Pragmatic PDF

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144 160

www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level

influences on emergence and performance
Michael D. Mumford , Alison L. Antes, Jay J. Caughron, Tamara L. Friedrich
Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
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. This article examines the conditions influencing the emergence and performance of
charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. In particular, 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 as well.
2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Outstanding leadership; Multi-level; Charisma; Ideology; Pragmatism
1. 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, 2002) and situational variables such as follower expertise (Hersey
& Blanchard, 1982), leaderfollower relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), and the degree of task structure (House,
1971) that might moderate the effects of these behaviors on leader emergence and performance. 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 leadershipincidents 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 IBMhas 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 outstanding leadership
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mmumford@ou.edu (M.D. Mumford).
1048-9843/$ - see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.002
M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160
145
(Avolio, Howell, & Sosik, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1988; House and Howell,
1992). Although theories of charismatic and transformational leadership differ from each other in some notable ways,
they share a common core. 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 performance (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 some evidence indicates 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 organizations than in non-bureaucratic organizations
(Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), and it may prove ineffective in some groups such as research and
development professionals (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Charismatic leadership theories, moreover, seem
to discountor ignoresome key functions of leaders, such as planning and decision making (Yukl, 1999).
These observations led Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford, 2006; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001; Strange &
Mumford, 2002) to argue that we might need 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: charismatic leadership (e.g., John F. Kennedy), ideological leadership (e.g., Ronald Regan), and pragmatic
leadership (e.g., Dwight Eisenhower). The present article examines 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 charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership,
however, it would seem germane to consider the general model of outstanding leadership giving rise to these three
alternative pathways.
2. Outstanding leadership
2.1. Crises and mental models
Perhaps the most straightforward conclusion one can draw about outstanding leadership is that it requires placing
the right person in the right situation. Abraham Lincoln's greatness is inexorably linked to the U.S. Civil War. Bill
Gates's 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:
Outstanding leadership appears to emerge under conditions of crisis, change, and turbulence (Beyer, 1999).
Some support for this conclusion may be found in a study by Hunt, Boal, & Dodge (1999). They asked management
students to work on two business tasks under crisis and non-crisis conditions where a crisis involved high-priority goals
and little response time was available. In their study, visionary charismatic leadership proved especially important to
follower perceptions of leadership under crisis conditions. Further support for this conclusion has been provided by
Halverson, Holladay, Kazama, & Quinones (2004), who found that followers were more likely to attribute charisma to
a leader under conditions of crisis, and Pillai & Meindl (1998), who found that crisis conditions cause people to prefer
leaders evidencing charisma.
Apparently, crisis (or change) creates conditions in which the emergence of charismatic leaders, and perhaps other
forms of outstanding leadership, becomes possible. One potential explanation for the effects of crisis, change, and
turbulence on outstanding leadership is that these situations, by undermining normative routines, provide leaders with
discretion that allows for the exercise of exceptional influence (Lowe, 2001). Another potential explanation for these
effects, however, may be found in Mumford (2006). He argues that under conditions of crisis, change, and turbulence,
the behavior of complex social systems becomes unpredictable. As a result of this unpredictability, not only might new
threats and opportunities emerge, but the actions needed to effectively respond to these threats and opportunities will
also 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 sense-making activities that
clarify goals and paths to goal attainment (Weick, 1995). These sense-making 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.
146
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 sense-making activities on the part of people
moving into leadership positions in academic institutions. They found that leader sense making provided a basis for
guiding organizational changealthough this sense making 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).
Further support for this conclusion may be found in a qualitative study of a new-product development effort by Drazin,
Glynn, & Kazanjain (1999). They found that successful new-product development efforts require leaders to engage in
sense making 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 & Strange (2002) have examined how leaders might go about sense making. They argue that sense-making
activities on the part of leaders will ultimately be based on a mental model of the social system under consideration. Such a
mental model represents an abstract schematic knowledge structure describing the key causes of the behavior of a social
system vis--vis selected functional goals (Frankwick, Walker, & Ward, 1994; Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003; HemloSilver & Pfeffer, 2004; Johnson-Laird, 1999). The descriptive mental model that people form over time with exposure to a
particular social system provides a basis for the construction of a prescriptive mental model that represents an idealized
image of this social system. The development of this prescriptive mental model is based on analysis and reconfiguration of
the descriptive mental model. In particular, 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, in turn,
permits sense making, and sense-making behavior, on the part of leaders while allowing for 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 & 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, the participants (1) were provided with good and poor case models;
(2) were asked or not asked to analyze goals and causes; and (3) were asked or not asked to reflect on goals and causes
in relation to prior personal experiences in school. In this study, 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.
