1. It is assumed that the relationships in a dyad bear differentiated character, depending on the following factors: a) how competent and qualified the subordinates are; b) to which the extent they can be trusted (especially when there is no direct control from the leader), and c) how much the subordinates are willing to take responsibility for solving the issues relating to the organization. Subordinates with a high degree of manifestation of the abovementioned features (so-called in-group members) start being the ones preferred by the leader (Yukl, 2010).
Making labor contributions that exceed the scope of their official formal functions and taking responsibility for performing tasks, which are especially important for the success of their working group or organization as a whole, these subordinates, in turn, obtain a preferential attention from the leader, as well as higher support from leader’s side. Generally, in dyadic relations (in the case of a high exchange), a leader and his/her follower equally participate in the formation of these relations: they are exchanging with their benefits: 1) greater status, more influence, rewards, and praise – from the leader; and b) hard work that goes beyond the narrow framework of formal duties (i.e., motivation for ultra-achievements), support of the aspirations of the leader – from the follower. The subordinates sharing high exchange level with the leader are not only influenced by him/her, but, in turn, influence the leader themselves.
2. The basis of dyadic relations is social expectations, with which the behavior of each member of the couple should conform; only under this condition the dyad is functioning normally. Among the many aspects of social interaction this approach is considered applicable to a special attention is paid to relations of power, interdependence and interpersonal accommodation (adaptation). According to Thibaut and Kelley, the matrix of outcomes helps greatly in evaluating the examples of interdependence of the dyad members, as well as in the assessment of process through which participants influence and control each other (Yukl, 2010). The possibility of the power of one party over another, showed by the matrix, consists in the ability to control the outcome of another, i.e., his\her rewards-costs. According to Thibaut and Kelley, power in a dyad is a function of ability of one party to influence the quality of outcomes of another (Yukl, 2010). The criterion of “alternatives comparison level”ť appears to be a very important indicator of stability of power and dependency relationships in a dyad. Thus, if the average outcomes of this relationship are lower than the average outcomes available in the best alternative relationship, the basics of power and dependence in such dyadic relationship will be weak and it will eventually collapse.
3. There are important differences between transformational and charismatic leaders.
Charisma as a basis of charismatic leadership is a necessary but insufficient component of transformational leadership. Some people, for instance, movie stars are charismatic, but have no transformative influence on the majority of followers. Transformational leaders influence the followers evoking strong emotions, but they do it for humane reasons. They strive to devolve to the followers by developing their independence and enforcing their faith in themselves. They aspire to improve an individual, an organization or the whole society. Charismatic leaders, on the contrary, sometimes tend to enslave the followers keeping them weak and dependent. They are interested in personal loyalty rather than devotion to ideals and values (Yukl, 2010; Barbuto, 2005). This contrast can be illustrated by the example of Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi on the one hand, who used their charismatic opportunities to improve the lives of their followers and the society, and Michael Koresh on the other, whose many followers died in the fire of the siege of Waco.
Trice and Beyer draw a line between charisma and transformational leadership, assuming that charismatic leaders often create new organizations, while transformational leaders change the existing organizations (Barbuto, 2005).
4. Most researchers note another peculiarity of charisma: it can have both constructive and destructive effects. Leaders like Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, Mohandas Gandhi, beyond any doubt, possessed a very strong charisma. However, the same can be said about Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Idi Amin, etc. Charisma is not always used for the benefit of a group, organization and society. Sometimes it can serve selfish goals, which leads to deceit, exploitation, and manipulation of people. Since the basis of charisma is the emotions rather than logic and reason, it is potentially dangerous.
Studies show that the negative side of charisma is associated with the usurpation of personal power or the complete focus of the leader on himself/herself. Leaders who care only about their own interests can definitely bring great harm to others. Personalized charismatic leaders are characterized by self-exaltation, and anti-democratic and exploitative attitude toward people. Personalized charisma can also share the following features (Barbuto, 2005):
”“ Unrestrained desire for power and increased use of this power;
”“ Induction of identification (i.e., the relationships between the leader and a follower are based on the attractiveness of the leader);
”“ Pursuit of goals, representing the benefit to the leaders personally, and inflicted to the followers by deceit or force;
”“ Support for the followers is demonstrated by the leader only if this is to leader’s advantage.
As a result, while the followers of socialized leaders become autonomous, free and responsible, the followers of personalized ones become dependent, subordinate and submissive.