Using Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the

Decisive Factors of Charismatic Leadership

Chi-Hui Wu

, Jing Li

and Chao-Yu Chen

Department of Management and Information, National Open University, ZhongZheng Rd., New Taipei, Taiwan

College of Music and Film, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China

Ph.D. Program in Management, Da-Yeh University, University Rd., Chunghua, Taiwan

Keywords: Charismatic Leadership, Fuzzy Delphi Method, Fuzzy DEMATEL.

Abstract: Charismatic leadership is a key factor that affects organizational effectiveness, team effectiveness, and the

behavior of subordinates. How to effectively lead an organization and motivate members through charismatic

leadership is an important issue for executives and managers. Given that charismatic leadership encompasses

a variety of characteristics and complex entanglements, and that executives have limited time and energy, the

most important and pressing issue is how to accurately identify the determinants of charismatic leadership

and provide executives with references for effective charismatic leadership. To this end, this study began with

a literature review of 22 scholars and experts who selected three key dimensions and 18 criteria for

constructing charismatic leadership. A further 20 experts were invited to assess the correlations between the

dimensions and the criteria, and a Fuzzy DEMATEL method was used to analyze the causal relationships

between the dimensions and the criteria to identify the charismatic leadership determinants. The results of the

study revealed that in terms of the dimensions, model shaping was the determining dimension for charismatic

leadership, which influenced the other two dimensions; in terms of the criteria, role models and behavioral

benchmarks, leadership behaviors of charisma, and emotionally intelligent were the determining criteria for

charismatic leadership. Therefore, business executives and organizational leaders must be the first to set a

good paradigm for their subordinates, be able to set an example and be selfless, be willing to take risks, be

self-sacrificing, think creatively and be sympathetic to the behavior of their subordinates, and also focus on

their self-image management, be willing to break out of the status quo and have good emotional management

skills to build a sense of belonging in the organizational team. They should also be willing to break through

problems and have good emotional management skills to build a sense of belonging to the organization.

1 INTRODUCTION

Leadership is an important issue in the field of

organizational management in the social sciences

(Day & Antonakis, 2012; Lin & Chung, 2020; Lin,

Lo & Chan, 2017). Leadership behavior affects

organizational effectiveness, team effectiveness, and

subordinate behavior (Liu, Hsieh, 2016; Tzeng, Su &

Hsieh, 2005), and leaders primarily influence

organizational strategies and decisions (Kaiser,

Hogan & Craig, 2008). In the mainstream of

leadership research, Charismatic Leadership is one of

the most explored topics, with a large body of

empirical data that supports it as the most effective

form of leadership (Chen, Yang, & Wang, 2017;

Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Charismatic leadership

is a mainstream area of leadership theory (Zhao & Li,

2019). Furthermore, charismatic leadership

influences how supervisors lead, and for the

organization's members, it serves as a paradigm of the

example of leadership (Kao & Chuang, 2009; Lin &

Chung, 2020) to model shaping themselves, and it

also has significant implications for shaping the

perceptions and behaviors (Kao & Chuang, 2009; Lin

& Chung, 2020) to shape their subordinates. The

leader of the organization is a key factor in the

development of the organization's culture, and it

influences the values shared by the members to shape

the culture of the organization (Lin & Chung, 2020).

Leadership is a multi-conceptual hierarchical trait,

that cannot just analyze at a single level (Cheng, Lin,

Cheng, Chou, Jen & Farh, 2010), and it is a complex

and diverse research topic (Day & Antonakis, 2012;

Zhao & Li, 2019)

Wu, C., Wu, C., Li, J., Li, J., Chen, C. and Chen, C.

Using Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the Decisive Factors of Charismatic Leadership.

DOI: 10.5220/0011858800003494

In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business (FEMIB 2023), pages 26-37

ISBN: 978-989-758-646-0; ISSN: 2184-5891

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

As charismatic leadership scholars have studied

charismatic leadership from different perspectives,

and they have used different dimensions to measure it

in different contexts (Banks, Engemann, Williams,

Gooty, McCauley, & Medaugh, 2016). Moreover, in

the past, most scholars have studied charismatic

leadership from a single point of view or at a single

level, or have used a single case to explore a single

dimension of charismatic leadership, but fewer

scholars have explored charismatic leadership from

different points of view and multiple dimensions,

therefore, there is no consistent conclusion yet.

Because there are many different indicators of

charismatic leadership, it is difficult to assess them

from a single perspective or on a single dimension

scale. Banks, Engemann, Williams, Gooty,

McCauley and Medaugh (2016), Sackett and Larson

(1990), Schmidt and Hunter (2015) suggest that

integrating different perspectives and multiple

dimensions to measure charismatic leadership is a

more objective definition and measure of it. In recent

decades, charismatic leadership has received a great

deal of attention in the field of organizational

management, and there has been a proliferation of

research on charismatic leadership, and it is generally

accepted that charismatic leadership has a critical

impact and the ability to induce change. However,

scholars who have studied charismatic leadership still

lack consensus on what constitutes charismatic

leadership (Huang, Lin, Cheng & Liang, 2012). A

majority of charismatic leadership scholars have

explored charismatic leadership from a single

perspective, such as the model shaping dimension or

subordinate shaping dimension; or they have studied

it from a single point of view, such as the charismatic

trait theory or the charismatic attribution theory, but

without integrating the concept to explore charismatic

leadership. It is therefore necessary to construct a

theoretical model of the determinants of charismatic

leadership.

In the literature on charismatic leadership,

different scholars have adopted different perspectives

on charismatic leadership, resulting in different

findings and theoretical frameworks. Therefore, this

study will integrate the different perspectives on

charismatic leadership, including the social charisma

paradigm, which is based on a sociological approach,

to explore the social conditions for charismatic

leadership. The second one is the neo-charismatic

leadership paradigm, which is based on psychological

approaches. The study was developed by

organizational behavior scholars on the

characteristics and behaviors of charismatic leaders,

and the effects and methods of influence on their

subordinates (Huang, Lin, Cheng & Liang (2012). As

many criterion factors influence charismatic

leadership, and they interact with each other and have

complex relationships, charismatic leadership is a

multi-criteria analysis problem (Banks, Engemann,

Williams, Gooty, McCauley & Medaugh, 2016;

Sackett & Larson, 1990; Schmidt & Hunter, 2015).

