Before turning to the broader conclusions flowing from the present effort, certain limitations should be noted. To begin, no attempt was made in the present effort to provide a comprehensive description of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership. In part, the limitation reflects the fact that more complex descriptions of charismatic (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1998), ideological (e.g., Strange & Mumford, 2002), and pragmatic (e.g., Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001) leaders are available. More directly, however, this limitation arises from the unique focus of the present effort on the individual, group, organizational, and environmental variables influencing the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders.
Along related lines, it should be recognized that the present study could not, and in fact has not, examined all of the individual, group, organiza-tional, and environmental variables that might conceivably influence the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic
leaders. Instead, in the present effort we have focused on variables that account for differential emergence and performance on the part of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Thus, less attention was given to communication skills (e.g., Fiol et al., 1999) than cognitive skill requirements for pragmatic leaders (e.g., Marcy & Mumford, in press;
Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001) and social skill requirements for charismatic and ideological leaders (e.g.,Zaccaro et al., 1991).
Similarly, we chose to engage in a somewhat narrowed multi-level discussion of leadership. For example, we did not discuss issues of aggrega-tion, expressly specify the level at which phenomena should be explored or address issues of data analysis and investigation. Moreover, our discussion of multi-level influences was directed at the emergence and performance of the three leader types, with less discussion on the dynamic interplay between leader and follower as well as other constituencies. Along related lines, we focused our commentary on broad issues impacting leader emergence and performance and did not, with regard to the chapter, consider issues of time frame and shifts in relationships over time (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
This somewhat narrowed investigation was intentional, however, to allow for a reasonably concise multi-level consideration of the new leadership model. Such focused multi-level discussion, moreover, is somewhat beyond the scope of this largely theoretical piece. These issues stand as important, however, and we hope they will be addressed as more empirical studies are conducted that investigate multi-level influences of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders.
Finally, observations with regard to individual, group, organizational, and environmental influences on differential leader emergence and per-formance were formulated with respect to a given level of analysis. This within-level formulation is, of course, consistent with the current stage of development of research on charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership – despite the existence of many studies on charismatic leadership systematic studies of ideological and pragmatic leadership have appeared only in the last few years. This approach, while perhaps dictated by the current status of the literature should not, however, be taken to imply that significant cross-level effects do not exist. Indeed, these effects should be examined in future studies exploring charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership.
Nonetheless, our observations with regard to multi-level influences on the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do suggest some cross-level phenomena that might be of interest in future work along these lines. For example, it is possible that charismatic
and ideological leaders may at times induce political conflict to create conditions that favor their emergence and performance. In contrast, pragmatic leaders may seek to minimize political conflict due to the detrimental effects of intense conflict on the effective application of complex problem-solving skills. Shared leadership, and the cohesion of ideological groups, may serve to minimize the tendency of followers to scrutinize ideological leaders thereby limiting the potential detrimental effects of follower evaluations on ideological leadership. Ideological leaders, more-over, may create perceptions of victimization and unfairness to engender the threat perceptions that make their prescriptive mental models more attractive to followers. Although other examples of this sort may be cited, the foregoing examples seem sufficient to illustrate the potential value of cross-level studies examining the emergence and performance of charis-matic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders.
Even bearing these caveats in mind, we believe that our examination of individual, group, organizational, and environmental influences on the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders has some noteworthy implications. These implications are summar-ized inTable 1. To begin, prior studies contrasting charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders have focused primarily on demonstrating the existence of different patterns of behavior across these three types of outstanding leaders (e.g., Mumford, 2006; Strange & Mumford, 2002).
In this regard, our observations in the present effort are noteworthy because they suggest not only that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders differ in their behavior but also in (a) the conditions promoting emergence of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders, and (b) the conditions that facilitate effective exercise of influence on the part of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Thus, our observations in the present effort provide some further support for the substantive meaningfulness of these three alternative pathways to outstanding leadership.
In addition to providing some further evidence pointing to the distinc-tion we have drawn between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership; our observations provide some support for the general model of outstanding leadership held to give rise to these alternative pathways.