2.2. Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership
Within this general model of outstanding leadership, the three types of leadershipcharismatic, ideological, and
pragmaticare 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 goalstypically
positive, future-oriented goals (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Accordingly, these leaders' prescriptive mental models tend
to 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. Charismatic leaders, however, will, in
model formation, tend to retain causes that are subject to control as a result of peoples' actions. As a consequence, these
leaders define future goals that point others to cause 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 exhortation.
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
Charismatic leaders must encourage people to act, and to act on relevant causes of goal attainment. One way such
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 communication, but it will also
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, they emphasize goals 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
147
control but rather is controlled by situational forces that are operating to undermine current attempts to attain known,
valued goals (Moghaddam, 2005; Mumford et al., in press-a,b; Post, Ruby, & Shaw, 2002). This negative framing of
causation means that ideological leaders attempt to induce changes that will remove blockages to attainment of goals
that will naturally come about under appropriate conditions. For example, Ronald Reagan believed that America must
remain a shining light on the hilla light that had been dimmed by big government and its onerous tax bills.
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 to the masses. This commonality in beliefs and values, of course, promotes shared leadership
(Mumford, 2006). Debate centers less on goals and values and more on the actions that must be taken to induce change
in the causes undermining attainment of these goals.
In contrast to the models used by ideological and charismatic leaders, the prescriptive mental models underlying the
actions of pragmatic leaders do not stress goals. For pragmatic leaders, goals are given created by objective threats and
opportunities evident in the situation at hand. As a consequence, 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). Thus the prescriptive mental models constructed by these leaders tend to be situationally 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 causesthat is, those key controllable
causes subject to influenceimplies that these leaders will prefer logical argumentation to emotionally evocative
arguments. These arguments, moreover, will not be framed to appeal to people in general but rather to knowledgeable
elites who understand, and can induce control, over relevant causes and contingencies. The commitment of these elites to
the leader will, in turn, be based on mutual interest rather than on personal commitment to the leader.
2.3. Prior research
An ongoing series of studies conducted by Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford, 2006; Mumford et al., in press-a,b;
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 the first study along these
lines, Mumford (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. Subsequently, 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) leadermember 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., the number of contributions, the 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 and 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, whereas 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, in contrast, tended not to employ rational
influence tactics and logical appeals. Instead, they relied on emotional appeals to followers. Ideological and charismatic
leaders, as expected, differed with respect to leadermember relationships with ideological leaders, but not charismatic
leaders, evidencing shared direction of the group.
Some further support for this model has been provided by another historiometric study conducted by Ligon, Hunter, &
Mumford (in press). 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 than ideological and pragmatic leaders to have been exposed to
turning-point eventsthat is, events that require future-oriented adaptation to change.
148
In addition to these comparative studies, other studies have focused on the characteristics of a particular type of
leader. For example, Mumford et al. (in press-a,b) obtained biographies for 80 leaders who were (1) violent or nonviolent ideologues or (2) violent or non-violent charismatic and pragmatic leaders. These biographies were contentanalyzed for expression of common group, organizational, and environmental characteristics. The study revealed 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 & 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 related to these initiatives
indicated that extensive analysis of social causes was integral to Franklin's development of these innovations. More
centrally, when no general agreement about goals existed, 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 & 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 (2006) 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 pragmatic leaders displayed the expected differences with regard
to the causes and goals applied in projecting the outcomes of future events.
3. Multi-level influences
3.1. Individual-level influences
If one accepts that at least some evidence supports the distinction we have drawn between charismatic, ideological, and
pragmatic leadership, then a new question comes to the fore: Which individual, group, organizational, and environmental
variables operate to shape the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders? At the
individual level, the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will be influenced by a
number of variables, including leader skills, follower contact, follower identity, and leader commitment.