Therefore, this study uses the fuzzy Delphi method,

in which key assessment criteria and charismatic

leadership frameworks are screened. In addition, the

fuzzy theory has the property of capturing the

fuzziness of problems and solving subjective

problems (Wu, Lin & Li, 2022), and the complex

interactions between dimensions and criteria must be

considered. By combining fuzzy set theory and the

Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory

(DEMATEL), we analyze the degree of association

and causality between the dimensions of charismatic

leadership and the criteria and obtain further

information on the direction and degree of influence

between the dimensions and the criteria.

2 THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

Leader is a key influence on organizational strategy

and decision-making (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008).

In the field of management, leadership research has

become one of the most important issues (Lin &

Chung, 2020, Lin, Lo, & Chan, 2017), and

charismatic leadership research is one of the most

frequently explored topics in the mainstream of

leadership research, and it is the most effective form

leadership with extensive empirical data supporting

(Chen, Yang, & Wang, 2017; Knippenberg & Sitkin,

2013). Charismatic leadership is a mainstream area of

leadership theory (Zhao & Li, 2019).

The concept of charismatic leadership was

introduced by Weber (1947) as a theory of leadership

in which the leader at the top encourages followers

and applies his or her charisma to get them to make

beneficial changes in the organization. (Bass, 1997),

House's (1976) point out that the characterization of

charismatic leadership in the organizational context,

its behavioral dimensions, and hypotheses, has

initiated subsequent scholarly research into

charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership has

been gaining attention since the 1980s and has

attracted a great deal of interest from researchers and

educational practitioners (Hoy & Miskel, 2005).

Scholars of charismatic leadership have used

different terms to describe charismatic leadership,

Using Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the Decisive Factors of Charismatic Leadership

such as charismatic (House, 1976), transformational

(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), visionary (Bennis &

Nanus, 1985; Sashkin, 1988), value-based leadership

(House, Delbecq, & Taris, 1998).

Charismatic leadership is a new paradigm theory

in the field of organizational leadership (Day &

Antonakis, 2012). The theory associated with

charismatic leadership emphasizes the leader's ability

to change the subordinates' needs, values, self-

concept, and motivation, which leads to many

emotional and cognitive responses from the staff. In

short, the core concept of charismatic leadership is to

induce internal change in the subordinates, thereby

achieving an impact on them and the organization

(Huang, Lin, Cheng & Liang, 2012). Because

Charismatic Leadership positively influences the

effectiveness of the subordinates and the

organization, the effects of Charismatic Leadership

are more pronounced than other types of leadership

(Fio, Harris, & House, 1999).

As scholars of charismatic leadership have come

up with different perspectives including charismatic

leadership behavior theory (Conger & Kanungo,

1987; Behling & McFillen, 1996; Zhao, Tian, Wen &

Gao, 2021), social exchange theory (Blau, 1964;

Sparrowe & Liden, 1997), social identity theory

(Bandura, 1977; Hogg & Van Knippenberg, 2003;

Zhao, Tian, Wen & Gao, 2021), trait theory (House,

1976; Banks, Engemann, Williams, Gooty,

McCauley, & Medaugh, 2016), cognitive ability

theory (Banks, Engemann, Williams, Gooty,

McCauley, & Medaugh, 2016), social learning theory

(Karaca, Özgül, & Zehir, 2021), and other

perspectives.

Charismatic leadership influences supervisors’

leadership styles, and it also serves as a role model for

members within the organization to lead by example

(Kao & Chuang, 2009; Lin & Chung, 2020), it will be

self-modeling and has significant implications for

shaping the perceptions and behaviors of its members

(Kao & Chuang, 2009; Lin & Chung, 2020) to shape

the subordinates. The leader of the organization is a

key factor in the development of the organization’s

culture and influences the values shared by the

members of the organization to shape the

organization’s culture (Lin & Chung, 2020).

Leadership is a multi-conceptual hierarchy, not only

analyzed at a single level (Cheng, Lin, Cheng, Chou,

Jen & Farh, 2010) but also a complex and diverse

research topic (Day & Antonakis, 2012; Zhao & Li,

2019). Therefore, this study will explore and analyze

the determinants of charismatic leadership by

integrating different perspectives at multiple levels,

including model shaping, subordinate shaping, and

culture shaping dimension.

In terms of the three dimensions of charismatic

leadership: model shaping, subordinate shaping, and

culture shaping. The first is the leader's own

attributes, behaviors, and abilities; the second is the

leader's influence on his or her subordinates; and the

third is the leader's influence on the organization’s

culture. Therefore, this study integrates the

charismatic leadership theory which includes model

shaping, subordinate shaping, and culture shaping, as

the charismatic leadership framework. Model shaping

is the ability of a charismatic leader to lead by

example, convince others by virtue, and accept

different opinions and criticisms with an open mind

(Huang and Kao, 2014; Brown, Trevino & Harrison,

2005). Subordinate shaping is when charismatic

leaders communicate their values to their

subordinates during direct contact and interaction

with them, and charismatic leaders demonstrate their

values and goals through personal example, thus

exerting influence on their subordinates (Huang &

Kao, 2014; Huang, Lin, Cheng & Liang, 2012).

Culture shaping is a way for charismatic leaders to

communicate their ideas and visions to all members

of the organization through symbolic behaviors that

emphasize important cultural values and establish

shared values for the group, which in turn exerts

influence on the group (Huang & Kao, 2014; Huang,

Lin, Cheng & Liang, 2012).

