Abstract:

The main goal of this paper is to compare and contrast two charismatic leaders, one who is positive and

the other who had a dark charisma with the value and ethics factor and to serve as a guideline for any

budding leader. The main agents of the paper are Mahatma Gandhi and Adolf Hitler. The theme is

centered on “Do we need ethics and value to be a good leader? The question it tries to raise is “Do

Charismatic Leaders need to have strong value and ethical structure to do good in a larger context?”

Introduction to the theme:

"In The Edge of the Sword de Gaulle wrote that a leader 'must be able to create a spirit of confidence in

those under him. He must be able to assert his authority.' Authority, de Gaulle argued, de rives from

prestige, and prestige 'is largely a matter of feeling, suggestion and impression, and it depends primarily

on the possession of an elementary gift, a natural attitude' ... lately gone by the fashionable term

charisma. ... To this ineffable quality, de Gaulle wrote, a leader must add three concrete ones: mystery,

character, and grandeur. 'First and foremost,' he declared, 'there can be no prestige without mystery,

for familiarity breeds contempt. All religions have their tabernacles, and no man is a hero to his valet.' "

— Richard Nixon

The world has always been in awe of Leaders with Charisma be it Mahatma Gandhi, be it Martin Luther King to name a few. We’ve been enthralled, fascinated with them. They’ve mesmerized us into following them to the end of the earth and back. We look up to them as our heroes and messiahs. “In archaic societies, the appropriate way to honor progenitors, mythical or actual, is to repeat their gestures and their sacred words, In modern societies, the way to show esteem and honor is not to repeat but to build on; not ritually to invoke but productively to extend; not just to follow but to widen the path” (Wapner and other, 1983; p11). Every Leader needs some charisma to sustain the interest of the followers, some are born charismatic others can develop their level of charisma.

The term charisma is value-neutral: it doesn't distinguish between good/moral and evil/immoral charismatic leadership. Charisma can lead to blind fanaticism in the service of megalomaniacs and dangerous values, or to heroic self-sacrifice in the service of a beneficial

cause. Ethical charismatic Leaders develop creative, critical thinking in their followers, provide developmental opportunities, welcome positive and negative feedback, recognize the contributions of others, share information with followers, and have moral standards that emphasize collective interests of the group, organization, or society. The following key behaviors and moral standards further differentiate ethical from unethical charismatic leaders:

Ethical Charismatic Leader (Gandhi)- Uses power to serve others; aligns vision with followers' needs and aspirations; considers and learns from criticism; stimulates followers to think independently and to question the leader's view; uses open, two-way communication; coaches, develops, and supports followers; shares recognition with others; relies on internal moral standards to satisfy organizational and societal interests.

Unethical Charismatic Leader (Hitler) - Uses power only for personal gain or impact; promotes own personal vision; censures critical or opposing views; demands that own decisions be accepted without question; one-way communication; insensitive to followers' needs; relies on convenient external moral standards to satisfy self-interests.

The double-edged sword of charismatic leadership is readily seen in the impact on followers. Ethical charismatic leaders convert followers into leaders. By expressing confidence in followers' abilities to accomplish collective goals and encouraging them to think on their own and question established ways of doing things, they create followers who are more capable of leading themselves. Followers feel independent, confident, powerful, and capable. They eventually take responsibility for their own actions; gain rewards through self-reinforcement and -- like their leader -- establish a set of internal standards to guide their actions and behavior.

Charismatic Leaders are comparable in spite of the specific character of each case, but not necessarily in spite of the socio-economic-cultural contexts. Significant analogies can be noticed between the political roles of Mahatma Gandhi and Hitler in the following respects: the dramatic historical circumstances of their emergence as leaders; the movements that they headed; the symbol of hope that they became in the eyes of the people; the faith they had in their historical mission and their determination; the outstanding political talents of these two men; the direct contact with the people that these leaders were able to establish and the foundation of a new political order and regime but the similarities end here. The main difference between Gandhi and Hitler was the positive effect Gandhi bought for the whole world and the negative effect Hitler bought for the whole world.

This analysis tries to answer a simple Question: Do Charismatic Leaders need to have strong value and ethical structure to do good in a larger context? This analysis in due process aims at showing Charisma has to go hand in hand with the Transformation of self and others (followers) by imbibing values and ethics among themselves as well as their followers. This paper will show

how Gandhi was both a charismatic and transformational leader who had superior values and ethics while Hitler was just a charismatic leader who had negative values and ethics.

