Crisis, Culture and Charisma:

The N e w Leader's W o r k in Public

Organizations
M a t t h e w Valle

This paper argues that the changing nature of public service requires new leadership
and that the primary goal of leaders in public organizations today should be the devel­
opment of, as the organization's primary core competence, an adaptive organizational
ciilture. The changing nature of public service will be discussed in terms of the
external and internal environmental forces impacting public organizations, the
expanded and diverse missions that make up the work of the members of these orga­
nizations, and the style of leadership appropriate in order to take steps to create the
organizational energy necessary for action. The model presented emphasizes the inter­
action of the environment, the followers, and the leader and describes this interaction
as a combination of crisis, culture, and charisma.

In an era of increasing public pressure and dwindling budgets, the chal­

lenge of leadership in public organizations grows more acute each day.
Given the pervasive stereotypes about public leaders,^ the increasingly
uncertain regulatory environments in which they operate,^ and the
constraints, controls, and processes of public management,^ leaders in
public organizations are faced with substantial, if not insurmountable,
obstacles to effective management. It may go without saying that
tomorrow's regulatory and administrative problems will differ markedly
from today's. Consider, for example, the changing landscape of public
administration: the number of stakeholder groups has swelled and all
groups are becoming increasingly vocal; demographic changes are
causing shifts in federal, state, and local responsibilities; there is
increasing downward pressure on the ability of public organizations to
levy taxes, often in combination with an increase in the level of
unfunded mandates; and the continuing pervasive and interactive
nature of the global economy and global markets inject a higher degree
of chaos than was previously experienced.* In such an environment, it is
not so difficult to explain the exodus of high quality leaders,^ and the
drain of managerial talent may continue unabated unless some mecha­
nism exists for new leaders in public organizations to enact environments
that facilitate mission accomplishment, personal growth and
productivity, and a rebirth of organizational energy.

Public organizations today need leaders capable of coping with continual

environmental change, but the real work of new leaders in public organi­
zations is to prepare the members of their organization's to cope with,
and adapt to, changes of mission, environment, and/or direction. Such
leadership will require individuals who have the ability to correctly

Crisis, Culture and Charisma:The N e w Leader's W o r k in Public Organizations 245

 assess current environmental threats and opportunities, both within and
outside the organization, and take steps to create the organizational
energy necessary for action.^ In this paper, I will argue that leaders in
pubUc organizations must focus their efforts on developing, as the orga­
nization's primary core competence, an adaptive organizational culture.
It is through such a culture that public organizations, and their leaders,
will learn how to succeed in the face of constantly changing responsibili­
ties.

T h e C e n t r a l Role of Crisis in Public Organizations

Intuitively, we know that leadership in public organizations today is
different. This is primarily because of the increasingly turbulent nature of
the environments in which public organizations operate.^ Changes in
environment require corresponding changes in the methods by which
the organization plans, organizes, and directs its energies toward mission
accomplishment. Such is the province of leadership. The primary func­
tion of leadership is to guide the organization and it's members toward
their objectives, but those objectives have become more elusive and
dynamic in public organizations. Leadership under these circumstances
requires continual environmental scanning in order to assess threats and
opportunities. The environment in which public service organizations
operate today more closely mirror the private sector with constantly
evolving technological focus and the interplay of local and global market
forces. Actually, the turbulent nature of the environment surrounding
most public organizations can be more accurately described as one of
crisis.
One normally associates crisis with severe societal, economic, or political
upheaval, but there are crises continually impacting organizations which
are relatively pervasive but less severe.^ Crisis may be perceived if the
current situations the organization faces are of such a varied nature that
simple resolution based upon reference to past actions or procedures
becomes problematic. Affective reactions based upon such perceptions
may include increased levels of perceived stress and decreased levels of
personal satisfaction for organizational members. Behavioral reactions to
crisis situations may include detrimental physical effects and increases in
absenteeism and turnover. The response of the organization to these new
realities is determined, in great part, by the ability of organization leaders
to guide members toward the successful resolution of the crisis. The
methods leaders use to guide members are the result of a series of
choices that reflect how leaders and followers interact.