More specifically, this model holds that outstanding leadership ultimately arises from sensemaking activities in relation to crises (Hunt et al., 1999).
In sensemaking, however, leaders make different assumptions about causation and the relative emphasis to be placed on goals and causes in the formation of the prescriptive mental models that will be applied in sensemaking and vision formation (Mumford, 2006).
Table 1. Summary of Hypotheses about Multi-Level Influences.
Charismatic Ideological Pragmatic General characteristics of outstanding leaders
Crisis, change events present þ þ þ
Sensemaking by leader þ þ þ
Formation of viable mental models þ þ þ
Strength of follower commitment to leader þ þ
Goals stressed in mental models þ þ
Causes stressed in mental models þ þ
Support based on mass reactions þ þ
Support based on elite reactions þ
Individual-level
Cognitive skills þ
Social skills þ þ
Amount of follower contact þ þ
Importance of leader mental model to followers þ þ
Pursuit of opportunities þ
Removal of threats þ
Self-sacrifice by leader þ
Group-level
Trust required for emergence þ
Trust required for performance þ þ
Actions taken to maintain perceptions of fairness
þ
Group cohesion and emergence þ þ
Group cohesion and performance þ þ
Level of group interdependence for emergence and performance
þ þ
Amount of leadership shared with group þ
Organizational-level
Lack of order þ þ
Amount of complexity þ þ
Amount of professionalism þ
Amount of political conflict þ þ
Strength of organizational culture þ
Environmental-level
Collectivist cultures þ
Individualistic cultures þ þ
Social disruption þ
Conditions of sociotechnical change þ
Consensus among elites þ
Lack of elite consensus þ
Note: þ, indicates positive relationship.
These differential frames for sensemaking are, in fact, consistent with the findings obtained in recent studies examining individual, group, organiza-tional, and environmental influences on the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. For example, social disruption, social conflict, and institutional failure should lead to an emphasis on situational causes, a focus on threats, and a tendency to stress traditional goals and values – all characteristics of the ideological pre-scriptive mental model. And, consistent with these observations, Mumford et al. (2008) found that these conditions promote the emergence of ideological leaders.
Not only does this theory produce hypotheses that have been confirmed in recent studies examining individual, group, organizational, and environ-mental influences, it also generates hypotheses that seem consistent with much of what we know about the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. For example, the proposi-tion that pragmatic leaders rely on cognitive skills is not only consistent with the prior observations of Mumford and Van Doorn (2001), but it is in keeping with the findings ofMarcy and Mumford (in press)indicating that causal analysis contributes to social innovation – a hallmark of pragmatic leaders. Along similar lines, prior studies of charismatic leadership indicate that the formation of cohesive groups dedicated to the future-oriented goals being articulated by charismatic leaders may represent a critical determinant of the ability of charismatic leaders to exercise influence (Klein & House, 1998).
Another piece of evidence pointing to the viability of this theory is that it leads to some new hypotheses about the conditions giving rise to the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. For example, chaos and complexity appear to exert a rather complex set of effects on the emergence and performance of these three types of leaders. Chaotic conditions favor ideological leaders while ordered conditions favor pragmatic leaders. Pragmatic leaders, however, along with charismatic leaders, appear more likely to emerge and perform effectively in complex environments. Alternatively, it appears plausible to argue that the viability of the leader’s prescriptive mental model may be more important for charismatic and ideological leaders than pragmatic leaders – a hypothesis that warrants some attention in future studies.
A final piece of evidence bearing on the validity of this model arises from its ability to permit differential predictions with regard to leader emergence and performance. Thus, while social disruption and conflict may promote the emergence of ideological leaders, this conflict, when coupled with
oppositional bonding at the group level, may act to undermine performance.
Similarly, trust may not be necessary for the emergence of ideological leaders, but trust building does appear central to long-term performance.
For charismatic leaders, however, trust appears integral to both emergence and performance.
Taken as a whole, these observations not only provide support for the validity of the model of outstanding leadership under consideration but also the existence of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic pathways to outstanding leadership – pathways that emerge from a dynamic interaction of leaders and their environments as they seek to make sense of crises.