Research Methodology:

Comparison of all available data, research and literature on Gandhi and Hitler’s life and

leadership style plus the relevant concepts is the main method used for this paper. It is purely

conceptual and historical with just a little hint of empirical facts.

Literature Review:

This paper is written in context of most of the prevalent Charismatic Leadership Literature

available and most of the theory available on Charismatic Leadership.

Charisma Exposed:

Charisma in the leadership has its roots in the writings of Max Weber (Conger & Kanungo, 1994). Weber examined political leaders and believed that charisma was the result of a social turmoil to which the charismatic leader would emerge with a new vision that would solve the crisis (Barbuto, 1997). Thus, the followers would identify with both the leader and the vision, and they would follow with both commitment and obedience (Avolio, Waldman & Einstein, 1988; House, 1977; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Weber (1947) suggested that charisma is a leadership trait that sets one individual apart from others. Further, a charismatic leader is endowed with supernatural, super-human, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. Others have determined that charisma is mainly a leader-followers phenomenon (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Despite years of inquiry, there is no universally agreed upon definition of charisma (Avolio& Yammarino, 1990; Halpert, 1990). The word charisma is derived from the Greek word, charismata, meaning ‘the gift of grace,’ or gifts presented by the gods (Conger, 1989; Weber, 1947).Originally, the term was used to describe an individual’s power or attributes that could not be described by ordinary means (Conger, 1989; Weber, 1947). Avolio and Yammarino (1990) and Conger (1989) have described charisma as being much more personal. These works highlight that while charisma is internal to the leader, the power that the leader holds over another is in the eye of the beholder. This amount of power or influence differs for different people. To define charismatic leadership one must keep in mind that “charisma” does not describe just one personality type. Its definition must be complex enough to involve the leader, the followers and their shared environment (Conger, 1989).

Charismatic leadership can be defined as referent power and influence that can inspire followers to make personal sacrifices for the greater good. Charismatic leadership commands trust and loyalty to the extreme and it impresses upon followers that their missions are extraordinary (Conger & Kanungo, 1994; Gardner, 2003, House, 1977; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). Another way to define a charismatic leader is to highlight the leader’s great determination, need for power, strong conviction in his/her own beliefs, and ideas and projection of self-confidence (Sosik &Charismatic Leadership Scale 7Dworakivsky, 1998). In an attempt to define charismatic leadership, Trice and Beyer (1996) identified four attributes that a person must possess to be a charismatic leader: (1) extraordinary gifts, (2) presence in a crisis, (3) ability to present radical solutions, and (4) transcendent powers. Charismatic leadership also has been compared to theatrics. Gardner and Alvolio (1998) suggested that charisma is dramaturgical and that the leader is playing a role that has been jointed constructed jointly by both the leader and the followers. Using this understanding, charismatic leadership is a function of impression management (Goffman, 1959) that is enacted during the leadership process. Obviously, in a theatrical sense, effective communication is essential. The charismatic leader captivates the audience like a masterful thespian who graces the stage to deliver a virtuoso performance. An inspiring performance can temporarily ‘suspend’ reality, animating belief in a particular, seemingly absurd, vision or idea — yet, one which the leader’s followers will ungrudgingly sacrifice their own material self-interests to pursue a visionary cause (Yukl, 2006). Waldman, Ramirez, House & Puranam (2001) suggest that the behaviors of charismatic leaders include: (1) articulating a vision and sense of mission, (2) showing determination, and (3) communicating high performance expectations. In addition, the charismatic leader demonstrates that leadership and achievement are a long-term process (Kanter, 1983; Trice & Beyer, 1993). A review of the above components of Charismatic Leadership reveals that the verbs used most often to define the concept are: (1) behavior (2) presence in a crisis; (3) determination; (4) communication of ideas; and (5) communication of expectations. As discussed above, these skills are traits of a competent communicator and should be evaluated when assessing a charismatic leader

How Gandhi and Hitler communicated their Charisma: ...the high sentiments always win in the end, leaders who offer blood; toil, tears and sweat always get more out of their followers than those who offer safety and a goodtime. When it comes to the pinch, human beings are heroic. — George Orwell (Orwell et al., 2000)