246 Public Personnel Management Volume 28 No. 2 Summer 1999

Leadership and C u l t u r e in Public Organizations
In the past, leaders in public organizations have placed great emphasis
on developing stable and predictable organizational structures and work
processes.^ The purpose of leadership in such organizations was (and still
may be) to train employees to anticipate problems by focusing on specific
rules, procedures, and policies for handling matters requiring orgarüza-
tional action. This type of leadership is often referred to as transactional.
A transactional leader guides and motivates followers by clarifying role
and task requirements so that goals may be achieved.^" Rewards accrue
to those who follow the rules. Transactional leaders take corrective action
only when there is a deviation from the rules or procedures. What is
perhaps unintentionally made clear to employees in this type of system
is that thinking and acting "outside the box" have no place in this organi­
zation. Effectiveness is measured by adherence to standards, rules, and
procedures. Such an approach may prove efficient and effective if the
tasks required of the organization are stable and predictable and can be
completed with reference to specified rules. In manufacturing organiza­
tions, rules and procedures (i.e., work processes) enhance standardiza­
tion, which subsequently impacts efficiency and the quality of the effort
and output. Discipline is required in such organizations to produce
outputs which conform to specifications. However, if the problems faced
by public organizations are not routine, work processes may degenerate
to fitting square pegs in round holes, no matter how square they may be.

The culture that develops under this "rule-driven" organizational system

may be referred to as anticipatory, An anticipatory system is one that
takes present action based upon an expected future state. The term refers
to any system in which decisions are made by reference to an established
algorithm or problem solving guide. By nature, anticipatory cultures are
passive and reactive. Work processes emphasize learrúng the rules and
procedures to guide decisions. Employees develop a reactive stance
toward problems; workers engage in a deterministic search for the
correct application of standards to problematic issues. The identification
and exploitation of opportunities (unforeseen problems) may not even
occur in such organizations. Remember, action is taken only on expected
future states. Figure 1 shows the relationship between routine problems,
leadership, and the anticipatory culture of these organizations.

Crisis, Culture and CharismarThe N e w Leader's W o r k in Public Organizations 141

Figure I. Leadership Processes in Stable Environments

Leadership
Processes
• train workers to
anticipate problems

Routine Work Outcomes

Problems Processes performance
stable environment anticipatory culture satisfaction
absenteeism
turnover

If the majority of the problems public organizations face could be classi­

fied as routine, then such a system of anticipafion w^ould be the most
efficient form in v/hich to conduct the v/ork of the organization. In some
systems leaders try to isolate the technical core (i.e., the workers) from
their external environment by sorting, classifying, and filtering until
what arrives for disposition is a neatiy packaged, clearly solvable,
"problem." Much of the work done by transactional leaders is along
those lines. Increasingly, however, leaders in public organizations are not
able to isolate their technical core from the chaos of their environments.
Therefore, if public organizations are operating in increasingly turbulent
environments, is it possible to structure work processes to achieve
stability when the parameters for stable operation are constantly
shifting? What is the appropriate fit of organizational structure and envi­
ronment in these new circumstances? And, perhaps a more practical
question, do leaders in public organizations have the ability to restruc­
ture their organizations to achieve a good fit? The good news is that such
a reorganization is implicit in the cultural change leaders must initiate in
public organizations in order to cope with, and adapt to, the increasing
complexity of their environments. And it is posited that such a change
can occur without the physical shift of personnel and resources that is
normally associated with organizational change.

248 Public Personnel Management Volume 28 N o . 2 Summer 1999

T h e N e w Leader's W o r k
Public organizations which are subject to continual crises, whether acute
or chronic, severe or less severe, need to develop mechanisms to cope
with the demands of their ever-changing situations. Figure 2 suggests a
new model for leadership in public organizations that focuses on the
relationships between the culture of the subordinates in the orgemization;
the situational context, or environment, in which the organization oper­
ates (i.e., crisis); and the leadership essential to facilitate effectiveness.
This model emphasizes the interaction of leader, follower, and situation
to understanding how leaders in public orgarrizations may accomplish
their expanded missions in the face of pressure from increasing numbers
of stakeholders.