Different scholars have had different views on the

model shaping dimension. For instance, Bass (1985)

and Bryman (1992) identify the physical traits of

charisma as one of the charismatic leadership

attributes; Bass (1985), House (1976), Hoy and

Miskel (2005), and Yukl (1989) point out that

psychological traits of charisma as an important

factor for charismatic leaders; In the research by

House and Howell (1992), Banks, Engemann,

Williams, Gooty, McCauley, and Medaugh (2016)

argue that personality traits of charisma as an

antecedent factor for charismatic leadership; Huang,

Lin, Cheng & Liang (2012) conclude that leadership

behavior of charisma, and emotionally intelligent as

the main factors of charismatic leadership. Therefore,

the five criteria for the model shaping dimension in

this study are physical traits of charisma,

psychological traits of charisma, personality traits of

charisma, leadership behaviors of charisma, and

emotionally intelligent.

Scholars are arguing about the factor of

subordinate shaping. For instance, Huang, Lin, Cheng

& Liang (2012) state that inspirational motivation,

sociability, supportive behaviors, and successful

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

experiences are the factors of subordinate shaping,

while Neufeld, Dong, and Higgins (2007) consider

that inspirational motivation and idealized influence

are the main factors, and charismatic leadership

affects subordinates' performance and effort, and

social influence; Yeh and Lin (2013), Shamir, Zakay

and Popper (1998) note that role models and

behavioral benchmarks as important factors; Saleh

and Hosek (1976), Wu and Chung (2011) mention

that work engagement is one of the factors of

subordinate shaping that constitute charismatic

leaders; Wu, Lu, Ku & Chang (2010), Huang, Lin

Cheng & Liang (2012) recognize that inspirational

intelligence of subordinate is a major factor of

subordinate shaping; In the research by Yukl (1994),

Wu and Hong (2005) identify fairness and justice.

Therefore, there are seven criteria for subordinate

shaping in this study, namely role models and

behavioral benchmarks, work engagement,

inspirational motivation, sociability, supportive

behavior and successful experiences, inspirational

intelligence of subordinates, and fairness and justice.

In the context of culture shaping, scholars who

study charismatic leadership also have different

views on the criteria. According to Huang, Lin,

Cheng & Liang (2012), culture shaping includes a

developmental vision and goal setting, team building,

and mastery of external environmental opportunities;

Hu and Dutta (2022), Yan, Wu & Lin (2018) also

point out that visionary as a core factor of culture

shaping; However, Banks, Engemann, Williams,

Gooty, McCauley, and Medaugh (2016) suggest that

work performance is a pre-requisite for culture

shaping of charismatic leaders; Hsu (2003), Cheng

(2004), Banks, Engemann, Williams, Gooty,

McCauley & Medaugh (2016), Imani-Hassanloui,

Maraki, Taghimalek and Tagimalek (2022) cite that

organizational citizenship behavior as one of the

criteria of culture shaping; Ashforth & Mael (1989),

Huang (2020), Huang, Lin, Cheng & Liang (2012)

consider that organizational identity; Paulsen,

Maldonado, Callan, and Ayoko (2009) state that team

identity. The criteria of culture shaping in this study

are work performance, organizational citizenship

behavior, developmental vision and goal setting, team

building, and organizational identity and mastery of

external environmental opportunities.

Moreover, charismatic leadership is a powerful

and trainable skill (Antonakis, Fenley & Liechti,

2011; Ernst, Banks, Loignon, Frear, Williams,

Arciniega, Gupta, Kodydek & Subramanian, 2021).

Most of the aforementioned literature on charismatic

leadership has been based on a single theoretical

perspective and a single level of analysis of

charismatic leadership but has not explored in depth

the key factors that influence charismatic leadership.

Therefore, it is necessary to explore charismatic

leadership from different theoretical perspectives and

multiple levels and to construct a charismatic

leadership framework in order to provide a wide

range of academic perspectives to explore

charismatic leadership in depth and to provide

organizational leaders with the skills to develop

charismatic leadership.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AND DESIGN

Based on the literature, this study summarizes the key

factors influencing charismatic leadership, with a

total of 18 criteria in three major dimensions. The

main targets of this study were scholars and experts

in the field of charismatic leadership in northern and

central Taiwan, as well as mid- and senior-level

executives and leaders in the high-tech industry.

Firstly, the Fuzzy Delphi method was used to screen

out the criteria items with higher relative importance.

The next step was to use Fuzzy DEMATEL to explore

the relationship between the dimensions and the

criteria. And then, the matrix of relationships between

dimensions and criteria is constructed, causal

relationships are mapped and causal pathways of

influence are analyzed to explore the determinants of

charismatic leadership.

This study uses the fuzzy Delphi method to screen

out relatively important items in the charismatic

leadership profile criteria. The Fuzzy Delphi Method

(Liang, Lee, & Huang, 2010) is a four-step process.

Step 1: Gather the views of the decision-making

community, step 2: Create a triangular fuzzy number,

step 3: Defuzzification, and step 4: Selection of

evaluation criteria. The retention dimensions and

criteria questionnaire were distributed to 27

academics and practical experts, using their

knowledge and experience to determine whether to

retain the criteria. 5 academics with less than 10 years

of experience or who are not experts in technology

industry leadership and research leaders have been

screened out. The threshold used in this study is 70%,

meaning that a criterion will be retained if more than

70% of academics and experts agree to retain it. For

the three dimensions and 18 criteria identified in this

study, all criteria have been retained because more

than 70% of experts and academics agree to retain

them.

Using Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the Decisive Factors of Charismatic Leadership

Table 1: Fuzzy Delphi Method Questionnaire Item

Statistics.

