A Meta‐Analysis to Review Organizational Outcomes Related to Charismatic Leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study applied meta‐analysis to assess the relationship between charismatic leadership style and leadership effectiveness, subordinate performance, subordinate satisfaction, subordinate effort, and subordinate commitment. Results indicate that the relationship between leader charisma and leader effectiveness is much weaker than reported in the published literature when leader effectiveness is measured at the individual level of analysis and when common method variance is controlled. Results also indicate a smaller relationship between charismatic leadership and subordinate performance when subordinate performance is measured at the individual level (r = 0.31) than when it is measured at the group level (r = 0.49 and robust across studies). These results suggest that charismatic leadership is more effective at increasing group performance than at increasing individual performance. Other moderators tested did not account for a significant portion of variance in the observed distribution of correlations, suggesting a need for further research into other potential moderators. Meta‐analysis examining the effects of charismatic leadership on subordinate effort and job satisfaction revealed lower correlations when multiple methods of measurement were used, with little convergence toward stable population estimates. Résumé La méta‐analyse a servi à évaluer le rapport entre le style de leadership charismatique et l'efficacité d'un tel style de leadership ainsi que le rendement, la satisfaction, l'effort et l'engagement des subalternes. Les résul‐tats obtenus indiquent que le rapport entre le charisme et l'efficacité du leader est beaucoup plusfaible que le pro‐posent les textes publiés à ce sujet lorsque l'efficacité du leader est mesurée au niveau individuel et lorsque la variance de la méthode commune est contrǒlée. Les résultats obtenus révèlent également un rapport moindre entre le leadership charismatique et le rendement des subalternes lorsque ce rendement est mesuré au niveau individuel (r = 0.31) qu'au niveau du groupe (r = 0,49 et notable parmi toutes les études passées en revue). Ces résultats suggèrent qu'un leadership charismatique con‐tribue davantage à accroǐtre le rendement du groupe que le rendement individuel. Les autres modérateurs mis à l'essai ne représented pas une portion significative de la variance dans la distribution des corrélations observées, ce qui laisser suggérer qu'une autre recherche serait nécessaire pour vérifier d'autres modérateurs potentiels. La méta‐analyse qui étudie l'incidence du leadership charismatique sur l'effort des subalternes et la satisfaction professionnelle démontre des corrélations moins marquées, lorsque des méthodes de mesure multiples one été utilisées, de měme qu'une convergence minime à l'égard des estimations de population stable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".