Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 56
extraordinary levels of commitment and adopt behaviours, values and attitudes at odds with
most people‘s sense of normalcy, and which in many cases proved terminal.
Given its potency, the importance of ―vision‖ has been increasingly stressed in the business
world, in a growing volume of largely uncritical practitioner and academic literature (e.g.
Collins, 2001). The intention is that followers should become highly committed to the
leader‘s mission, make significant personal sacrifices in the interests of the mission, and
perform beyond the call of duty (Shamir et al., 1993). These theories highlight such effects
as emotional attachment to the leader on the part of followers, greater emotional and
motivational arousal, increased follower commitment to the mission articulated by the
leader, and enhanced confidence in the leader. Leaders therefore often build their
charismatic reputation around the energetic communication of a vision, designed to solicit
ever higher levels of compliance from followers (e.g. Biggart, 1989).
But the risks are considerable. In particular, Maccoby (2000) suggests that many
charismatic leaders are narcissists. They have a strong need for power, high self-confidence
and strong convictions (De Vries et al., 1999). However, whatever their virtues, narcissists
tend to be overly sensitive to criticism, can be poor listeners, lack empathy, have a distaste
for mentoring and display an intense desire to compete (Maccoby, 2000). In addition,
Conger (1990, p.50) has argued that charismatic leaders may find themselves prone to:
Exaggerated self-descriptions.
Exaggerated claims for the vision.
A technique of fulfilling stereotypes and images of uniqueness to manipulate audiences.
A habit of gaining commitment by restricting negative information and maximizing
positive information.
Use of anecdotes to distract attention away from negative statistical information.
Creation of an illusion of control through affirming information and attributing negative
outcomes to external causes.
The consequences include the elimination of dissent (and therefore the promotion of a
homogenous and insular group mentality, conducive to cultic norms) the accumulation of
power at the center a failure to sufficiently consider alternative courses of action, when
they appear to conflict with a centrally ordained and inspirational vision and a growing
belief on the part of the leader that, other evidence notwithstanding, he or she is
indispensable to the organization‘s success. Despite their attraction for many leaders, there
is a high risk that such approaches ultimately invite failure. Grint (2000, p.420) has pointed
out that the most successful leaders are liable to be those with the least compliant
followers, ―for when leaders err – and they always do – the leader with compliant followers
will fail.‖ Thus, debate and dissent are indispensable for effective decision making. However,
such notions run counter to many of the norms of much leadership practice and theory –
and are rarely to be found in cults. It remains to consider how they fared within Enron.
The Case of Enron
There is ample evidence that Enron‘s leadership aimed at creating an aura of charisma
around themselves, and that in consequence they evinced each of the major defects
identified by Conger (1990). The following quotation from a Fortune magazine article
published in April 2000 is typical of how Enron leaders saw and projected themselves:
―Imagine a country-club dinner dance, with a bunch of old fogies and their wives shuffling
around half-heartedly to the not-so-stirring sounds of Guy Lombardo and his All-Tuxedo
Orchestra. Suddenly young Elvis comes crashing through the skylight, complete with gold-
lame suit, shiny guitar, and gyrating hips… In the staid world of regulated utilities and
extraordinary levels of commitment and adopt behaviours, values and attitudes at odds with
most people‘s sense of normalcy, and which in many cases proved terminal.
Given its potency, the importance of ―vision‖ has been increasingly stressed in the business
world, in a growing volume of largely uncritical practitioner and academic literature (e.g.
Collins, 2001). The intention is that followers should become highly committed to the
leader‘s mission, make significant personal sacrifices in the interests of the mission, and
perform beyond the call of duty (Shamir et al., 1993). These theories highlight such effects
as emotional attachment to the leader on the part of followers, greater emotional and
motivational arousal, increased follower commitment to the mission articulated by the
leader, and enhanced confidence in the leader. Leaders therefore often build their
charismatic reputation around the energetic communication of a vision, designed to solicit
ever higher levels of compliance from followers (e.g. Biggart, 1989).
But the risks are considerable. In particular, Maccoby (2000) suggests that many
charismatic leaders are narcissists. They have a strong need for power, high self-confidence
and strong convictions (De Vries et al., 1999). However, whatever their virtues, narcissists
tend to be overly sensitive to criticism, can be poor listeners, lack empathy, have a distaste
for mentoring and display an intense desire to compete (Maccoby, 2000). In addition,
Conger (1990, p.50) has argued that charismatic leaders may find themselves prone to:
Exaggerated self-descriptions.
Exaggerated claims for the vision.
A technique of fulfilling stereotypes and images of uniqueness to manipulate audiences.
A habit of gaining commitment by restricting negative information and maximizing
positive information.
Use of anecdotes to distract attention away from negative statistical information.
Creation of an illusion of control through affirming information and attributing negative
outcomes to external causes.
The consequences include the elimination of dissent (and therefore the promotion of a
homogenous and insular group mentality, conducive to cultic norms) the accumulation of
power at the center a failure to sufficiently consider alternative courses of action, when
they appear to conflict with a centrally ordained and inspirational vision and a growing
belief on the part of the leader that, other evidence notwithstanding, he or she is
indispensable to the organization‘s success. Despite their attraction for many leaders, there
is a high risk that such approaches ultimately invite failure. Grint (2000, p.420) has pointed
out that the most successful leaders are liable to be those with the least compliant
followers, ―for when leaders err – and they always do – the leader with compliant followers
will fail.‖ Thus, debate and dissent are indispensable for effective decision making. However,
such notions run counter to many of the norms of much leadership practice and theory –
and are rarely to be found in cults. It remains to consider how they fared within Enron.
The Case of Enron
There is ample evidence that Enron‘s leadership aimed at creating an aura of charisma
around themselves, and that in consequence they evinced each of the major defects
identified by Conger (1990). The following quotation from a Fortune magazine article
published in April 2000 is typical of how Enron leaders saw and projected themselves:
―Imagine a country-club dinner dance, with a bunch of old fogies and their wives shuffling
around half-heartedly to the not-so-stirring sounds of Guy Lombardo and his All-Tuxedo
Orchestra. Suddenly young Elvis comes crashing through the skylight, complete with gold-
lame suit, shiny guitar, and gyrating hips… In the staid world of regulated utilities and