Charismatic

Leadership Criteria

Threshold

values

Retain/

Delete

Physical traits of

charisma

0.736 Retain

Psychological traits of

charisma

0.874 Retain

Personality traits of

charisma

0.791 Retain

Leadership behaviors

of charisma

0.797 Retain

Emotionally

intelligent

0.748 Retain

Role models and

behavioral

enchmarks

0.773 Retain

7 Work engagement 0.827 Retain

Inspirational

motivation

0.797 Retain

9 Sociability 0.784 Retain

Supportive behavior

and successful

eriences

0.820 Retain

Inspirational

intelligence of

subordinates

0.748 Retain

12 Fairness and justice 0.761 Retain

13 Work performance 0.827 Retain

Organizational

citizenship behavior

0.724 Retain

Developmental vision

and goal setting

0.779 Retain

16 Team building 0.851 Retain

Organizational

identity

0.808 Retain

Mastery of external

environmental

opportunities

0.736 Retain

The Fuzzy DEMATEL is a method that combines

fuzzy semantic variables and DEMATEL. The

formula and calculation steps (Hsu, Chen & Tzeng,

2007; Wu, Liao, Tseng & Chiu, 2015; Yeh & Huang,

2014) as followed, has seven steps. Step 1: Define the

evaluation criteria and design a fuzzy semantic scale,

step 2: Create a direct association matrix, step 3:

Build and analyze the structural model, step 4: Total

association matrix, step 5: Defuzzification, step 6:

Centrality and Causality, and step 7: Result Analysis.

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

OF THE FINDINGS

In this phase, 20 scholars with more than 5 years of

experience in research and charismatic leadership or

technology industry executives were invited to take

the survey. The questionnaires were then distributed

on-spot to these researchers/technology executives

for completion. After three months of the survey,

there were 20 valid questionnaires, including 4 for

researchers and 16 for technology executives. The

results of the various components and criteria were

then analyzed.

4.1 Results of the Analysis of the

Various Dimensions

The evaluation of the dimensions is the model

shaping dimension (M), the subordinate shaping

dimension (S), and the culture shaping dimension(C).

After defining the evaluation dimensions and

designing the fuzzy semantic scales, establishing the

direct association matrix, building and analyzing the

structural model, the total association matrix and

defuzzification, the formulae and calculations, the

defuzzification matrix for each dimension is shown in

Table 2. After the calculation of the centrality and

causality, the column and row values of each

dimension are shown in Table 3. After obtaining the

value of d+r (centrality) and d-r (causality), the cause-

effect diagram can be plotted by each value as shown

in Figure 1. The value of d+r (centrality) represents

the strength of the influence between the dimensions,

and the higher the value, the stronger the influence.

When the value of d-r is positive and the value is

higher, it represents the "cause" of the influence of

other dimensions, and when d-r is negative and the

value is lower, it represents the "effect" of the

influence of other dimensions.

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

Table 2: Matrix of defuzzied total correlations of the

dimensions.

Dimension

Model

shaping (M)

Subordinate

shaping (S)

Culture

shaping (C)

Model

shaping (M)

0.80 1.574* 1.401*

Subordinate

shaping (S)

0.833 0.913 1.071*

Culture

shaping (C)

0.764 1.186* 0.779

Note: * Indicates above the threshold value of 1.036.

Table 3: Collation of column and row values of dimension.

Dimension

d r d+r d-r Quadrant

Causal

relationship

M 3.775 2.397 6.173 1.378 2

Affect others

S 2.817 3.672 6.489 -0.856 4

Affected

dimension

C 2.728 3.251 5.979 -0.522 3

Independence

dimension

Average 6.214 0

Note: Model shaping (M), Subordinate shaping (S), Culture

shaping (C)

Figure 1: Causality correlation diagram of various

dimensions.

In the causality (d-r) section, the three dimensions

of charismatic leadership in the technology industry

are classified into cause and effect clusters based on

the d-r (causality) value. Those dimensions with

positive d-r (causality) values are classified as cause

groups, and those with a positive "model shaping

(M)" value directly influence the other dimensions.

Therefore, leaders and supervisors should consider

this dimension as an important target for the

development of charismatic leadership and

strengthen the model shaping dimension of the cause

group to enhance the charismatic leadership criteria

of the other dimensions. So, the "model shaping (M)"

is the most influential of the other dimensions and

should be treated as the most important dimension in

the development of charismatic leadership for

technology executives. The other dimensions with

negative d-r (causality) values were categorized as

effect clusters, namely 'subordinate shaping (S)' and

'culture shaping (C)', representing the influence of

other dimensions. The extent to which these two

dimensions are affected more than their own

influence, so leaders and supervisors can see them as

issues to be addressed in the long-term development

of charismatic leadership. The highest positive value

of d-r is the 'model shaping (M)', which represents the

‘cause’ of the most influence on the other dimensions,

while the 'subordinate shaping (S)' and 'culture

shaping (C)' are the 'effect' of the most influence from

the other dimensions. As such, the model shaping

dimension is the foundation of the charismatic

leadership factor for technology executives.

In terms of overall consideration, if technology

executives want to enhance their charismatic

leadership, they should choose the most influential

dimension, namely, "model shaping dimension (M)",

which directly affects the other two dimensions of

charismatic leadership, namely, subordinate shaping

(S) and culture shaping (C).

The arithmetic means of centrality (d+r) was

6.214, which was set as the threshold value. The

charismatic leadership dimensions of the technology

executives fall in each quadrant, as shown in the

quadrant positions on the cause-effect diagram in

Figure 1. No dimension of charismatic leadership is

located in quadrant 1, which is a high centrality and

causality quadrant and occupies a relatively important

position with the other quadrants. The charismatic

leadership dimension in quadrant 2 is the 'model

shaping dimension (M)', which is low in centrality but

high in causality, and this dimension influences the

dimensions in quadrant 4, so we should make it an

important dimension of charismatic leadership. The

charismatic leadership dimension in quadrant 3 is the

'culture shaping (C)' dimension, which is a low-

centrality and low-causality dimension. As the

dimension in this quadrant does not affect any of the

dimensions of charismatic leadership, they are

classified as the least important dimension of

charismatic leadership. The charismatic leadership

dimension in quadrant 4 is the 'subordinate shaping

(S)' dimension, which is a dimension with a high

degree of centrality but a low degree of causality, and

which can be strengthened by the enhancement of the

dimensions in quadrants 1 and 2.

Using Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the Decisive Factors of Charismatic Leadership

From Figure 1, we can see that the three

dimensions are correlated with each other and it is

clear that the direction of the arrows of the "model

shaping (M)" dimension are all directed towards the

other dimensions and are strong, while they are less

influenced by the other dimensions. As a result,

technology executives have been able to model

themselves by developing the personality, behavioral

and emotional intelligence of charismatic leaders, to

set a good example for their staff and shape the

organization’s competitive culture. However, the

strong relationship between the 'subordinate shaping

(S)' and is an influential dimension, highlighting it as

a problematic area that affects charismatic leadership.