Figure 2. Leadership Processes in Turbulent Environments

Leadership
Processes
b-ain workers to
adapt to problems

Routine Work Outcomes

Problems Processes performance
(Crisis) adaptive culture satisfaction
turbulent less absenteeism
environment less turnover

The primary means by which leaders facilitate the successful resolution

of organizational tasks in turbulent environments is to build a culture
with a core competence which values and excels at adaptation. In manu­
facturing terms, such a distinctive competency would be referred to as
"flexibility," and that description holds for service operations in general,
and pubüc orgarüzations specificcilly.12 There is no flexibility in a system
which requires rote adherence to written procedures. If crises by nature
are varied and of random impact and importance, basic transactional
leadership does not go far enough toward providing the necessary guid­
ance concerning comprehensive plans of action for every possible contin­
gency. Some famous public servants recognized this limitation of leader­
ship in rapidly changing environments. George Patton was fond of

Crisis, Culture and Charisma:The New Leader's Work in Public Organizations 249
saying, "Never tell people hov^^ to do things, tell them what to do and
they will surprise you with their ingenuity."" Adaptive cultures foster
innovation and creative solutions, and Patton's armies were known to be
highly adaptive, and dramatically successful.
An organizational culture which values adaptation, by necessity, makes
use of a wider range of skills by more members. In order to accomplish
the substantial tasks of information gathering and evaluation in complex
environments, adaptive organizational cultures must seek information
and support from diverse elements within their structure. Also, by neces­
sity, organizational members are forced to share information, resources,
and ideas. Job scope and subsequent responsibilities for outcomes are
expanded. Organizational units, which previously acted as separate units
(i.e., co-acting groups), must now interact in order to accomplish the
mission. And whue the structure of the organization may appear on
charts as functional and stable, the operation of the organizational
elements may be perceived as more "team-like" and dynamic. A struc­
ture that was developed to operate mechanistically can become organic
for problem identification and resolution and revert to mechanistic
processes in execution.i^ Such an ambidextrous approach allows for the
"virtual" shift of people and resources. It is not necessary to physically
restructure the organization with teams in mind if the defacto practice is
for the members within the organization to operate as members of
rapidly forming and adjourning teams.

This process is by no means as simple as it sounds. Real culture change is

a slow and tedious process. Most organizational cultures are the result of
critical incidents at founding and during the entrepreneurial stage of
development. Leaders in public organizations do not often have the
luxury of starting anew. The requirements of the new work of public
organizations dictate that we have new workers, but, in most cases, it is
not necessary to search outside the organization for those people. Most
experts agree that culture change can be managed in one of two waysi^s
1) by using a symbolic approach, leaders attempt to influence cultural
norms and values by shaping surface elements (e.g., symbols, stories,
ceremonies) and continually managing meaning; and 2) by using organi­
zational development interventions (e.g., process consultation, team
development), leaders can help guide members through the stages of
identifying and accepting new norms and values. Shaping team players
requires careful selection, training, and rewards. For those organizational
members who cannot adapt to the realities of the new organization,
transfer, relocation, or perhaps termination (as a last resort) may be
necessary. Most likely, organizational members can be taught to be team
players. Training in problem-solving skills, communication, negotiation,
conflict management, etc. can help turn individuals into team players.
Team-building training is a slow process, but it is a necessary and ulti-

250 Public Personnel Management Volume 28 N o . 2 Summer 1999

mately worthwhile interver\tion if workers are to engage in the kind of
interaction required of units to "do more with less." And finally, regard­
less of how egalitarian the concept of work-place teams may appear to
be, unless the reward systems are structured to reinforce appropriate
group and team behaviors (e.g., interaction and cooperation), the mission
wUl never be adequately accomplished. Appropriate reward structures
ensure the proper match between actions and outcomes.
Leaders who communicate new meanings to be shared (i.e., crisis
becomes "challenge") forge a common vision that guides the interacting
t e a m s . S u c h challenges will most likely arise in the external environ­
ment, but it is also possible for crises to be internally generated.
link between leadership and crisis in the model shown as Figure 2 is
meant to indicate that leaders can also generate or highlight crises.
Research suggests that some executives may create states of non-equilib­
rium as a means to achieve organizational self-renewal and creativity,
By being proactive in the selection of relevant or advantageous crises to
address, the leader can shape the situation to his/her advantage. In doing
so, the leader moves his/her organization from a reactive stance to a
proactive stance. Leaders may even go so far as to change the contingen­
cies of the environmental context, or enact their own environments.^^