A Compelling Vision: Gandhi’s vision was that of a “Free Independent India with the help of non-violent and non-cooperation to the British” which had its foundations laid in his visit to South Africa, when he saw that Indians and colored people were not treated the equals. In his autobiography he writes, “I began to think of my duty. Should I fight for my rights or go back to India… it would be cowardice to run back to India without fulfilling my obligation. The hardship to which I …. only a symptom of the deep disease of color prejudice. I should try, if possible, to root out the disease and suffer hardships in the process. Redress for wrongs I should seek only to the extent that would be necessary for the removal of the color prejudice” Hitler’s vision was that of a “Creation of a supreme Aryan race in Germany bereft of the Jews” which had its foundations in Hitler’s deep hatred for socialism and Jews. He saw socialism as part of a Jewish conspiracy. His vision was only compelling to the extent of the Nazi oriented German citizens and was the cause of the 2nd world war which crippled the German economy, resulted in lots of Jewish people being killed, purged, raped and destruction of National monuments and heritage all over Europe. According to Hans Frank, “One must not say that Hitler violated the German people - he seduced them! They followed him with a mad jubilation”

Good Orator: Both Gandhi and Hitler were great orators. The only difference is that Gandhi did not need a warm up; he was spontaneous where as Hitler in the other hand needed a person to warm up the audience in all of his rallies.

Dramatics and Theatrics: Many charismatic leaders are renowned for their exemplary rhetorical skills and powers of persuasion and their sense of drama. Interpreting the charismatic relationship as a drama invokes a cast of characters, with the charismatic leader and followers as main protagonist and co-protagonists,

respectively, and competitors and opponents as antagonists. Both Gandhi and Hitler used this style to good effect. Gandhi tough unknowingly and unwittingly used drama to good powerful effect. The innovative approach of non-violent resistance, non-cooperation movement, the fast undo death till the violence stopped, the burning of western clothes and wearing of a home woven dothi, the dandi march. Gandhi by doing all this created a ‘Cult of Gandhi Worship both by Indians and foreigners alike.’ Hitler too established a ‘Cult of Hitler Worship’. He believed that people in Germany needed to see him as a father figure who would take care of them from the ‘cradle to the grave’. This

would ensure his continuance as an absolute leader. Hitler used a series of propaganda and threat of terror to achieve his cult status. Posters were put up everywhere of Hitler, Mein Kampf was given as a special gift to married couples and children on special occasions, his speeches were broadcast all over Germany and the Youth were made to worship him. His short mustache and his well modulated voice, Hitler even had the physical characteristic of someone possessed as his most distinctive physical characteristic was his blue, enigmatic eyes. His eyes were

extraordinary since they always seemed to fascinate people added much mystery and charisma to his personality.

Power and Influence style used by both leaders: Power and influence play a major role in how leaders project their influence. The literal meaning of influence is the process of affecting others’ attitudes and behaviors in order to achieve an objective, while power can be broadly defined as “the capacity to bring about change”. Gandhi and Hitler had a contrasting power and influence style. Gandhi’s power base was socialized power while Hitler derived his power form position. Gandhi choose to use only one form of power that is Moral Power based on his own personal values, convictions and examples while Hitler various forms of power such as Coercive power, Legitimate power Gandhi’s followers were affected by Internalization : commitment due to appeal to values, beliefs and self image regardless of benefits and derived from insight about the influence’s values and beliefs i.e. free independent India and resistance of non-violence and non-cooperation while Hitler’s followers were affected by Instrumental compliance: motivation for reward or avoidance of punishment, without which there would be no influence, some were affected by Internalization and other half were affected by Identification: Commitment to imitate the same values and behaviors so as to please, arising from the need for affiliation and acceptance. The influencing tactics Gandhi was that of Inspirational appeal, rational persuasion and personal appeal while Hitler used Pressure and Legitimization and to some extent Inspirational appeal.