If the two dimensions of model shaping (M) and

culture shaping (C) can be improved, then

subordinate shaping (S) will also be improved, this

will lead to the enhancement of charismatic

leadership in the technology industry. It can be seen

that 'model shaping (M)' is the defining dimension of

charismatic leadership for technology executives,

with the other two dimensions of influence being

'subordinate shaping' and 'culture shaping'. Therefore,

a technology executive with the charismatic

leadership of a role model and the culture of the

organization can develop a good role model for his or

her subordinates and lead to the achievement of the

organization’s vision and goals.

4.2 Results of the Analysis of the

Criteria

The assessment criteria are physical traits of charisma

(M1), psychological traits of charisma (M2),

personality traits of charisma (M3), leadership

behaviors of charisma (M4), emotionally intelligent

(M5), role models and behavioral benchmarks (S1),

work engagement (S2), inspirational motivation (S3),

sociability (S4), supportive behavior and successful

experiences (S5), inspirational intelligence of

subordinates (S6), and fairness and justice (S7), work

performance (C1), organizational citizenship

behavior (C2), developmental vision and goal setting

(C3), team building (C4), and organizational identity

(C5), and mastery of external environmental

opportunities (C6). After defining the criteria and

designing the fuzzy semantic scale, establishing a

direct association matrix, building and analyzing the

structural model, total association matrix, and

defuzzification, the defuzzified total association

matrix among the criteria is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Collation of column values by criterion.

Criteria d r d+r d-r Quadrant

Causal

relationship

M1 1.949 1.937 3.886 0.012 2

Affect

othe

M2 3.350 2.800 6.150 0.550 1

Core criteria

M3 3.319 2.777 6.097 0.542 1

Core criteria

M4 3.291 2.842 6.133 0.449 1

Core criteria

M5 3.167 2.670 5.838 0.497 1

Core criteria

S1 3.162 2.989 6.151 0.174 1

Core criteria

S2 2.852 2.892 5.744 -0.040 4

Affected

criteria

S3 2.945 3.191 6.136 -0.245 4

Affected

criteria

S4 2.217 2.514 4.731 -0.297 3

Independenc

e criteria

S5 2.709 2.965 5.675 -0.256 3

Independenc

e criteria

S6 2.501 2.665 5.166 -0.164 3

Independenc

e criteria

S7 2.479 2.697 5.176 -0.217 3

Independenc

e criteria

C1 2.604 2.928 5.533 -0.324 3

Independenc

e criteria

C2 2.562 2.772 5.334 -0.209 3

Independenc

e criteria

C3 2.845 2.956 5.801 -0.111 4

Affected

criteria

C4 2.913 3.114 6.027 -0.201 4

Affected

criteria

C5 2.736 2.827 5.563 -0.092 4

Affected

criteria

C6 2.443 2.511 4.955 -0.068 3

Independenc

e criteria

Average 5.561 0.000

Note: physical traits of charisma (M1), psychological traits

of charisma (M2), personality traits of charisma (M3),

leadership behaviors of charisma (M4), emotionally

intelligent (M5), role models and behavioral benchmarks

(S1), work engagement (S2), inspirational motivation (S3),

sociability (S4), supportive behavior and successful

experiences (S5), inspirational intelligence of subordinates

(S6), and fairness and justice (S7), work performance (C1),

organizational citizenship behavior (C2), developmental

vision and goal setting (C3), team building (C4), and

organizational identity (C5), and mastery of external

environmental opportunities (C6)

In terms of centrality (d+r), these three criteria

role models and behavioral benchmarks (S1),

psychological traits of charisma (M2), and

inspirational motivation (S3) are the most important.

In terms of the causality (d-r), the value of these six

criteria physical traits of charisma (M1),

psychological traits of charisma (M2), personality

traits of charisma (M3), leadership behaviors of

charisma (M4), emotionally intelligent (M5), role

models and behavioral benchmarks (S1) are positive

values, which means that these are the cause criteria.

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

Among them, the strongest are psychological traits of

charisma (M2), inspirational motivation (S3),

emotionally intelligent (M5).

Conversely, the value of these 12 criteria work

engagement (S2), inspirational motivation (S3),

sociability (S4), supportive behavior and successful

experiences (S5), inspirational intelligence of

subordinates (S6), and fairness and justice (S7), work

performance (C1), organizational citizenship

behavior (C2), developmental vision and goal setting

(C3), team building (C4), and organizational identity

(C5), and mastery of external environmental

opportunities (C6) are negative value, which means

these criteria are effect criteria. Among these criteria,

work performance (C1), sociability (S4), supportive

behavior and successful experiences (S5), and

inspirational motivation (S3) have the highest

negative values. According to the causal relationships

obtained from the combined centrality and causality

analyses, psychological traits of charisma (M2) is the

strongest influence, while the most influential

criterion was work performance (C1). Among the

charismatic leadership criteria for technology

executives, psychological traits of charisma (M2),

personality traits of charisma (M3), and emotionally

intelligent (M5) are the most influential criteria in

determining charismatic leadership and are the main

criteria for improving charismatic leadership.

In the causality (d-r) section, the 18 criteria that

influence the charismatic leadership of technology

executives can be grouped into cause-effect clusters

based on the d-r (causality) values. Criteria with

positive d-r (causality) values are categorized as

cause clusters, with a total of six criteria categorized.

Positive criteria have a direct impact on other criteria.

