Cited by 1,302Employee Performance and LeadershipLeadership and Management in OrganizationsJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

A Critical Assessment of Charismatic—Transformational Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?

van Knippenberg, Daan, Sitkin, Sim B.·2013·Academy of Management Annals

Abstract

There is a widely shared consensus that charismatic–transformational leadership is a particularly effective form of leadership. In a critical assessment of the state-of-the-science in this area of research, we question the validity of that conclusion. We identify four problems with theory and research in charismatic–transformational leadership. First, a clear conceptual definition of charismatic–transformational leadership is lacking. Current theories advance multi-dimensional conceptualizations of charismatic–transformational leadership without specifying how these different dimensions combine to form charismatic–transformational leadership, or how dimensions are selected for inclusion or exclusion. Second, theories fail to sufficiently specify the causal model capturing how each dimension has a distinct influence on mediating processes and outcomes and how this is contingent on moderating influences. Third, conceptualization and operationalization confounds charismatic–transformational leadership with its effects. Fourth, the most frequently used measurement tools are invalid in that they fail to reproduce the dimensional structure specified by theory and fail to achieve empirical distinctiveness from other aspects of leadership. Given that these problems are fundamental and inherent in the approaches analyzed, it is recommended that current approaches be abandoned, and that the field forego the label of charismatic–transformational leadership in favor of the study of more…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/19416520.2013.759433

Cites

169 of 169 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) identified numerous problems with transformational leadership theory and measurement.

    “Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) identified numerous problems with transformational leadership theory and measurement.”

    From The evolution of leadership: Past insights, present trends, and future directions (2025) · cites this paper as van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013

  • Critiques of transformational and authentic leadership point out that the conceptualisation and operationalisation of these prominent leadership styles confound the variable with its effects.

    “Both critiques point out that the conceptualisation and operationalisation of these prominent leadership styles confound the variable with its effects.”

    From A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship (2021) · cites this paper as van Knippenberg & Sitkin 2013

  • Sustained efforts to the contrary confound characteristics with behaviors and behaviors with their effects, creating dangerous threats to validity that undermine the utility of leadership research.

    “Sustained efforts to the contrary confound characteristics with behaviors and behaviors with their effects, creating dangerous threats to validity that undermine the utility of leadership research (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).”
  • Focusing on component-level items increases construct validity because it reduces the risk of measuring a phenomenon by its antecedents or outcomes.

    “An additional advantage to focusing on component-level items is that narrower item breadth further increases construct validity because it reduces the risk of measuring a phenomenon by its antecedents or outcomes, a practice that creates an additional threat to validity that is germane to the moral leadership and the broader leadership literature alike (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).”
  • Questions of similar theory, mechanisms, measurements, and outcomes have been asked of virtually all branches of leadership research for decades.

    “questions of similar theory, mechanisms, measurements, and outcomes have been asked of virtually all branches of leadership research for decades”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B.
Affiliations
  • Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
Academy of Management Annals
Published
2013-06
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
1-60
ISSN
  • 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-6520
OpenAlex
W4232157136
Cited by
1,302
References
168
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 126 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 113 · 2020: 131 · 2019: 104 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 76 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 1
FWCI
163.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academy of Management Annals (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
charismatic leadership, transformational leadership, leadership theory, conceptual definitions, causal models, measurement validity, dimensional structure, operationalization, mediating mechanisms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review