Michael D. Mumford, Samuel T. Hunter, Tamara L. Friedrich and Jay J. Caughron
ABSTRACT
Theories of outstanding, historically notable, leadership have traditionally emphasized charisma. Recent research, however, suggests that charisma may represent only one pathway to outstanding leadership. Outstanding leadership may also emerge from ideological and pragmatic leadership.
In this article, we examine the conditions influencing the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. It is argued that different conditions operating at the environmental, organizational, group, and individual levels influence the emergence and performance of each of these three types of leaders. Implications for understanding the origins and impact of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders are discussed.
Multi-Level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Leadership Research in Multi-Level Issues, Volume 8, 79–116
Copyright r 2009 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1475-9144/doi:10.1108/S1475-9144(2009)0000008004 79
INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, students of leadership have sought to identify the individual and situational variables that influence leader emergence and performance in routine, day-to-day, organizational settings. Thus, the literature has stressed behaviors such as consideration, initiating structure, participation, and change management (e.g., Fleishman, 1953; Hunt, 2004; Marta, Leritz, &
Mumford, 2005; Yukl, 2006), and situational variables such as follower expertise (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982), leader–follower relationships (Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1998), and the degree of task structure (House, 1971) that might moderate the impact of these behaviors on leader emergence and perfo-rmance. Although this research has contributed much to our understanding of leadership in its normative form, it is open to question whether it has told us much about incidents of truly outstanding leadership – incidents where leaders exercise exceptional influence over followers to obtain notable results (Bass, 1985;Mumford, 2006).
Recognition of the limitations of normative leadership theory in accounting for incidents of outstanding leadership, for example, Winston Churchill in the Battle of Britain, Michael Collins in the foundation of the Irish Republic, and Thomas Watson in the creation of IBM, has led students of leadership to seek to identify the attributes of leaders that make these incidents of outstanding leadership possible (House, 1977).
Theories of charismatic and transformational leadership have become the dominant models applied in attempts to account for incidents of out-standing leadership (Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999;Bass & Avolio, 1990;
Conger, 1999;Conger & Kanungo, 1988;House & Howell, 1992). Although theories of charismatic and transformational leadership differ from each other in some notable ways, they share a common core (Hunt, 1999;Yukl, 1999). More specifically, they hold that outstanding leadership is based on effective articulation of a future-oriented vision that motivates and directs others while providing a sense of meaning and affective engagement (Bass, 1990;Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
In fact, the available evidence indicates that a leader’s articulation of a viable vision is positively related to various indices of organization perfor-mance (Deluga, 2001;Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), follower motivation (Sosik, Kahai, Avolio, 1999), effective group interaction (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2003), and satisfaction with both the leader and the group (Dumdum, Lowe, &
Avolio, 2002). Although there is evidence available indicating that charismatic visioning may contribute to outstanding leadership, charismatic theories have been subject to some noteworthy criticisms (Beyer, 1999).
For example, charismatic leadership seems to exert stronger effects in bureaucratic than non-bureaucratic organizations (Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996) and may prove ineffective in some groups such as research and development professionals (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, &
Strange, 2002). Similarly, de Hoogh, den Hartog, and Koopman (2004) found that charismatic leadership was more strongly related to perceptual outcomes (e.g., subordinate attitudes) than some organizational criteria (e.g., organizational liquidity and solvency). These perceptual relationships, moreover, appeared stronger under conditions of environmental uncer-tainty. There is also evidence indicating sociocultural context may moderate the relationship of transformational leadership and organizational innova-tion (Elenkov & Manev, 2005), highlighting the noinnova-tion that charismatic leadership may not prove equally effective across all conditions. Finally, charismatic leadership theories seem to discount, or ignore, some key functions of leaders such as planning and decision-making and may place too great of an emphasis on dyadic relationships (Yukl, 1999, 2006).
These observations led Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford, 2006;
Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001;Strange & Mumford, 2002) to argue that it may be necessary to examine alternative pathways to, or alternative types of, outstanding leadership. Drawing from earlier work by Weber (1924), they argued that three distinct types of outstanding leadership may exist – types they have labeled as charismatic leadership (e.g., John F. Kennedy), ideological leadership (e.g., Ronald Regan), and pragmatic leadership (e.g., Dwight Eisenhower). In the present chapter, we will examine the conditions shaping the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders at the environmental, organizational, group, and individual levels. Before examining these multi-level influences on charis-matic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership; however, it would seem germane to consider the general model of outstanding leadership giving rise to these three alternative pathways.
OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP
Crises and Mental Models
Perhaps the most straightforward conclusion one can draw about out-standing leadership is that outout-standing leadership requires placing the right person in the right situation. Abraham Lincoln’s greatness is inexorably linked to the U. S. Civil War. Bill Gates’ achievements at Microsoft
depended on the phase of development of the computer industry. These observations about the situations giving rise to outstanding leadership;
however, point to a broader conclusion. More specifically, outstanding leadership appears to emerge under conditions of crisis, change, and turbulence (Beyer, 1999). This point is illustrated by John F. Kennedy, who, when discussing Lincoln’s greatness appeared keenly aware of the role crises played in outstanding leadership: ‘‘War, he observed, made it easier for a [Lincoln] to achieve greatness’’ (Schlesinger, 1997, p. 180).
Some support for the above conclusion may be found in a study byHunt, Boal, and Dodge (1999)who asked management students to work on two business tasks under crisis and noncrisis conditions where a crisis involved high-priority goals where little response time was available. They found that visionary charismatic leadership proved especially important to follower perceptions of leadership under crisis conditions. Some further support for this conclusion has been provided by Halverson, Holladay, Kazma, and Quinones (2004) who found that followers were more likely to attribute charisma to a leader under conditions of crisis, as well asPillai and Meindl (1998) who found that crisis conditions cause people to prefer leaders evidencing charisma. Similarly, Merolla, Ramos, and Zechmeister (2007) found that President George W. Bush was rated higher on charisma in experimentally manipulated crisis conditions, with these perceptions of charisma also impacting perceptions of blame and failure in Iraq. Finally, Chiozza and Goemans (2003) examined 1,505 leaders from the years 1919–1992 and found that as risk of international violence increased, leaders were less likely to lose office.
These studies appear to indicate that, crisis, or change, creates conditions where the emergence of charismatic leaders, and perhaps other forms of outstanding leadership, becomes possible. One potential explanation for the impact of crisis, change, and turbulence on outstanding leadership is that these situations, by undermining normative routines, provide leaders with discretion allowing the exercise of exceptional influence (Lowe, 2001).
Another potential explanation for these effects; however, may be found in Mumford (2006). He argued that under conditions of crisis, change, and turbulence, the behavior of complex social systems becomes unpredictable.
This unpredictability not only allows for the emergence of new threats and opportunities, but the actions needed to effectively respond to these threats and opportunities will be ambiguous, or unclear, because people lack an understanding of the causes and consequences of these change events.
Under these conditions, leaders can exercise exceptional influence by engaging in sensemaking activities that clarify goals and paths to goal
attainment (Weick, 1995). These sensemaking activities on the part of leaders induce feelings of control, provide a framework for collective action, reduce perceptions of threat, clarify opportunities, and minimize the feeling of anomie and identity diffusion associated with change.
Some support for this conclusion may be found in a series of studies by Gioia and his colleagues (Gioia & Thomas, 1996;Gioia, Thomas, Clark, &
Chittipeddi, 1994). They examined sensemaking activities on the part of people moving into leadership positions in academic institutions. They found that leader sensemaking provided a basis for guiding organizational change – although this sensemaking may, at times, depend on sense-breaking or the prior reconfiguration of extant interpretive structures being applied by followers (Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999; Pratt, 2000). Some further support for this conclusion may be found in a qualitative study of a new product development effort by Drazin, Glynn, and Kazanjain (1999).
They found that successful new product development efforts require leaders to engage in sensemaking concerning the origins of crises occurring during the course of the product development effort which, in turn, provided project teams with a framework for resolving the crisis.
Mumford and Strange (2002)have examined how leaders might go about sensemaking. They argued that, ultimately, sensemaking activities on the part of leaders will be based on a mental model of the social system under consideration. These mental models represent an abstract schematic knowledge structure describing the key causes of the behavior of a social system vis-a`-vis select functional goals (Frankwick, Walker, & Ward, 1994;
Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003; Hemlo-Silver & Pfeffer, 2004; Johnson-Laird, 1999). The descriptive mental model people form over time with exposure to a social system provides a basis for construction of a prescriptive mental model that represents an idealized image of this social system. That is, a prescriptive model presents a situation as it could be. The development of this prescriptive mental model is based on analysis and reconfiguration of the descriptive mental model. More specifically, in model reconfiguration people are held to analyze the goals being pursued and the key causal operatives influencing attainment of these goals in relation to personal experiences. This reflective, experiential, appraisal of goals and causes gives rise to a prescriptive mental model. This prescriptive mental model permits sensemaking, and sensemaking behavior, on the part of leaders while allowing formation of a vision as the prescriptive mental model is recast to articulate an image of the future to followers.