Therefore, supervisors and leaders should consider

these criteria as important targets for enhancing

charismatic leadership, and strengthen the ability of

the reason group criteria to enhance the other criteria

of charismatic leadership. The most influential

criteria are "psychological traits of charisma (M2),

personality traits of charisma (M3), and emotionally

intelligent (M5). These three criteria are the most

influential criteria and should be treated as the most

important criteria for charismatic leadership and the

most influential "cause" of the other criteria. The

higher the proportion of charismatic psychological

traits, charismatic personality traits, and emotional

intelligence, the stronger the influence of other

criteria on charismatic leadership. Therefore, the

psychological attributes, personality traits, and

emotional intelligence of technology executives are

the basis for charismatic leadership. The negative

value of d-r (causality) is classified as the effect

cluster. A total of 12 criteria were categorized as

effect clusters, representing the extent to which they

are influenced by other criteria. The extent of being

affected by these 12 criteria is more than their own

influence, so technology executives and leaders

should consider these 12 criteria as issues to be

addressed in the long-term development of

charismatic leadership.

The arithmetic mean of centrality (d+r) was 5.561,

and its value was set as the threshold value. The

charismatic leadership criteria fall in each quadrant,

as shown in Table 4. These five criteria psychological

traits of charisma (M2), personality traits of charisma

(M3), leadership behaviors of charisma (M4),

emotionally intelligent (M5), role models, and

behavioral benchmarks (S1) that influence

charismatic leadership are in quadrant 1. They are

high centrality and causality criteria. Criteria in this

quadrant are relatively important compared to those

in the other quadrants. There is only one criterion of

influencing charismatic leadership in quadrant 2,

namely, physical traits of charisma (M1), which is a

low-centrality, but high-causality criterion that

influences the criteria in quadrant 4 and is therefore

ranked as an important criterion influencing

charismatic leadership. The criteria for charismatic

leadership in quadrant 3 are sociability (S4),

supportive behavior, inspirational intelligence of

subordinates (S6), fairness and justice (S7), work

performance (C1), organizational citizenship

behavior (C2), and mastery of external environmental

opportunities (C6). These are the criteria with low

centrality and low causality. As the criteria in this

quadrant do not affect any of the charismatic

leadership criteria, they are classified as the least

important criteria for charismatic leadership. The six

criteria in quadrant 4 that influence charismatic

leadership are work engagement (S2), inspirational

motivation (S3), supportive behavior and successful

experiences (S5), developmental vision and goal

setting (C3), team building (C4), and organizational

identity (C5), which are high in centrality but low in

causality. These six criteria can be enhanced by the

enhancement of the criteria in quadrants 1 and 2 to

strengthen charismatic leadership skills. If the

influence of charismatic leadership criteria in

quadrant 1 is increased, it will improve the influence

of charismatic leadership criteria in quadrant 4, as the

criteria of model shaping will influence the criteria of

subordinate shaping, and culture shaping and they

have a complex entanglement relationship. Except for

model shaping, psychological traits of charisma

(M2), and personality traits of charisma (M3), should

be improved as the priority for enhancing charismatic

Using Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the Decisive Factors of Charismatic Leadership

leadership. In addition to modeling charismatic

leadership, the criteria of charismatic psychological

attributes (M2) and charismatic personality attributes

(M3) should be improved as the priority for

enhancing charismatic leadership. In addition,

improving the charismatic leadership criteria in

quadrant 2 will also improve the charismatic

leadership criteria in quadrant 4, and is therefore

ranked as the second priority for improving

charismatic leadership. This means that in addition to

the criteria psychological traits of charisma (M2),

personality traits of charisma (M3), leadership

behaviors of charisma (M4) of Model shaping (M),

the criterion role models and behavioral benchmarks

(S1) of Subordinate shaping (S) is a decisive factor in

charismatic leadership. It influences 13 other criteria

that influence charismatic leadership, and there is a

correlation between Model shaping (M), Subordinate

shaping (S), and Culture shaping (C). As role models

and behavioral benchmarks (S1) is the key criterion

for Subordinate shaping (S), strengthening it is an

important target task for Subordinate shaping (S). In

addition, Model shaping (M) is an important factor in

charismatic leadership, so technology executives and

leaders should enhance the Model shaping (M) factor

to improve charismatic leadership.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In terms of dimension, first of all, the model shaping

dimension is the main influence on other dimensions;

and in terms of dimension level, the model shaping is

the most influential cause of other dimensions, while

the subordinate shaping and the culture shaping are

the effects of the influence. In addition, the culture

shaping dimension is the high degree affected

dimension, so the charismatic leadership of leaders

can therefore be achieved through the construction of

a model shaping dimension. Hence, the high mutual

influence and importance of subordinate shaping on

culture shaping suggest that leaders also need to

strengthen the subordinate shaping dimension.

Secondly, the model shaping dimension is the main

decisive dimension of charismatic leadership. The

model shaping dimension has a direct impact on the

subordinate shaping and culture shaping dimension,

and it is a fundamental factor in enhancing the

charismatic leadership of leaders. Therefore, leaders

must first develop charismatic leadership traits and

charismatic leadership behaviors, as well as the

ability to be emotionally intelligent, in order to

establish a role model for employees within the

organization and to influence organizational

effectiveness and subordinate behavior, so model

shaping is the foundation for leaders to establish

charismatic leadership.

In terms of criteria, firstly, the psychological traits

of charisma, personality traits of charisma, leadership

behaviors of charisma, emotionally intelligent, and

role models and behavioral benchmarks are the main

influencing criteria for the other criteria. They mainly

influence other criteria, especially the psychological

trait of charisma, which is the strongest influence on

other criteria, except for the physical traits of

charisma, which is not influenced. In addition, role

models and behavioral benchmarks are the strongest

influencing criteria that affect other criteria. Leaders

can cultivate charismatic leadership skills over time

through the most influential role models and

behavioral benchmarks, as well as the most

influential psychological traits of charisma, in order

to shape themselves as confident, autonomous,

insightful, and highly motivated individuals who can

set an example in the organization and influence their

subordinates to follow the charismatic leader's

example and selfless behavior. In addition to the role

models and behavioral benchmarks, and

psychological traits of charisma, personality traits of

charisma, leadership behaviors of charisma, and

emotionally intelligent are also key criteria that

influence other criteria of charismatic leadership,

therefore, leaders should also develop charismatic

leadership traits of integrity, open-mindedness,

affinity and selflessness, and leaders should be

capable of charismatic leadership behaviors of risk-

taking, self-sacrifice, and innovative tendencies. In

other words, the leader must be able to manage his or

her emotions effectively and be willing to break away

from the status quo to develop charismatic leadership

skills. Secondly, psychological traits of charisma,

personality traits of charisma, leadership behaviors of

charisma, and emotionally intelligent are the main

determining factors of charismatic leadership. In

addition to being the main determinants of

charismatic leadership, they are also the main

influencers of other criteria. Therefore, to develop

charismatic leadership skills, business executives and

organizational leaders can first develop leaders with

charismatic leadership skills through psychological

attributes, personality traits, leadership behaviors,

and emotional intelligence.