One set of skills relevant to leader emergence and performance is implied by the earlier discussion of the distinctive
characteristics of pragmatic leaders. We have argued that pragmatic leadership involves the extended analysis of
causation in complex systems. This rather straightforward observation has two important implications with regard to
leader emergence and performance. First, pragmatic leadership will depend on the acquisition of especially complex
mental models describing the causes and consequences of system operations (Mumford, Marcy, Eubanks, & Murphy, in
press-a). In other words, pragmatic leadership requires prior opportunities to acquire requisite expertise and, therefore,
will demonstrate some domain specificity. Second, the performance of pragmatic leaders will depend on the skills
needed to analyze and resolve organizational problems vis--vis this expertise. Thus pragmatic leadership will call for
intelligence, creativity, critical thinking, judgment, wisdom, and tacit knowledge (Hedlund et al., 2003; Mumford &
Connelly, 1991).
Some support for this conclusion may be found in a serious of studies by Mumford and his colleagues (Connelly
et al., 2000; Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Reiter-Palmon, 2000; Mumford et al., 2000; Vincent, Decker, &
Mumford, 2002; Zaccaro, Mumford, Connelly, Marks, & Gilbert, 2000). They administered an extensive battery of
cognitive skill tests to 1818 army officersleaders working in an organization known to value pragmatic leadership.
These researchers found that indices of leader performance, ranging from critical incident performance to medals
awarded, were positively related (R = .40) to the leader's expression of complex social problem-solving skills such as
creative thinking, intelligence, expertise, and wisdom. These findings, taken in conjunction with our foregoing
observations, imply the following proposition:
Proposition 1. At the individual level, the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders will be more strongly
influenced by expertise and cognitive skills than charismatic and ideological leaders, and will, vis--vis expertise
requirements, evidence greater domain specificity.
149
Although charismatic and ideological leadership will make more limited demands on complex problems-solving
skills and expertise, charismatic and ideological leaders will still need sufficient expertise to permit the formation of
viable prescriptive mental models. The basis for the prescriptive mental models being articulated by charismatic and
ideological leaders, however, lies in the identification of shared social goals. The obvious implication of this statement
is that charismatic and ideological leaders must be sensitive to, and aware of, the concerns and motivations of their
followers. This point, in turn, implies that social intelligence will be more important to the emergence and performance
of charismatic and ideological leaders than pragmatic leaders (Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991) and leads to
our second proposition:
Proposition 2. At the individual level, social skills will exert a stronger influence on the emergence and performance
of charismatic and ideological leaders than pragmatic leaders.
Along related lines, both charismatic and ideological leadership require sense making and sense giving through
articulation of relevant goals. The need for effective communication, in turn, implies that charismatic and ideological
leaders must know their audience. In other words, they must minimize psychologicalif not physical/structuraldistance
if they are to perform effectively (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Thus interpersonal engagement will prove necessary for
both charismatic and ideological leaders. In contrast, direct engagement, and the affect unveiled in the course of this
engagement, may undermine the kind of complex causal analysis on which pragmatic leadership depends (Mumford,
Schultz, & Osburn, 2002). As a result, the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders will depend on structures that
allow them to distance themselves from the immediate concerns of followers and manage follower interactions in such a
way as to minimize the need for emotional processing. These observations, in turn, lead to our next proposition:
Proposition 3. At the individual level, the emergence and performance of charismatic and ideological leaders will
require low psychological distance and high contact between leaders and followers, whereas the emergence and
performance of pragmatic leaders will require high psychological distance and more limited contact with followers.
One of the key variables shaping people's willingness to follow charismatic and ideological leaders is the clear
articulation of a prescriptive mental model in terms of a global, goal-oriented vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). The
attraction of this vision is that it provides followers with a sense of meaning and identity that promotes affective social
engagement (Ashkanasy, 2002; Shamir et al., 1993). One implication of these observations is that charismatic and
ideological leaders are most likely to emerge, and effectively exercise influence, when followers have a weak and
fragile sense of identity. Although change, conflict, and social loss can all induce a weakened sense of social identity
(Beyer, 1999), immaturity, inexperience, and identity diffusion may have similar effects (Dvir & Shamir, 2003). Under
these conditions, the performance of charismatic and ideological leaders will be tied to the quality of the vision
statement and the strength of the prescriptive mental model that provides a basis for the vision statement.
In contrast, pragmatic leadership does not depend on the leader creating a sense of identity in followers. This point is
of some importance because it implies that pragmatic leaders are most likely to arise in autonomous, high-achieving
populations where identity is provided by the individual activities of followers and the threat level is low. These origins
of pragmatic leadership are noteworthy because they suggest that the performance of pragmatic leaders may depend as
much on the quality and capabilities of followers as on the prescriptive mental model being articulated. Taken together,
these observations suggest two additional propositions:
Proposition 4. At the individual level, charismatic and ideological leaders will emerge in vulnerable populations,
whereas pragmatic leaders will emerge in autonomous, high-achieving populations.
