The Double-Edged Sword of Charisma: Resistance to Charisma in Leadership Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While charismatic leadership has long been hailed as inspiring, unifying, and driving success, its other side makes it a potentially manipulative and exploitative agent in ethical breaches. The paper seeks to discuss the dark side of charisma through the understanding of pseudo-transformational leadership, toxic triangles, and cultural issues that help or hinder manipulative management behaviors. Drawing from organizational and cultural perspectives, this work discusses both preventive and corrective stigmatization mechanisms in the view of countering noxious effects that come with the practice of unethical charisma, such as transparency culture and institutional checks and balances in symbolic signaling, making organizations resilient and responsible. Discussion of this study emphasizes balancing charisma with competence, integrity, and ethical leadership toward sustainability in organizational development. The research hence contributes to the understanding of how an organization can minimize risks due to charismatic leadership while capitalizing on its positive potentials.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".