What does Weber mean by charismatic authority How and why does he Essay

What does Weber mean by charismatic authority How and why does he contrast it to bureaucracy - Essay Example Much progress had been made, but he was not at all confident that that progress could raise human beings to the required moral status that was needed to ensure the world would be a livable place. One problem he had was the way current social scientists were analyzing history and social activity. They all seem to think that the world was on a route of progress, hence their evaluation of history was framed from valued, or normative points of views. Weber created the use of "ideal type" to analyze social data and activity such that values could be separated for observations and theorists could make empirically based views. An ideal type became a concept marking regularities of meaningful action. The ideal type model would enable precise definitions for comparison and measurement of social reality. In his analysis of leadership ideal types that have evolved through history, he created three models. These were the legal or bureaucratic leader, the authority leader, and the charismatic lea der. This report will concentrate on "charismatic authority" and will contrast it to "bureaucracy". It will view how charismatic authority may contribute to a sociological understanding of power in modern society. Discussion How has the concept of ‘leader’ risen in society and in what way has it became an authority figure? Weber attempted to not make value judgments as he outlined his leadership types. Hence he was able to accept as a fact that the bureaucratic leader existed, alone with the traditional and charismatic ones. Although the route that the leader took to authority may have involved injustice or arbitrary actions, Weber's task was to describe the various types and how they came to be accepted (Titunik 65). The bureaucratic or legal leader represented the impersonal type leader that worked efficiently in such organizations as businesses, schools, and even church hierarchies and hospitals. They were the officials of an organization who ruled not on personal lo yalties, but on clear hierarchic chains of command that were organized on systems of intentionally created abstract rules. There were rules of conduct and specified roles were marked out. There were distinct spheres of ownership and staff and staff was paid more or less for skills that were acquired and recognize to operate on the position. One of the problems dealing with bureaucratic leadership was that many times it could be seen as lording over an emotionless 'iron cage' (Weber 181). The traditional leader evolved from a historical patriarch whose position was that of a personal master who ruled over his subjects. He was more or less limited by traditional laws and his rule was held up by faithful followers who had received benefits. It is the charismatic leader whom Weber seems to spend much time on. This particular leader came to power through recognition of his exceptional powers as a hero, as a person who took the ultimate self-sacrifice. His followers are mesmerized before him and had accepted his otherworldly nature. He has exemplary character. He is able to bring meaning into the lives of his follower and he can give them goals and images to internalize and believe in to "transcend their own limited existence" (Conger et al 751). The charismatic leader releases his followers from "custom, law and tradition", even from family responsibilities and, most importantly, from their own conscience (Conger et al 751). Dow sees it as an ideal type and an emotional life-force that "remains forever beyond the reach of bureaucratic domination† (Dow 85). Charismatic leadership directly contrasts bureaucratic leadership. Dow suggests that Weber celebrated ‘charisma as an â€Å"emotional life-force† antagonistic to the dreary construction of the iron cage’† (Dow 85). Yet, today they both can be seen operating easily in tantrum. One