Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are two of the more popular theories currently. Much is being researched and published on these two by numerous scholars. "The word charisma was first used to describe a special gift that certain individuals possess that gives them the capacity to do extraordinary things." Therefore this necessarily must be a construct that is internal to the leader himself or herself. Reflect on Table 2.1 of the Northouse book. What traits do you see listed there in those lists that resemble charisma? Question #1: Support or refute the following statement: Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both predicated on a construct internal to the leader, so in our integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the situation, it properly resides internal to the leader. Kind of like a trait. "In his theory of charismatic leadership, House suggested that charismatic leaders act in unique ways that have specific charismatic effects on their followers." Northouse continues. Later, he clarifies, "In summary, charismatic leadership works because it ties followers and their self-concepts to the organizational identity." Question #2: Support or refute the following statement: Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both predicated on a construct internal to the follower, so in our integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the situation, it properly resides internal to the follower Professor Northouse continues, "Consistent with Weber, House contends that these charismatic effects are more likely to occur in contexts in which followers feel distress because in stressful situations followers look to leaders to deliver them from difficulty." In James MacGregor Burns's book Leadership he addresses: "Charisma occurs when there is a social crisis." And, further: "A leader with exceptional personal qualities emerges with a radical vision that provides a solution to the crisis and attracts followers who believe in the vision and perceive the leader to be extraordinary." Question #3: Support or refute the following statement: Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both predicated on a construct internal to the situation, so in our integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the situation, it properly resides internal to the situation. Worthy of note... Please observe in the section addressing the criticisms of the theories, "Transformational leaders often play a direct role in creating change..." Back in chapter 1, the word "change was uttered some sixteen times by my count. Yet, in the comments posted in Discussions, I read "change" about three times, and that was mostly focused on how the definition of leadership had changed over time. So, the chapter defining leadership addresses change multiple times, but doesn't include it in the definition. Question #4: Why wouldn't change be an integral part of our definition of leadership? Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are two of the more popular theories currently. Much is being researched and published on these two by numerous scholars. "The word charisma was first used to describe a special gift that certain individuals possess that gives them the capacity to do extraordinary things." Therefore this necessarily must be a construct that is internal to the leader himself or herself. Reflect on Table 2.1 of the Northouse book. What traits do you see listed there in those lists that resemble charisma? Question #1: Support or refute the following statement: Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both predicated on a construct internal to the leader, so in our integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the situation, it properly resides internal to the leader. Kind of like a trait. "In his theory of charismatic leadership, House suggested that charismatic leaders act in unique ways that have specific charismatic effects on their followers." Northouse continues. Later, he clarifies, "In summary, charismatic leadership works because it ties followers and their self-concepts to the organizational identity." Question #2: Support or refute the following statement: Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both predicated on a construct internal to the follower, so in our integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the situation, it properly resides internal to the follower Professor Northouse continues, "Consistent with Weber, House contends that these charismatic effects are more likely to occur in contexts in which followers feel distress because in stressful situations followers look to leaders to deliver them from difficulty." In James MacGregor Burns's book Leadership he addresses: "Charisma occurs when there is a social crisis." And, further: "A leader with exceptional personal qualities emerges with a radical vision that provides a solution to the crisis and attracts followers who believe in the vision and perceive the leader to be extraordinary." Question #3: Support or refute the following statement: Transformational Leadership and Charismatic Leadership are both predicated on a construct internal to the situation, so in our integrative model that involves the leader, the follower, and the situation, it properly resides internal to the situation. Worthy of note... Please observe in the section addressing the criticisms of the theories, "Transformational leaders often play a direct role in creating change..." Back in chapter 1, the word "change was uttered some sixteen times by my count. Yet, in the comments posted in Discussions, I read "change" about three times, and that was mostly focused on how the definition of leadership had changed over time. So, the chapter defining leadership addresses change multiple times, but doesn't include it in the definition. Question #4: Why wouldn't change be an integral part of our definition of leadership