The new work of leaders in public organizations does not stop with
creating the appropriate adaptive culture or enacting situational crises.
There are new personal requirements imposed on the leader as a result
of the shift in focus. Given the nature of the new environmental realities,
the leader must rely less on concrete task and performance direction, and
more on framing and guiding the work tasks so that they align with the
organization's mission and focus. Such work entails exhibiting those
characteristics and emulating the behaviors associated with charismatic
or transformational leaders.20 These leaders should be able to provide
their followers with a compelling vision or sense of purpose, and should
be able to communicate that vision clearly.21 Vision formation and
communication serve as guides to action (e.g., the "what" but not neces­
sarily the "how," as Patton suggested) .22 Charismatic or transformational
leaders can positively transform and empower their followers,23 and
achieve many positive organizational changes.^* By verbalizing a focused
vision leaders contribute to the integration of activities. Osborne and
Gaebler suggested in their book Reinventing Government that leaders in
public organizations should stick to steering (purpose and problem defi­
nition) as opposed to rowing (developing solutions).25 Instead of rules
and procedures guiding action, the vision and goals espoused by the
leadership of the organization serve as the coordination and control
mechanisms. Table 1 provides a listing of useful guidelines for creating
and communicating organizational vision.26

Crisis, Culture and Charisma:The N e w Leader's W o r k in Public Organizations 251

Table I. Guidelines for Creating and Communicating Organizational
Vision

Understand the design and use of forums. Forums allow organizational

members the chance to discuss ideas and plans in an attempt to develop
shared meanings. Many leaders underestimate the value of these
informal discussion sessions.

Seize opportunities to provide interpretation and give direction in difficult

and uncertain situations. This is your chance to change the interpretation
of crises, threats and problems into challenging tasks for the organiza­
tion. It is at these times that visionary leadership is most in demand.

Reveal and name real needs and real conditions. Make sense out of diffi­
cult problems by framing issues in terms that organizational members
can understand.

Help followers frame and reframe issues and strategies. Name and explain
the "what" of the problems, but let the followers suggests the "how" part
of solving the problems.

Offer compelling visions of the future. Give organizational members a

scenario of how the problem will unfold and how it will eventually be
solved.

Champion new and improved ideas. Gather ideas fiom many sources.
Foster an environment which values innovation and experimentation.

Detail actions and expected consequences. Explain what the consequences

of the difficulties are and give the members a plan of action for solving
those problems.

Adapted from Bryson, J. M., 1995. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit
Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, pp.
221-224. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Charisma is not something endowed by divine forces, as was once

believed.27 Charisma is an attribute. It is a manifestation of the belief
among followers that the leader possesses or exhibits charismatic quali­
ties. And even though it seems that charisma, as an all-or-nothing
quality, is overused in daily conversations about leaders and leadership,
it is possible for formerly non-charismatic individuals to be trained to act
more charismatically.28 Charismatic leaders are not necessarily boastful or
flamboyant. Sam Walton exercised a style of quiet leadership which was
perceived to be very charismatic (and successful). For followers to
attribute charisma to an individual, they must hold a particularly strong
emotional reaction to, identification with, and belief in that person?^

252 Public Personr)el Mar)agement Volume 28 N o . 2 Summer 1999

 Followers of charismatic leaders have been found to accept the leader
without question, trust in the leader's beliefs, show willing obedience to
the leader, identify with the leader, and try to emulate him/her.^o The
bond which develops between the leader and followers, if nurtured, can
produce some pretty substantial changes. Individuals working under a
charismatic leader have been found to have higher task performance,
task adjustment, and adjustment to the leader and the group.^i The attri­
bution of charisma depends on the simultaneous interaction of the situa­
tional context (i.e., crisis), the characteristics of the followers (i.e., norms,
values, culture), and the qualities exhibited by the leader. The charismatic
bond may ultimately represent a manifestation of the need of followers
during times of crisis for centralized authority.32 In return for obedience
and service, the followers expect that charismatic leaders will provide
direction and focus. Such "framing" or guidance may serve as a stress
reduction mechanism and could, perhaps, lead to less absenteeism and
turnover. There may be great danger in such bonds in that some leaders
may abuse the relationship by pursuing leader-driven instead of
follower-driven goals,33 and that is always a possibility. However, power
which is controlling or coercive will eventually destroy the bonds
between leader and follower. When charismatic leadership is directed
toward the accomplishment of organizational goals and to the benefit of
the organization, increases in productivity, performance, and satisfaction
will be the result.^* Remember, it is not the person alone which engen­
ders the attribution of charisma, but the vision the person communicates
(i.e., the path out of crisis) that is responsible for the charismatic bond
between leader and followers.