As charismatic leadership is a large, complex, and

highly variable organizational and leadership issue,

however, most of the past studies have examined the

determinants of charismatic leadership from a single

theoretical perspective. Therefore, it is impossible to

integrate an integrated framework to influence

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

charismatic leadership. In order to understand this

issue, this study combines the Fuzzy Delphi method

and Fuzzy DEMATEL methodology to propose a

more comprehensive and holistic approach to the

determinants of charismatic leadership, which has not

yet been presented in any research paper and is

therefore of academic value.

The academic value of the findings of this study

is summarised as follows: 1. The study integrates

theoretical perspectives on charismatic leadership

and uses a wide range of perspectives to collect and

analyze relevant literature, filter out indicators that

influence charismatic leadership, and identify the

dimensions and criteria that influence charismatic

leadership by integrating the views of scholars and

experts in charismatic leadership. 2. By using the

Fuzzy DEMATEL methodology to assess the

dimensions and criteria that influence charismatic

leadership, the cause-effect diagram is computed and

analyzed to provide a clear and easy understanding of

the complex causal structure between the dimensions

and criteria of charismatic leadership and the strength

and extent of the influence of these factors.

In terms of practical implications, the findings of

this study reveal a number of important implications

for business executives and organizational leaders.

This will help them to select the most important and

critical indicators of charismatic leadership so that

they can select the appropriate key factors of

charismatic leadership to develop a model of

charismatic leadership over time, which will inspire

their subordinates and make them attracted to the

charismatic behavior of the leader. In addition, this

study provides a framework for the development of a

charismatic leadership model. Furthermore, this

study provides a visualization chart to identify the

relationships and determinants that influence

charismatic leadership factors.

REFERENCES

Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can

charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3),

374–396.

Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989) Social Identity Theory

and the Organization. Academy of Management

Review, 14(1), 20-39.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying

theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,

191-215.

Banks, G.C., Engemann, K.N., Williams, C.E., Gooty, J.,

McCauley, K.D., & Medaugh, M.R. (2016). A meta-

analytic review and future research agenda of

charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,

28(4), 508-529.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond

expectations. New York: A Division of Macmillan, Inc.

Bass, B.M. (1997). The Ethics of Transformational

Leadership. KLSP: Transformational Leadership,

Working Papers, Academy of Leadership Press.

Behling, O., & McFillen, J.M. (1996). A Syncretical Model

of Charismatic / Transformational Leadership. Group

& organization management: an international journal,

21(2), 163-191.

Bennis, W.S., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies

for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life,

New York: Wiley.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in

Organizations. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Chen, M.C., Yang, M.S., & Wang, H.H. (2017). The

meaning and application of charismatic leadership in

nursing. The Kaohsiung Journal of Nursing, 34(2), 63-

70.

Cheng, B.S., Lin, T.T., Cheng, H.Y. Chou, L.F., Jen, C.K.,

& Farh, J.L. (2010). Paternalistic leadership and

employee effectiveness: a multiple-level-of-analysis

perspective. Chinese Journal Psychology, 52, 1-23.

Cheng, J.N. (2004). The Influential Model of Teachers'

"Organizational Citizenship Behavior" in Elementary

and Junior High Schools. Journal of National Taiwan

Normal University, 49(1), 41-62.

Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1987). Toward a

behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in

organizational settings. Academy of Management

Review, 12(4), 627-647.

Day, D., & Antonakis, J. (2012). Leadership: Past, present,

and future. The nature of leadership (pp. 3-25). (2nd

ed.) Thousnad Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ernst, B.A., Banks, G.C., Loignon, A.C., Frear, K.A.,

Williams, C.E., Arciniega, L.M., Gupta, R.K.,

Kodydek, G. & Subramanian, D. (2021). Virtual

charismatic leadership and signaling theory: A

prospective meta-analysis in five countries. The

Leadership Quarterly, 33(5), 101541.

Fio, C.M., Harris, D. & House, R. (1999). Charismatic

leadership: Strategies for Effecting Social Change.

Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 449-482.

Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social

Identity and Leadership Processes in Groups. Advances

in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 1-52.

House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of charismatic

leadership. Working Paper Series 76-06. Paper

presented at the Southern Illinois University Fourth

Biennial Leadership Symposium (Carbondale, Illinois,

October 26-28, 1976) (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED133827)

House, R.J., Delbecq, A., & Taris, T.W. (1998). Values

based leadership: An integrated theory and an

empirical test. Working paper for Center for Leadership

and Change Management, University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia, PA.

Using Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the Decisive Factors of Charismatic Leadership

Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational

administration: Theory, research, and practice.

Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Hsu, C. Y., Chen, K. T., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). FDCDM

with fuzzy DEMATEL approach for customers’ choice

behavior model. International Journal of Fuzzy

Systems, 9(4), 236-246.

Hsu, T.R. (2003). The Relationship between Organizational

Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in

Public Sector. Open Public Administration Review, 13,

1-36.

Hu, J., & Dutta, T. (2022). What’s charisma got to do with

it? Three faces of charismatic leadership and corporate

social responsibility engagement. Frontiers

Psychology, 13, 829584.

Huang, M.P., & Kao, F.H. (2014). The Values-Fit Based

Charismatic Leadership Theory: The Mediation

Process and Multilevel Analysis. Chinese Journal of

Psychology, 56(2), 215-235.

Huang, M.P., Lin, T.T., Cheng, B.S., & Liang, W.C.