Positive side of Charisma (Gandhi’s Value & Ethics) Right here I see India already independent. “There was no fight, no struggle, the marches simply… Hour after Hour stretcher-bearers carried back a stream of inert bleeding bodies”

- Weeb Miller Mahatma Gandhi is universally accepted as an exemplary model of ethical and moral life, with a rare blending of personal and public life, the principles and practices, the immediate and the eternal. He considered life to be an integrated whole, growing from ‘truth to truth’ every day in

moral and spiritual status. He believed in a single standard of conduct founded on dharma of truth and nonviolence. He successfully led nonviolent struggles against racial discrimination, colonial rule, economic and social exploitation and moral degradation. So long as these manifestations of violence remain, Gandhi will remain relevant. Gandhi was “a good man in a world where few resist the corroding influence of power, wealth and vanity” Among the vital messages of Gandhi’s leadership are: even one person can make a difference; strength comes not from physical capacity but from an indomitable will; given a just cause, nonviolence and capacity for self-suffering, and fearlessness, victory is certain; leadership by example is the one most effective. He asserted: “We only wish to serve our fellowmen wherever we may be….”

When Gandhi claims in his autobiography that there was nothing special about his family or the

manner of his upbringing he was attempting to dispel the notion that the family was

extraordinary or that he was exceptionally gifted. He did all he possibly could to convince

people that they can become the change they wish to see in themselves. However, he did miss

one important point: That the family – especially his parents – was extraordinarily

compassionate, loving, respectful and committed. Stories of his father’s truthfulness and

compassion as the Prime Minister of an important and sizeable Princely State in India are

legendary. In spite of wielding absolute authority over all aspects of administration, there was

not a single instance of nepotism or personal aggrandizement against him. In fact, he was the

epitome of modesty and compassion that he was known to give freely to anyone who came to

him for help. His mother was the same which is why on the premature death of his father the

family was reduced to poverty. They did not save nor did they possess any property that could

sustain the family through the difficult times. This might appear to be irresponsible but

Karamchand Gandhi believed that someone’s immediate need was much more important than

his family’s long term need.

It was this positive attitude – love, respect, compassion, understanding, and acceptance – that

ultimately became the foundation of Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence. The world, according

to him, is consumed by selfishness and greed leading to other negative attributes which, taken

as a whole, leads to the “culture of violence.” It is this culture that not only leads to conflict,

war and violence but eventually to the deterioration of relationships, exploitation,

discrimination and the hundreds of ways in which we feed the fire of violence in society. Is this

attitude inevitable because it is human nature? “No,” says Gandhi. Instead of putting out the

fire of violence we have been feeding it for generations. If humanity makes the attempt, we can

change the culture of violence to a culture of nonviolence. “Positive thoughts,” Gandhi said,

“lead to positive words; positive words to positive habits and eventually positive habits to

positive destiny.”

If anything, Gandhi’s life proves that while a compassionate family and early experiences

provide one with the means to acquire greatness, it is primarily the responsibility of the

individual to convert those experiences into something positive. The assumption that someone

from a “good” family will necessarily be “good” is wrong. In the modern sense it might be said

that a good family would ensure a good education and that would ultimately lead to success.

This is true, but only in the material sense. According to Gandhi material success leads to moral

degradation since materialism fosters selfishness and greed. His ideal in life was the story from

the Mahabharata, a Hindu mythology, where Lord Rama is depicted as the epitome of ethical

leadership

A central quality of his leadership was its natural evolution through intense interaction with the people and the events. He was acutely conscious of his own imperfections. “One great reason for the misunderstanding lies in my being considered almost a perfect man…..I am painfully conscious of my imperfections, and therein lies all the strength I posses, because it is a rare thing for a man to know his own limitations”. The more he realized about human fallibility, the more he tried to evolve morally and spiritually. When nothing else availed, he would seek refuge in God and yet carry on. Gandhi single-handedly made nonviolence a universal substitute for violence and the bed-rock of his leadership. His nonviolence was the way to counter injustice and exploitation, and not run away from a righteous battle. He associated the qualities of humility, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance as corollaries of nonviolence. Humility, to him, is “an indispensable test of ahimsa. In one who has ahimsa in him it becomes part of his very nature,” and, it must not be “confounded with mere manners or etiquette,” but it “should make the possessor realize that he is as nothing”. To Gandhi the spirit of service and sacrifice was the key to leadership. For the spirit of service to materialize we must lay stress on our responsibilities and duties and not on rights. He illustrated it through the example of “concentric circles”: one starts with service of those nearest to one and expands the circle of service until it covers the universe, no circle thriving at the cost of the circles beyond. Service to him implied self-sacrifice. He said: “Sacrifice is the law of life. It runs through and governs every walk of life. We can do nothing or get nothing without paying a price for it….in other words, without sacrifice”. He was also a true Servant Leader. The commitment to service, however demands a strong sense of conscience (moral imperative), courage (fearlessness, bravery, initiative), and character (integrity). To Mahatma Gandhi, ‘inner voice’ was synonymous with conscience. Leaders need to develop and follow their conscience even more than ordinary people as they set the path for others. Hence, he wrote: “None of us, especially no leader should allow himself to disobey the inner voice in the face of pressure from outside. Any leader, who succumbs in this way, forfeits his right of leadership. For a leader to follow the right path requires courage and its associated qualities: “Courage, endurance and above all, fearlessness and spirit of willing sacrifices are the qualities that are required today in India for leadership”.