Implications for Public Organizations

Public organizations have been characterized as diverse and
fragmented.35 Perhaps it is time to rethink our conception of the basic
work of public organizations. Upheaval and change are becoming the
standard operating procedure for many public organizations, yet these
organizations continue to focus on the mechanics of rule interpretation
and application instead of developing the distinctive competence of
adaptation in their human resources. The problem is not change itself,
but the lack of leadership for change.
New leaders in public organizations must first recognize the realities of
their changing environments. Public administration is no longer a stable
industry; nor is it a place for those who cannot innovate and inspire.
Leadership in public organizations must be fundamentally customer-
oriented and purposefully entrepreneurial. When leaders view their
subordinates as their immediate customers, they enact an environment
of reciprocity. The subordinates, in turn, can then figure out how best to
serve their external customers. Entrepreneurism can be stimulated by the

Crisis, Culture and Charisma:The N e w Leader's W o r k in Public Organizations 253

creation of crisis. Identifying new missions and programs can help
generate new ideas and insights concerning public service.
What is certain is that no one element alone can bring about the needed
changes. The new leadership is a combination of some pretty old, but effec­
tive ideas. It is about what all leadership is about - the interaction of envi­
ronment, followers, and the leader; and crisis, culture, and charisma. Vision
is the glue which binds the three elements. A clear vision can be translated
into action, policy, and job-related behavioral guidelines.^^ Without clear
vision, the stimulation or identification of crisis will only lead to further
fragmentation and dilution of effort. Without effective communication, the
vision remains nothing more than an unfulfilled idea. Motivation is noth­
ing without direction, and even the best organizations can suffer failure
unless the path to the communicated goals is made clear. And, without
crisis and a corresponding vision, there is littie chance that charismatic
qualities will be attributed to the leader. Without such an attribution, lead­
ers can never hope to lead their organizations to perform beyond expecta­
tions, no matter how much they might wish for it.
In the absence of increased budgets for equipment and resources, public
organizations have but one resource left with which to accomplish their
expanded and diverse new missions—people. If we are to continue to
experience the same4dnd of productivity gains in service operations (like
public government) that we have experienced in recent years in the
manufacturing sector, we must increasingly rely on improvements in
human productivity. Selection, training, and appropriate reward systems
can help leaders build adaptive organizational cultures, which will not
only succeed in crisis environments, but excel. In biological terms, such
organizations will survive because they represent successful adaptations
to their environment. Leadership is the key to the survival of the fittest
public organizations. Unless leaders in public organizations engage in the
new work of adaptive culture formation and training, the only outcome
which appears practical is extinction.
This discussion of the new work of leaders in public organizations has
only scratched the surface and outlined the "what" to do and not the
"how" to do it. As with any complex and formidable task, the first and
primary step is for someone to decide that the work must be done.
Harnessing the interactive elements of crisis, culture, and charisma
presents new leaders in public organizations with a powerful strategic
weapon for survival, but beyond that, these tools help in the broader, yet
unchanging, mission of providing high quality public service at the
lowest cost possible. It appears to be time for some new leaders to take
the first and requisite step.

254 Public Personnel Management Volume 28 N o . 2 Summer 1999

Notes
' Lipset, S. M. and Schneider, W. 1987. The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the
Public Mind. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2 Bryson, J. M. 1995. Strategie Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A guide to
Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass;
Rainey, Η, G. 1991. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
3 Chase, G. and Reveal, E. C. 1983. How to Manage in the Public Sector Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley
* Bryson, J. M. 1995. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A guide to
Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5 Volcker Commission. 1989. Leadership for America: Rebuilding the Public Service. Lexington, MA;
Heath.
' Prahalad, C. K. and Bettis, R. 1988. "The dominant logic: A new link between diversity and
performance," Strategic Management Journal, 7: 485-501.
7 Chase, G. and Reveal, E. C. 1983. How to Manage in the Public Sector Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley; Rainey, Η. G. 1991. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
8 Madsen, D. and Snow, R G. 1991. The Charismatic Bond: Political Behavior in Time of Crisis.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uruversity Press.
» Bryson, J. M. 1995. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A guide to
Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10 Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row; Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and
Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press; Bass, B. M. 1990. "From transac­
tional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision," Organizational Dynamics,
Winter: 19-31.
" Rosen, R. 1985. Anticipatory Systems. New York, NY: Pergamon.
12 Porter, M. E. 1990. "The competitive advantage of nations," Harvard Business Review, 90(2): 73-
93.
13 Puryear, E. Ε 1987. 19 Stars: A Study in Military Character and Leadership. Novato, CA: Presidio
Press.
κ Duncan, R. B. 1976. "The ambidextrous orgaiuzation: Designing dual structures for innova­
tion," in Ralph H. Killman, Louis R. Pondy, and Dennis Slevin (Eds.), The Management of
Organization, 1:167-188. New York, NY: North Holland.
15 Wagner, J. A. and Hollenbeck, J. R. III. 1998. Organizational Behavior: Securing Competitive
Advantage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: P*rentice-Hall.
1* Lipton, M. 19%. "Demystifying the development of an organizational vision," Sloan
Management Review, Sununer: 83-92.
17 Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M. 1988. "Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond," In J.
G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. Ε Dachler, and C. A. Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas.
Lexington, MA: Lexington; Boal, K. B. and Bryson, J. M. 1988. "Charismatic leadership: A
phenomenological and structural approach," In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. Ε Dachler, and C.
A. Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas. Lexington, MA: Lexington; Kets de Vries, M.
Ε R. 1989. Prisoners of Leadership. New York, NY WUey