In a recent experimental study intended to test this theory, Strange and Mumford (2005)asked undergraduates to assume the role of principal of a
new experimental school. They were asked to write a speech describing their vision for the school. Prior to writing this speech; however, they were provided with (1) good and poor case models, (2) asked, or not asked, to analyze goals and causes, and (3) asked, or not asked, to reflect on goals and causes in relation to prior personal experiences in school. It was found that analysis of goals and causes in relation to descriptive models and prior experiences resulted in the production of stronger vision statements as appraised by students, parents, and teachers.
Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership
Within this general model of outstanding leadership, charismatic, ideolo-gical, and pragmatic leadership are held to arise from the strategies leaders apply in the formation of prescriptive mental models. Charismatic leaders, in the formation of their prescriptive mental models, are held to stress goals – typically positive, future-oriented goals (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Accordingly, charismatic leaders’ prescriptive mental models will stress goals as opposed to causes. The causes applying in available descriptive mental models will be those that are retained by charismatic leaders in formation of their prescriptive mental model. In model formation, however, charismatic leaders will tend to retain causes that are subject to control as a result of peoples’ actions. Thus, charismatic leaders define future goals pointing others to causes they might act on to bring about the attainment of these goals. In other words, charismatic leaders see people as creators of their own destiny through the actions they take on a set of known, relatively unambiguous, causes. This charismatic logic is aptly illustrated in John F. Kennedy’s statement ‘‘Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.’’
Charismatic leaders must encourage people to act, and act on relevant causes of goal attainment. One way charismatic leaders may motivate this kind of action is through role modeling and self-sacrifice (Yorges, Weiss, &
Strickland, 1999). Another way charismatic leaders can motivate people to act on the causes giving rise to goal attainment is through communication (Fiol et al., 1999). Not only will charismatic leadership require commu-nication, it will require mass appeal intended to build commitment and encourage follower actions with regard to relevant causes of goal attainment. Thus, charismatic leaders exert influence, and maintain control, through goals while allowing followers the freedom to act on causes that will bring about goal attainment.
Ideological leaders, like charismatic leaders, apply prescriptive mental models that emphasize goals. Ideological leaders, however, do not construct models around future goals. Instead, the goals emphasized by ideological leaders are those that have proven viable in the past based on the leader’s personal experiences. Causation, in the logic of ideological leaders, is not under people’s control but rather it is controlled by situational forces that are operating to undermine current attempts to attain known, valued, goals (Moghaddam, 2005; Mumford, Espejo et al., in press;Post, Ruby, & Shaw, 2002). This negative framing of causation results in a tendency for ideological leaders to attempt to induce change in the situation that will remove blockages to attainment of goals that will naturally come about under appropriate conditions. Thus, Ronald Regan believed that America must remain a shinning light on the hill – a light that had been dimmed by big government and its’ tax bill.
Ideological leaders seek followers who intrinsically believe in the goals and values that provide a basis for the prescriptive mental model being advocated. As a result, ideological leaders attempt to appeal to a cadre of like-minded followers rather than the masses. This commonality in beliefs and values, of course, promotes shared leadership (Mumford, 2006). Debate centers less on goals and values than the actions that must be taken to induce change in the causes undermining attainment of these goals.
In contrast to ideological and charismatic leaders, the prescriptive mental models underlying the actions of pragmatic leaders do not stress goals. For pragmatic leaders, goals are created by objective threats and opportunities evident in the situation at hand. Thus, the prescriptive mental models formulated by pragmatic leaders stress the causes giving rise to these threats and opportunities within the local situation (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001).
Accordingly, the prescriptive mental models constructed by pragmatic leaders tend to be situational based rather than global images. Pragmatic leaders, moreover, see causes as involving both people and situational factors, subject to varying degrees of control, with actions being framed in terms of key controllable causes. This mindset is evident in Dwight D.
Eisenhower’s patience in waiting for conditions that would allow him to act to halt McCarthyism.
The tendency of pragmatic leaders to build prescriptive mental models around causes, those key controllable causes subject to influence, implies that pragmatic leaders will prefer logical argumentation to emotionally evocative arguments. These arguments, moreover, will not be framed to appeal to people in general but rather knowledgeable elites who understand, and can induce control, over relevant causes and contingencies.
The commitment of these elites to the leader, however, will be based on mutual interest rather than personal commitment to the leader.
Prior Research
An ongoing series of studies conducted by Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford, 2006; Mumford, Espejo et al., in press; Mumford & Strange, 2002;Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001;Strange & Mumford, 2002, 2005), have sought to provide some support for the distinctions drawn between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. In this first study along these lines, Mumford and colleagues (2006) attempted to demonstrate that the behavioral differences suggested by this model were, in fact, observed across outstanding, historically notable, leaders. He obtained biographies for 120 historical leaders where leaders were assigned, on an a priori basis, to a charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic group. Using the historiometric approach (Simonton, 1990), the ‘‘rise to power’’ and ‘‘in power’’ chapters included in these biographies were content analyzed to assess the expression of behaviors relevant to (1) problem-solving, (2) leader–member exchange, (3) communication strategies, and (4) political tactics. Additionally, the prologue and epilogue chapters included in these biographies were analyzed to obtain information about leader performance (e.g., number of contribu-tions, number of institutions established).