Although the potential existence of multiple alternative pathways to out-standing leadership is not new (Weber, 1924), it is also true that leadership theory has for some time now focused almost exclusively on one form of outstanding leadership – charismatic leadership. Our focus on charismatic leaders, however, may have resulted in a simplistic, indeed an overly simplistic, image of outstanding leadership. This image results in an assumption that an emotionally evocative future-oriented vision is the way to lead despite the fact that a variety of conditions operating at the individual, group, organizational, and environmental levels condition the emergence and performance of charismatic leaders and result in differential opportunities for charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership.
Hopefully, the present effort by illustrating how various conditions operating at different levels influence the differential emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leader will set the stage for a new, more sophisticated, set of studies that recognize the complex nature of the different pathways to outstanding leadership.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Allison Antes, Katrina Bedell-Avers, Jill Strange, and Ginamarie Scott-Ligon, for their contributions to the present effort.
Parts of this effort were supported by a series of grants from the U. S.
Department of Defense, Michael D. Mumford Principal Investigator.
Significant portions of this article were published in Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19, Michael D. Mumford, Alison L. Antes, Jay J. Caughron, and Tamara L. Friedrich, Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership:
Multi-level influences on emergence and performance, pp. 114–160, Copy-right Elsevier 2008.
REFERENCES
Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Gardner, W. L., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2002).
Toward a political theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 751–796.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673–705.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Studies of cognition and emotion in organizations: Attribution, affective events, emotional intelligence and perception of emotion. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 11–20.
Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 219–227.
Barbuto, J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study of elected officials. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51–64.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In: W. Pasmore &
R. W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 231–272).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bedell, K. E., Hunter, S. T., Angie, A. D., & Vert, A. (2006). A historiometric examination of Machiavellianism and a new taxonomy of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 50–72.
Bedell, K. E., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Problem-solving tactics of charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 89–106.
Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 307–330.
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 195–210.
Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. (2000). Relationality in organizational research:
Exploring the space between. Organization Science, 11, 551–564.
Chiozza, G., & Goemans, H. E. (2003). Peace through insecurity: Tenure and international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47, 443–467.
Choi, Y., & Yoon, J. (2005). Effects of leaders’ self-sacrificial behavior and competency on followers’ attribution of charismatic leadership among Americans and Koreans. Current Research in Social Psychology, 11, 51–69.
Colbert, B. A. (2004). The complex resource-based view: Implications for theory and practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 29, 341–358.
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179–189.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations:
An insider’s perspective on developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–180.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. S. (1988). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637–647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. S. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Connelly, M. S., Gilbert, J. A., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K. V., Marks, M. A., & Mumford, M. D.
(2000). Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leader performance. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 65–86.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857–880.
Dean, J. W., Jr., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 368–396.
de Hoogh, A. H. B., den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2004). Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work and Organiza-tional Psychology, 13, 447–471.
Deluga, R. J. (2001). American president Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 334–363.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjain, R. K. (1999). Multi-level theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286–329.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In: B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead(Vol. 2, pp. 35–66). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327–344.
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2005). Top management leadership and influence on innovation: The role of sociocultural context. Journal of Management, 31, 381–402.
Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P.
(2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In:
F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179–254).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. J. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 449–482.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 1–6.
Frankwick, G. L., Walker, B. A., & Ward, J. C. (1994). Belief structures in conflict: Mapping a strategic marketing decision. Journal of Business Research, 31, 183–195.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Institutional identity, image, and issue interpretation:
Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5, 363–383.
Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414–466.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1998). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. In: F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds), Leadership:
The multi-level approaches(pp. 103–134). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Halverson, S. E., Holladay, C. C., Kazma, S. M., & Quinones, M. A. (2004). Self-sacrificial behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and situational factors.
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211–240.
Hedlund, J., Forsythe, G. B., Horvath, J. A., Williams, W. M., Snook, S., & Sternberg, R.
(2003). Identifying and assessing tacit knowledge: Understanding the practical intelligence of military leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 117–140.