18 Hughes, G. D. 1990. "Managing high-tech product cycles," Academy of Management Executive,

4(2): 44-55.
1' Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Crisis, Culture and Charisma:The N e w Leader's W o r k in Public Organizations 255

20 Avolio, Β. J. and Bass, B. M. 1988. "Transformational leaderstiip, charisma and beyond," In
J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. R Dachler, and C. A. Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas.
Lexington, MA: Lexington; Boal, K. B. and Bryson, J. M. 1988. "Charismatic leadership: A
phenomenological and structural approach," In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. Ρ Dachler, and
C. A. Schreisheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
21 Bennis, W. 1984. "The four competencies of leadership," Training and Development Journal,
15-19.
22 Lipton, M. 19%. "Demystifying the development of an organizational vision," Sloan
Management Review, Summer: 83-92.
23 House, R. ]., Spangler, W. D., and Wyocke, J. 1991. "Personality and charisma in the U.S.
Presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36: 364-3%; Block, R 1993. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-interest. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett- Koehler.
24 House, R. J., Spangier, W. D., and Wyocke, J. 1991. "Personality and charisma in the U.S.
Presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36: 364-3%.
25 Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. 1992. Reinventing Government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2* Bryson, J. M. 1995. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit OrganiTations: A guide to
Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement, pp. 222-223. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
27 Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. (A. M. Henderson and Τ
Parsons, trans.). New York, NY: Free Press.
28 Howell, J. M. and Frost, R J. 1989. "A laboratory study of charismatic leadership,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2): 243-269.
25 Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press;
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. 1987. "Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leader­
ship in organizational settings," Academy of Management Review, 12(4): 637-647.
30 House, R. J. and Baetz, M. L. 1979. "Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new
research directions," In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT
JAI.
31 Howell, J. M. and Frost, R J. 1989. "A laboratory study of charismatic leadership," Organiza­
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2): 243-269.
32 Madsen, D. and Snow, R G. 1991. The Charismatic Bond: Political Behavior in Time of Crisis.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33 Howell, J. M. 1988. "The two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in
organizations," in J. A. Conger and R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive
Factor in Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3· Howell, J. M. and Frost, Ε J. 1989. "A laboratory study of charismatic leadership," Organiza­
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2): 243-269; House, R. J. and Baetz, M. L. 1979.
"Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions," In B. M. Staw
(Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT JAI.

35 Rainey, Η. G. 1991. Understanding and Matmging Public Organizations. San Frandsco, CA:
Jossey- Bass.
36 Lipton, M. 19%. "Demystifying the development of an organizational vision," Sloan
Management Review, Summer: 83-92.

256 Public Personnel Managendem Volume 28 N o . 2 Summer 1999

Author
Matthew Valle
Managing Principal
Engineering & Management Southeast
RO. Box 10197
Dothan, Alabama 36304

Matthew Valle is Managing Principal and Director of Management Services for

Engineering and Management Southeast. He received his Ph.D. in Business
Administration from Florida State University. He has been published in numerous
journals such as Educational and Psychological Measurement, Social Behavior and
Personality, Business and Economic Review, and Psychological Reports.

Crisis, Culture and Charisma:The N e w Leader's W o r k in Public Organizations 257