As expected, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders did not differ with respect to overall performance – although pragmatic leaders were more likely to build lasting institutions while charismatic leaders were more likely to initiate mass movements. Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders did, however, differ with regard to their characteristic behavior.
For example, pragmatic leaders relied on expertise in problem-solving while, in contrast, expertise was less important to charismatic leaders.
Moreover, pragmatics tended to employ logical appeals in communication and rely on rational influence tactics. Charismatic and ideological leaders, on the other hand, tended not to employ rational influence tactics and logical appeals. Instead, they relied on emotional appeals to followers.
Ideological and charismatic leaders, as expected, also differed with respect to leader–member relationships with ideological leaders, but not charismatic leaders, who evidenced shared direction of the group.
Some further support for this model has been proved by another historiometric study conducted by Ligon, Hunter, and Mumford (2008).
Drawing from the proposition that prescriptive mental models are based in
part on reflection on prior life events, they content coded biographies to determine whether charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders differed with respect to exposure to different types of life events. They found that ideological leaders were more likely than charismatic and pragmatic leaders to have been exposed to anchoring events giving rise to strongly held personal goals and values. Charismatic leaders, in contrast, were more likely to have been exposed to turning point events than ideological and pragmatic leaders – events that require adaptation, future-oriented adaptation, to change.
A final comparative study conducted by Bedell, Hunter, Angie, and Vert (2006) content analyzed the Machiavellian behaviors of 80 historical leaders who were a priori categorized into pragmatic, ideological, and charismatic groupings. Machiavellian behaviors were rated by means of communications between the leader and their respective subordinates.
Results indicated that pragmatic leaders evidenced the greatest number of Machiavellian behaviors, followed by charismatic leaders. Ideological leaders, in contrast, evidenced the least amount of Machiavellianism – a finding that is not particularly surprising given the ideological leader’s strong commitment to a core set of beliefs and values; a set of beliefs they are apparently unwilling to compromise.
In addition to these comparative studies, other studies have focused on the characteristics of a particular type of leader. For example, Mumford, Espejo et al. (in press) obtained biographies for 80 leaders who were violent, and nonviolent, ideologues and violent, and nonviolent, charismatic and pragmatic leaders. These biographies were content analyzed for expression of common group, organizational, and environmental characteristics. It was found that ideological leaders differed from charismatic and pragmatic leaders with regard to both just world commitments and ideological extremism or expression of strongly held beliefs and values.
In another study along these lines, Mumford and Van Doorn (2001) conducted a qualitative study of the social innovations (e.g., subscription libraries, volunteer fire departments, secular collegiate education) attributed to Benjamin Franklin – a pragmatic leader. An ‘‘in-depth’’ analysis of Franklin’s writings bearing on these initiatives indicated that extensive analysis of social causes was integral to Franklin’s development of these innovations. More centrally, when there was not general agreement about goals, as was the case in the Albany Plan of Union, Franklin failed to exercise the influence that characterized his more successful leadership efforts.
In addition to these qualitative and historiometric studies, evidence for the plausibility of this model of the origins of charismatic, ideological,
and pragmatic leadership has been provided by a series of experimental studies. For example,Strange and Mumford (2005), in their study of vision formation, found that viable visions could be constructed by using the causes evident in successful prior models (a charismatic strategy) or by rejecting the goals evident in unsuccessful models (an ideological strategy).
In another study along these lines,Bedell, Hunter, and Mumford (in press) developed measures to assess people’s proclivity to a charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic leadership style. Subsequently, she assessed forecasting strategies and found that charismatic, ideological, and prag-matic leaders displayed the expected differences with regard to the causes and goals applied in projecting the outcomes of future events. A final experimental study conducted by Hunter, Bedell-Avers, and Mumford (2009) also assessed participant’s proclivity for a leader type. Researchers then asked participants to engage in a computerized leadership simulation that allowed for the manipulation of multiple contextual factors, including environmental complexity and situational framing. Results of the study indicated that the three leader types performed differently under varying contextual conditions. It should be noted that, although moderated performance effects were observed, no main effect differences were found among the three leader types on any of the study’s criteria. This ‘‘non-finding’’ combined with the situational moderator effects highlight the general notion that the three pathways represent distinct, yet equally viable pathways to outstanding leadership (Mumford, 2006).