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

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006, Page 57
energy companies, Enron Corp. is that gate-crashing Elvis‖ (quoted in Sherman, 2002,
p.23).
Consistent with their image in the business press, Enron‘s leaders engaged in ever more
dramatic forms of self promotion. It may be a stretch to imagine Kenneth Lay, a middle
aged businessman, as a latter day Elvis. Nevertheless, he was also described by Fortune
magazine as a ―revolutionary‖. Jeffrey Skilling was equally adept at promoting a charismatic
self image. Consistent with a company wide dramaturgical predilection for Star Wars
analogies, Cruver (2003. p.10) recounts that he was known internally as Darth Vader, ―a
master of the energy universe who had the ability to control people‘s minds. He was at the
peak of his strength, and he intimidated everyone. He had been lured over to the Dark Side
from McKinsey &Company in 1990‖. He dressed for the part at company gatherings,
referred to his traders as ―Storm Troopers‖ and decorated his home in a style sympathetic
to the Darth Vader image (Schwartz, 2002). Skilling was also sometimes known as ―The
Prince,‖ after Machiavelli. New recruits were instructed to read The Prince from beginning to
end, or be eaten alive (Boje et al, 2004). Dramatic nomenclatures were not uncommon.
Another senior executive, Rebecca Mark, became known as ―Mark the Shark‖, with all its
attendant overtones of predatory aggression and greater competitive power (Frey, 2002).
This tone appears to be typical of the unusually charismatic and extremely powerful image
which Lay and Skilling, in particular, attempted to promulgate at every opportunity. It was
clearly part of an intense dramaturgical effort designed to project an unusually alluring
spectacle, and thereby convince people that they belonged to a cause far greater than
merely being part of a business or working for a living. Hagiographic accounts of their
accomplishments were correspondingly widespread, including in an influential book by
Hamel (2000), entitled appropriately enough ―Leading the Revolution‖. Faculty at the
prestigious Harvard Business School produced eleven case studies into Enron, uniformly
lauding its ―successes‖ and commending its business model to others.
Within cults, leaders tend to live in extraordinary wealth – a disparity which is used to
reinforce the impression that the people concerned have extraordinary abilities, insight and
charisma. Opulence certainly characterised the lifestyle enjoyed by Enron‘s top executives.
For example, Kenneth Lay had Enron pay $7.1 million for a penthouse apartment, which he
and his wife converted into a Venetian palace with dark woods, deep velvets, period
statuary, and a vaulted brick ceiling in the kitchen (Swartz and Watkins, 2003). The
implication was that others could some day hope to obtain similar privileges for themselves
– providing they embraced the value system and vision articulated by the leaders, emulated
their behaviours and suppressed whatever critical internal voices occasionally threatened to
surface.
It thus became a further means of enforcing conformity with the vision of the charismatic
leader, and obtaining enthusiastic demonstrations of support for whatever the general
direction of the organisation was proclaimed to be.
2. Compelling Vision—Intellectual Stimulation
Typically, cults are organized around what has been defined as a ―totalistic‖ (that is, all
embracing) vision of a new world order, way of being or form of organisation. The group‘s
leaders suggest that their vision is capable of transforming an otherwise impure reality. It
constitutes an inspirational new paradigm. Converts, dazzled by the spectacle, develop a
mood of absolute conviction. This immunizes them against doubt. No evidence is ever
judged sufficient to falsify the belief system in question. Such moods have been defined as
―ideological totalism‖ (Lifton, 1961). The messianic leader of the organization seeks ever
more enthusiastic expressions of agreement from the organization‘s members. Dissent is
resistance to be overcome, rather than useful feedback. Plausibility is often simply a
question of uncontested belief. Hence, consistent with the principle of consensual validation