Gandhi in his time wielded more power over the minds of people than any other individual but it was not the power of weapons, or terror, or violence; it was the power of his convictions, his pursuit of truth and nonviolence, fearlessness, love and justice, working through incessant service and sacrifice for fellow human beings. His power came from empowering the weak, to lead the masses in the fight against injustice, exploitation, violence and discrimination. Satyagraha elevated the struggle for survival to the highest moral-spiritual levels and ordinary, emaciated people turned heroes. His power arose through the people whom he gave a sense of self-respect, purpose and moral strength. An outline of the basic ethical tenets of Gandhian leadership, proceeding from the eternal verities towards the more applied principles of conduct is given below:

Note: Gandhi even sent a letter to Hitler to stop the killings of Jews and to put an end to the 2nd world war. The letter is annexed in the paper.

Hitler the Dark side of Charisma:

“Hitler was both an agent and responsible. He was obsessed by various members of what are called the Lords of Materiality, which we call the 'forces of evil'.” – Crème Even though Hitler did some good for Germany i.e. instill a sense of nationalistic pride in Germany, placed more emphasis on German tradition, flourished the music and art of Germans (Beethoven, Wagner, Mozart, German folk songs,), highlighted the culture of Germany; he did more wrong dark things then right correct ones.

Truth

Principles

of Conduct

Non Violence Right Means and Right Ends

Primacy of Duties over right

The Deed, not the Doer

True Religion (Universality and Brotherhood)

Aparigraha or Non-possession

Satyagraha or Nonviolent

Conflict Resolution

Yajna (Sacrifice and Service)

Hitler often had encounters with demonic elements, which did not go unnoticed by those who were with him. Rauschning spoke to a witness of these encounters and reports the witness’s description of these strange episodes “Hitler wakes at night with convulsive shrieks. He shouts for help. He sits on the edge of his bed, as if unable to stir. He shakes with fear, making the whole bed vibrate. He shouts confused, totally unintelligible phrases. He grasps, as if imagining himself suffocating… Hitler stood swaying in his room, looking wildly about him. “He! He’s been here!” he gasped. His lips were blue. Sweat streamed down his face. Suddenly he began to reel off figures, and odd words and broken phrases, entirely devoid of sense. It sounded horrible. He strangely composed and entirely un-German word formations. Then he stood quite still, only his lips were moving. He was massaged and offered something to drink. Then he suddenly broke out- „There, there! In the corner! Who’s that? ‟ He stamped in shrieked in the familiar way”. Hitler was Germany and Germany was Hitler; something once described as the “reign of the collective beast”. Similarly, the gradual obliteration of Christianity and its replacement with a substitute religion was also crucial to the success of German Fascism. Such a system was dependent upon the cultivation and maintenance of mass hysteria, and the Nazi State had “to rely on proving itself every day by deed and success; hence the ever-repeated public appearances of the Leader with a ceremonial which is cunningly adapted to different situations.” In addition, whilst Hitler was unable to feel part of German society in any meaningful sense, it eventually became necessary for him to impose his indelible will on Germany itself. Hitler was the ultimate enemy of the Jews. Without question Adolf Hitler was the most infamous anti-Semite of all time. He was responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews, which was at the time approximately 1/3 of the total world Jewish population and 2/3 of European Jewish population. In his autobiography he writes, that he told Hermann Rauschning that the Jews have not only been a problem for him but also for his predecessors-the kings who came before him-and how he has dealt with them differently. The Jew was the enemy of the Roman Empire, even of Egypt and Babylon; but I have been the first to go all out against him. Indeed, no one went as far as Hitler did to distress the Jews. He wanted every Jew in the entire world killed, and he built and unleashed a massive war machine to pursue them all. Was Hitler’s main goal the acquisition of lebensraum (living space) for his Reich? The way Hitler conducted the war suggests that his main goal was the extermination of the Jews rather than the quest for lebensraum. As the Soviets advanced westwards Hitler diverted trains that could had been used to send supplies and troop support to his retreating army and used them to transport Jews to various death camps. The need for lebensraum may instead have been an excuse that Hitler needed to gain access to millions of Jews who lived in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Hitler revealed to the Reichstag nine years after he came to power that his war was to bring the extermination of every Jew: “Instead, the result of this war will be the destruction of Jewry. For the first time others will not bleed alone. For the first time the genuine old Jewish law will be applied: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and the more

