Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 101
elements, Berg offered innovative ideas and an inspiring message. However, in accord with
the pseudo-transformational style, his reactions and behavior were not easily customized to
reflect the individual desires and abilities of members, nor could he offer highly contingent
reinforcement. He did not ignore his own self-interest, used reactive (punishment based)
control, was highly intolerant of dissent or of member innovation, and hardly could be called
a person whose moral sense was impeccable. Rather than an optimistic approach, he relied
on fear based manipulations to redirect norms and behavior within his fiefdom. In short,
there exists reasonable correspondence between Berg‘s leadership style and the pseudo-
transformational style described by Bass (1998).
Alteration of Goals and Policy as a Leadership Tactic in Totalist Groups: Group Life
as Drama
One distinctive feature marking the groups we have discussed is that all three groups
seemed to be in a state of evolutionary flux—a characteristic marking many totalist groups
(Hoffer, 1951 Sargant, 1957). In such groups, leaders commonly change the group
doctrine and even group definition. One possible interpretation of this change is that it
represents a tactic used by leaders to remain ―one step ahead‖ of the membership in terms
of being a prototypic group member (Hogg, 2001). One fact that is congruent with this
view is that these norms tend to change so that they define positions that heighten the
distinction between the in-group and salient out-groups --a key process according to a
social identity perspective. This was certainly true in the three groups examined in this
chapter, and also tends to be true in other totalist groups, as well (Kelly, 1995).
An equally plausible interpretation of such induced change is that it creates a sense of
mystery regarding group doctrine. Such mystery would maintain the leader‘s status as
expert and necessary interpreter of that doctrine. A related reason leaders may encourage
or generate such change is that it fosters feelings of excitement, growth and challenge
thereby holding the interest of group members. This idea suggests that attraction to such
groups is, in part, a function of the drama and excitement it provides for members. This
―drama‖ interpretation has some similarity with the Transformational perspective in that
such excitement would heighten the extent to which the leader was seen as an inspirational,
and innovative leader, i.e., as a source of such drama and diversion.
However, theories of leadership and group process have heretofore not emphasized the
notion that drama-based excitement is a benefit that often is provided by group life. In
addition to serving this diversion function, a change in group doctrine provides leaders with
a ―loyalty test‖ that can be applied to the followers by instituting change, the leader can
discern who is committed enough to embrace whatever transformation of group purpose
and group values is introduced. Such tests can be used to discern who should be rewarded,
trusted, punished, banished, or manipulated. This assures that those remaining closest to
power will be likely to comply with the leader‘s interpretations and commands. Finally,
inducing changes in doctrine, goals, etc. provides the leader with a means of eliciting a
series of ―escalating commitments‖ from followers. Repetitive, and costly personal
transformations represent an effective means of creating cognitive dissonance among
disciples thereby heightening members‘ loyalty and commitment to the group and its leader
(Baron, 2000 Pratkanis &Aronson, 2000).
Summary and Conclusions
We have considered three groups that have certain superficial differences but a number of
disturbing commonalties. First, transformational change is a theme common to these three
groups. A second common feature is that Bass‘s description of pseudo-transformational
leadership provides a reasonable fit to these three case histories, especially given the
nature of the morally questionable, self-centered and manipulative charismatic style
adopted by these leaders. Third, all three groups exposed members to stressful and
elements, Berg offered innovative ideas and an inspiring message. However, in accord with
the pseudo-transformational style, his reactions and behavior were not easily customized to
reflect the individual desires and abilities of members, nor could he offer highly contingent
reinforcement. He did not ignore his own self-interest, used reactive (punishment based)
control, was highly intolerant of dissent or of member innovation, and hardly could be called
a person whose moral sense was impeccable. Rather than an optimistic approach, he relied
on fear based manipulations to redirect norms and behavior within his fiefdom. In short,
there exists reasonable correspondence between Berg‘s leadership style and the pseudo-
transformational style described by Bass (1998).
Alteration of Goals and Policy as a Leadership Tactic in Totalist Groups: Group Life
as Drama
One distinctive feature marking the groups we have discussed is that all three groups
seemed to be in a state of evolutionary flux—a characteristic marking many totalist groups
(Hoffer, 1951 Sargant, 1957). In such groups, leaders commonly change the group
doctrine and even group definition. One possible interpretation of this change is that it
represents a tactic used by leaders to remain ―one step ahead‖ of the membership in terms
of being a prototypic group member (Hogg, 2001). One fact that is congruent with this
view is that these norms tend to change so that they define positions that heighten the
distinction between the in-group and salient out-groups --a key process according to a
social identity perspective. This was certainly true in the three groups examined in this
chapter, and also tends to be true in other totalist groups, as well (Kelly, 1995).
An equally plausible interpretation of such induced change is that it creates a sense of
mystery regarding group doctrine. Such mystery would maintain the leader‘s status as
expert and necessary interpreter of that doctrine. A related reason leaders may encourage
or generate such change is that it fosters feelings of excitement, growth and challenge
thereby holding the interest of group members. This idea suggests that attraction to such
groups is, in part, a function of the drama and excitement it provides for members. This
―drama‖ interpretation has some similarity with the Transformational perspective in that
such excitement would heighten the extent to which the leader was seen as an inspirational,
and innovative leader, i.e., as a source of such drama and diversion.
However, theories of leadership and group process have heretofore not emphasized the
notion that drama-based excitement is a benefit that often is provided by group life. In
addition to serving this diversion function, a change in group doctrine provides leaders with
a ―loyalty test‖ that can be applied to the followers by instituting change, the leader can
discern who is committed enough to embrace whatever transformation of group purpose
and group values is introduced. Such tests can be used to discern who should be rewarded,
trusted, punished, banished, or manipulated. This assures that those remaining closest to
power will be likely to comply with the leader‘s interpretations and commands. Finally,
inducing changes in doctrine, goals, etc. provides the leader with a means of eliciting a
series of ―escalating commitments‖ from followers. Repetitive, and costly personal
transformations represent an effective means of creating cognitive dissonance among
disciples thereby heightening members‘ loyalty and commitment to the group and its leader
(Baron, 2000 Pratkanis &Aronson, 2000).
Summary and Conclusions
We have considered three groups that have certain superficial differences but a number of
disturbing commonalties. First, transformational change is a theme common to these three
groups. A second common feature is that Bass‘s description of pseudo-transformational
leadership provides a reasonable fit to these three case histories, especially given the
nature of the morally questionable, self-centered and manipulative charismatic style
adopted by these leaders. Third, all three groups exposed members to stressful and