Hemlo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127–138.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. A. (1982). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training and Development Journal, 36, 50–52.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures revisited. Behavior Science Research, 18, 285–305.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In: J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81–108.
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformation/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129–144.
Hunt, J. G. (2004). Consideration and structure. In: J. M. Burns, G. R. Goethals &
L. Sorenson (Eds), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 196–204). Great Barrington, MA:
Berkshire/Sage.
Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423–448.
Hunter, S. T. (2007). The impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: Investigation using a Computer Simulation.Dissertation Abstracts International, The University of Oklahoma (Vol. 52, p. 417).
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: Investigation using a computer simulation. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 21–45.
Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 370–387.
Jacobsen, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 75–112.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 351–368.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 109–135.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 369–376.
Keck, S. L., & Tushman, M. L. (1993). Environmental and organizational context and executive team structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1314–1344.
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Stefano, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126–137.
Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36–51.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1998). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis.
In: F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds), Leadership: The multiple level approach (pp. 2–33). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In: K. Klein &
S. Kozlowski’s (Eds), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhnen, U., Hannover, B., & Shubert, B. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 397–409.
Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Development of outstanding leadership:
A life narrative approach. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 312–334.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.
Lowe, P. (2001). The leadership strategies of top CEOs. Success, 48, 22.
Marcy, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (in press). Social innovation: Enhancing creative performance through causal analysis. Creativity Research Journal.
Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and group performance:
Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120.
Merolla, J. L., Ramos, J. M., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2007). Crisis, charisma and consequences:
Evidence from the 2004 Presidential election. Journal of Politics, 69, 1–30.
Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (2004). Strategic planning an firm performance: A synthesis of more than two decades of research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1649–1666.
Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration. American Psychologist, 60, 161–169.
Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mumford, M. D., Bedell, K. E., Hunter, S. T., Espejo, J., Eubanks, D., & Connelly, M. S.
(2008). Violence in ideological and non-ideological groups: A quantitative analysis of qualitative data. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1521–1561.
Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 289–315.
Mumford, M.D., Espejo, J., Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., Eubanks, D. L. & Connelly, S.
(in press). The sources of leader violence: A multi-level comparison of ideological and non-ideological leaders. The Leadership Quarterly.
Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. In: F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. IV). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Mumford, M. D., Marcy, R. T., Eubanks, D. L., & Murphy, S. T. (in press). Leader cognition in complex systems: The identification and manipulation of causes. Leadership Quarterly.
Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M. S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2000).
Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 87–114.
Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Osburn, H. K. (2002). Planning in organizations:
Performance as a multi-level phenomenon. In: F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds), Research in multi-level issues: The many faces of multi-level issues(pp. 3–36). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
Mumford, M. D., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Vision and mental models: The case of charismatic and ideological leadership. In: B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds), Charismatic and transformational leadership: The road ahead(pp. 109–142). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Mumford, M. D., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). The leadership of pragmatism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 274–309.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Johnson, J. F., Diana, M., Gilbert, J. A., & Threlfall, K. V.
(2000). Patterns of leader characteristics: Implications for performance and develop-ment. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 115–133.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2003). Leadership, culture and performance: The case of the New Zealand public sector. Journal of Change Management, 3, 376–399.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A ‘meso’ level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership.
Journal of Management, 24, 643–671.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. L. (2003). Personality, transforma-tional leadership, trust, and the 2000 US presidential vote. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 161–192.
Pillutla, M. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Attributions of trust and the calculus of reciprocity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 448–456.
Ployhart, R. E., & Schneider, B. (2002). A multi-level perspective on personnel selection research and practice: Implications for selection system design, assessment, and construct validation. In: F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds), The many faces of multi-level issues(pp. 95–140). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Post, J. M., Ruby, K. G., & Shaw, E. D. (2002). The radical group in context: I. An integrated framework for the analysis of group risk for terrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 25, 73–100.
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leadership effective-ness and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 21–40.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all:
A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Sanders, K., & Schyns, B. (2006). Leadership and solidarity behavior: Consensus in perception of employees within teams. Personnel Review, 35, 538–556.