this war spreads, the more anti-Semitism will spread. This may be said to world Jewry. Anti-Semitism will be nourished in every prison camp, in every family which must be informed why they must sacrifice to the bitter end. And the hour will come when the most evil world enemy of all times will have played out its role for perhaps a thousand years at least”. Even to the last day of his life Hitler called for the annihilation of the Jewish race. In the final paragraph of Hitler’s last political testament, he expressed his continuing desire for the annihilation of all Jews. “Above all, I enjoin the government and the people to uphold the race laws to the limit and to resist mercilessly the prisoner of all nations, international Jewry”. In his quest for supreme Aryan race and the extermination of the Jewish race, Hitler became a monster. His quest was instrumental in creating concentration camps where Jews were mass murdered such as Auswithz, start of the 2nd world war, creating oppression and clamping of freedom of speech and thought in Nazi Germany. Hitler in all his tenacity used power only for his personal agenda. He promoted his own agenda and used various mediums to censure critical or opposing views, he was very autocratic and demanding, never listened to what the followers really wanted and was insensitive to the followers needs, and only tried to satisfy his own self-interests. He is a classic example of Dark Charisma.

Charismatic Leadership in Nepal- What is the situation like: Never has Nepal felt the need of a truly charismatic leader equipped with the value and ethics dimension of leadership. Yes! It does have leaders in all sectors but one who is awe inspiring, who has a compelling vision and who can help transform the nation is dearly needed. Upon close examination of Nepali Leaders in Politics, Business & Corporate and Social setting, there is on that come close to the charismatic leadership style of Gandhi and Hitler. Though we can draw some similar comparisons with Hitler and Prachanda . Most people would agree if it is written that Comrade Prachanda is as devilish and dark as Hitler was. He as the same awe inspiring presence, he can communicate his vision with as much as fervor as Hitler would but Prachanda is the epitome of dark charismatic leader in Nepal, still to his followers he is the almighty person (Hero and Messiah) who can bring peace and prosperity in their lives. One wishes he was as positive leader as Mahatma Gandhi was. Other than Prachanda there is one with Charisma in Nepali politics. In the yesteryears of Nepali Politics, B.P. Koirala was one such semi positive charismatic leader, who had a zeal for the betterment of Nepal and its people but not the same type of values and ideologies. In the Corporate sectors, there are charismatic leaders such as Mr. Anil Shah, Mr. Binod Chaudary and Mr. Rajendra Ketan but they have done used the positive side of Charisma to much effect. In terms of Corporate Social Responsibility they still have to prove themselves.

Significance and Implication: This paper’s main strength is the comparison of the positive side and the dark side of Charisma. It is evident in this research that if Charisma is used in a positive tone it will always achieve positive effects and the betterment of society at large will automatically happen but if it is used in a dark demonic tone then it is fraught with danger and damnation. It has also shown that Charisma can be attained by training oneself through the styles used by both leaders. The dramatics, the oratory style can always be learnt and trained, as for a compelling vision no one is a good leader unless he has a compelling vision and the zeal to see through the vision. The Gandhi-Hitler issue can always be debated and will always be debated but one thing is for sure that Gandhi was a better leader to his followers than Hitler ever was. This paper can be used as a guideline for all budding leaders as to how to be charismatic enough and what are the ideals and values a good leader is supposed to have.

Limitations: The main limitation of this article is that both the leaders are dead and lived in two different countries while the writer lives in Nepal. The research was limited only to books on the leaders, their autobiographies and articles written on them searched via the internet. The research and the paper would have been more complete if the author could have spoken to the leaders or their close associates to get a more wholesome comparison.