(2012). Charismatic Leadership in the Chinese

Enterprises: Construct Analysis and Scale

Development. Journal of Management, 29(4), 307-331.

Huang, Y.T., (2020). Renewal of Organizational

Capabilities: The Perspective of Organizational

Identity. Sun Yat-sen Management Review, 28(1), 9-66.

Imani-Hassanloui, M., Maraki, M.R., Taghimalek, I., &

Tagimalek, H. (2022). A Statistical Case Study for the

Components of Spiritual and Charismatic Leadership in

Reverse Engineering based on Voice of Customer in

Iran Khodro Company. Iranian (Iranica) Journal of

Energy and Environment, 13(3), 209-219.

Karaca, D., Özgül, B., & Zehir, C. (2021). The relationships

among charismatic leadership, job satisfaction, and

entrepreneurial orientation: An empirical study in the

R&D department. Business & Management Studies: An

International Journal, 9(4), 1521-1537.

Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S.B. (2008). Leadership

and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist,

63(2), 96-110.

Kao, S.F. & Chuang, C.J. (2009). Paternalistic leadership,

team socialization and team culture: a study of sports

teams. Research Apply Psychology, 42, 187-213.

Knippenberg, D.V., & Sitkin, S.B. (2013). A critical

assessment of charismatic transformational leadership

research: Back to the drawing board?. Academy of

Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60.

Liang, L.W., Lee, T.T., & Huang, B.Y. (2010).

Investigation of Merging and Acquisition of Taiwanese

Banks - Application of the Fuzzy Delphi Method.

Journal of Financial Studies, 11(4), 31-65.

Lin, Y.W. & Chung, Y.C. (2020). Multilevel research on

leadership behaviors of nursing supervisors, healthy

team climate, and workplace well-being of nurses:

mediating effect of nurse health behavior. Taiwan

Journal Public Health, 39(5), 565-577.

Lin, Y.N., Lo, C.J., & Chan, C.H. (2017). The relationship

among charismatic leadership, psychological capital,

work-family conflict, workplace well-being, and

innovative behaviors. Journal of Chinese Creativity,

8(2), 32-51.

Liu, H.T. & Hsieh, C.H. (2016). A study of the influence of

transformational leadership on subordinate-supervisor

value congruence and work group effectiveness: the

sample from military personnel. Fu Hsing Kang

Academic Journal, 109, 1-29.

Neufeld, D.J., Dong, L.Y., & Higgins, C. (2007).

Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of

information technology. European Journal of

Information Systems, 16, 494-510.

Paulsen, N., Maldonado, D., Callan, V. J., & Ayoko, O.

(2009). Charismatic leadership, change and innovation

in an R&D organization. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 22(5), 511-523.

Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1990). Research

strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational

psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology

(pp. 419-489). Consulting Psychologists Press.

Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J.A. Conger &

R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 122-

160). San Francisco, CA: Jessey-Bass.

Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (2015). Methods of Meta-

Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research

Findings (3rd ed.). LA: Sage.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of

charismatic leader behavior in military units:

Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and

superiors' appraisals of leader performance. The

Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409.

Saleh, S. D., & Hosek, K. (1976). Job involvement:

Concepts and Measurements. Academy of

Management Journal, 2(6), 213-224.Sparrowe, R.T., &

Liden, R.C. (1997). Process and Structure in Leader-

Member Exchange. Academy of Management Review,

22(2), 522-552.

Tzeng, C.Y., Su, H.F., & Hsieh, P.C. (2005). The

relationship between leadership style and group

effectiveness: an example of quality control circles of

hospitals in Taipei area. Taiwan Journal Public Health,

24, 230-238.

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic

Organization. Henderson AM, Parsons T (Eds). New

York: Free Press.

Wu, C.C., & Hong, K.Y. (2005). A Preliminary Exploration

of the Conceptual Connotation of Military Virtue

Leadership. Fu Hsing Kang Academic Journal, 84, 25-

54.

Wu, C.H., Lin, M.L., & Li, J. (2022). Using Multiple

Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the Decisive

Factors of Port Logistics Service Quality. Journal of

Management and Information, 27, 153-220.

Wu, H.P., Lu, L., Ku, C.C., & Chang, Y.Y. (2010). The

associations between transformational leadership

behaviors and subordinates’ work stress and supervisor

satisfaction. Chung Hua Journal of Management,

11(2), 1-30.

Wu, H.T., & Chung, M.H. (2011). The Causality among

Role Perception, Job Involvement and Professional

FEMIB 2023 - 5th International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

Growth. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 43(2),

419-438.

Wu, K.J., Liao, C.J., Tseng, M.L., & Chiu, A. S. F. (2015).

Exploring decisive factors in green supply chain

practices under uncertainty. International Journal

Production Economics, 159, 147-157.

Yan, H.D., Wu, C.Y., & Lin., R.F. (2018). Social

Entrepreneurship and Charismatic Leadership: Master

Cheng Yen and Tzu Chi Foundation. International

Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 8(2),

136-158.

Yeh, S.P., & Lin, Y.W. (2013). The Multi-level Factors of

Employee Health Behavior: Team Healthy Climate and

Supervisor Charismatic Leadership. Journal of Health

Management, 11(1), 85-98.

Yeh, T. M., & Huang, Y. L. (2014). Factors in determining

wind farm location: Integrating GQM, fuzzy

DEMATEL, and ANP. Renewable Energy, 66, 159-

169.

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial Leadership: A Review of

Theory and Research. Journal of Management, 15(2),

251-289.

Yukl, G. (1994) Leadership in Organizations. 3rd Edition,

Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River

Zhao, C., Tian, G., Wen, Z., & Gao, X. (2021). Charismatic

leadership and millennial employee innovation

performance relationship mediated by employees’

leadership, professional, and organizational

identification. Social Behavior and Personality: An

international journal, 49(1), e9643.

Zhao, H., & Li, C.P. (2019). A computerized approach to

understanding leadership research. The Leadership

Quarterly, 30, 396-416.

Using Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis to Explore the Decisive Factors of Charismatic Leadership