. A benefit is decreased cognitive load. A risk is the possibility that the leader’s influence will push against a follower’s own interests. Thus, this paper argues that the charisma heuristic should be considered as cognitive bias about which both followers and leaders should be wary. Eight propositions are discussed to inform future research.

Suggested Citation

  • James K. Hazy, 2025. "Charisma Heuristic as Cognitive Bias: An Informal Category Theoretic Risk Analysis of the Leadership Influence Process," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-30, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:6:p:223-:d:1674754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/6/223/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/6/223/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:6:p:223-:d:1674754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.