Conclusion: “I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills”

- M. K. Gandhi This paper builds a case for studying the influence of positive and dark charismatic traits the leaders have and shows how it influences the workings of the followers in that particular setting. It also builds a case for leaders to have good and sound moral and ethical values. Charismatic transformational leadership is more likely to emerge and be effective when the primary tasks are consistent with dominant social values and offer both leader and followers an opportunity for moral involvement. It follows from this that if a leader follows socially appreciable image (simple living) and encourages behaviors that are socially valued (selfless behavior, loyalty, culture of giving and personal touch), then the leader is more likely to emerge as a Charismatic transformational leader.

In many ways, the consequences of charismatic leadership outlive the charismatic leader, particularly with respect to the ‘routinisation’ of charisma, and leadership succession. Weber (1947) was intrigued by the extent to which charisma may be integrated into the daily routines

and practices of the followers, meaning that the energy, values and positive consequences of charismatic leadership would be survived by the followers well after the leader’s departure. We can see that effect in many recent Bollywood flims such as Munna Bhai where in the main theme is centered on Gandhi’s teaching. This is what ethical and moral leadership does, Gandhi is dead but he is still remembered for his selfless, moral and servant charismatic Leadership while Hitler too is remembered but for all the wrong reasons, he is remembered as a demonic monster who led the massacre of thousands of Jews, was the main catalyst of the 2nd world war and who did numerous evil things. On a ending note it would be wise to put in a few lines of what a eminent biographer of Ghandi B.R.Nanda rightly stated, “Mahatma Gandhi instigated, if he did not initiate, three major revolutions of our time, the revolution against racialism, the revolution against colonialism, and the revolution against violence. He lived long enough to see his success of his efforts in the first two revolutions....” Has the escalating level of violence in the world, which has brought suffering and misery to millions, finally awakened the world’s conscience to the need for a revolution against violence? The best tribute to Gandhi’s contemporary relevance, and his lasting influence not just on India’s foreign policy but on the world as a whole, is that today is being celebrated by the United Nations as the International Day of Non-Violence. Gandhi, it seems, was right, after all

Recommendation:

The author recommends readers to use this paper as a guideline to use value and ethics in leadership

Certain aspects of Charisma can be learnt and trained such as Dramatics, Good communication skills, this paper has shown that leaders can train themselves with these styles and use them for effective leadership

If not use all of Gandhi’s teaching, even if all of us use 50% of what Mahatma Gandhi preached about values, ethics then maybe we can also become good ethical leaders.

All leaders of Nepal be it corporate, political and social should read the teachings of Gandhi and try and emulate Gandhi.

References: Northouse, Peter G. (2007), “Leadership Theory and Practice”, Sage Publication, Fourth Edition Yukl, G. (2008), “Leadership in Organizations”, Pearson Education, Sixth Edition Gandhi, M.K (1927) “An Autobiography or The story of my experiments with truth”, Navajivan

Publising House, Reprint

Gardner, Howard (1996) in collaboration with Laskin Emma, “Leading Minds- an anatomy of

Leadership”, Harper Collins, First Edition

Hitler, Adolf (1926), “Mein Kampf- My Struggle”, Political Digest Press, Fifth Edition

Conger, J.A. and R.N.Kanungo (1998),”Charismatic Leadership in Organizations”, Sage

Publications

Musser, S.J. (1987), “The determination of positive and negative charismatic leadership”,

Messiah College

Jacobsen,C & House R.J (1999), “The rise and decline of charismatic leadership”, The Warthon

School

Willner, D., and A. R. Willner. (1965). "The rise and role of charismatic leaders," THE ANNALS

OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 358: 77-88.

Shamir, B & House,R.J & Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The Motivational Effects of Charismatic

Leadership: A self concept theory ”, Organizational Science, Vol-4

Angebert, JM.(1974),” The Occult and the Third Reich; the Mystical Origins of Nazism and the

Search for the Holy Grail”, Macmillan

Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. & Menon ,(2000), “Charismatic leadership and follower effects”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), pp. 747-767. Doggan, M, (2007), “Comparing two charismatic leaders – Ataturk and de Gaulle”, Comparative Sociology, Vol-6 www. Wikipedia.com Kotter, J.P. (1988), “the Leadership Factor”, New York, NY: Free Press

Annex: