The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
ArticlesFull Access

Charismatic Leadership, Boundary Issues, and Collusion

The authors suggest that a charismatic leadership style has an impact on the maintenance of boundaries and standards of practice within a department of psychiatry. They also underline the need for all members of a self regulated professional group to assume responsibility for the maintenance of standards within the group.

An overview of leadership tasks and styles, with particular emphasis on the qualities of charismatic leadership, is provided, and the impacts of boundary violations committed by members of a psychiatric department or institute on the integrity of the professional group are also elaborated. The authors then develop several hypotheses regarding the phenomenon of emotional collusion that occurs in departments in which a charismatic leader becomes sexually involved with patients. The individual internal psychological mechanisms and companion group dynamics that may allow the leader to be supported at the cost of ethical standards, principles of practice, and the ultimate creativity and viability of the group are then discussed.

The authors conclude that the maintenance of standards within a self regulating professional group must be the shared responsibility of all members. The example of boundary violations by a charismatic leader is used to illustrate the need for open debate regarding fundamental principles required to maintain a healthy functioning of critical checks and balances within the psychiatric profession.