Proposition 5. At the individual level, the performance of charismatic and ideological leaders will depend on the quality of
the prescriptive mental model underlying the vision being articulated, whereas the performance of pragmatic leaders will
depend on the skills and capabilities of the followers they recruit as much as the prescriptive mental model of the leader.
Although charismatic and ideological leaders both rely on followers investing in their vision, it is important to
recognize the differences evident in the prescriptive mental model underlying the visions being articulated by
charismatic and ideological leaders. Charismatic leaders' prescriptive mental models are based on the feasibility of
attaining future goals through collective action. As a consequence, charismatic leadership depends on the articulation
of opportunity. When positive collective action is not possible, however, the removal of threats to traditional patterns of
150
behaviorthat is, the logic provided by ideological leaders through their prescriptive mental modelswill prove more
attractive. Along related lines, one would expect that charismatic leaders will perform more effectively in the pursuit of
opportunities whereas ideological leaders will perform more effectively when salient emerging threats loom in the
environment. This understanding leads to the following proposition:
Proposition 6. At the individual level, charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge and perform effectively when the
pursuit of opportunities is crucial, whereas ideological leaders are more likely to emerge and perform effectively
when the removal of threats is crucial.
Not only do the conditions that give rise to charismatic and ideological leaders differ vis--vis the key characteristics
of their prescriptive mental models, but the characteristics leaders must demonstrate to allow for the effective exercise
of influence also differ. Charismatic leadership will generally benefit from openness, displays of optimism, and
manifest confidence on the part of the leader. Although these dispositional characteristics may contribute to ideological
leadership, under conditions of threat peoples' range of information processing tends to narrow (Jackson & Dutton,
1988), hence focusing on the leader and his or her behavior with respect to perceived threats. This observation suggests
that followers will attend more to the behavior of ideological leaders and respond more negatively to incongruent,
value-inconsistent behavior. As a result, ideological leaders, as opposed to charismatic leaders, must evidence greater
conformity to group values and a greater willingness to make personal sacrifices for these values (Yorges et al., 1999).
The following proposition focuses on this relationship:
Proposition 7. At the individual level, self-sacrifice and sustained personal commitment to a vision will be more
important to the emergence and performance of ideological leaders than charismatic and pragmatic leaders.
3.2. Group-level influences
The observations with regard to self-sacrifice and sustained personal commitment on the part of leaders point to a
variety of potential group-level influences on the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and
pragmatic leaders. Although a variety of group-level variables might influence leader emergence and performance, four
appear especially noteworthy: trust, cohesion, interdependence, and exchange relationships.
Although trust has been conceptualized in different ways by different investigators (e.g., Pillutla, Malhotra, &
Murnighan, 2003; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998), it can be argued that trust arises from both interpersonal
appraisals and the fairness of exchange relationships. In fact, trust appears integral to the emergence and performance
of ideological leaders. Ideological leaders appear to emerge in response to perceived unfairness and victimization of a
group (Moghaddam, 2005). For example, Mumford et al. (in press-a,b) found that incidents of others' corruption were
often associated with the emergence of ideological leaders. The emergence of ideological groups in reaction to
conditions where trust is low, however, requires ideological leaders to demonstrate unusually high levels of
interpersonal trustworthiness if they hope to exercise effective influence over followers. Hence,
Proposition 8. At the group level, ideological leaders will emerge under conditions where trust is low; however, the
performance of ideological leaders will require high levels of interpersonal trust in the leader.
Interpersonal trust also appears to be integral to both the emergence and the performance of charismatic leaders.
Pillai, Williams, Lowe, & Jung (2003), in a study of presidential voting, found that trust mediated the relationship
between attributed charisma and perceived voting patterns. Along similar lines, Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin (2004)
found that cynicism within groups tended to undermine transformational leadership behavior. When these findings are
considered in light of the fact that future-oriented visions, by virtue of their intangibility, require placing trust in the
leader, the following proposition seems indicated:
Proposition 9. At the group level, the emergence and performance of charismatic leaders will depend on high levels
of trust.
In contrast to the situation with charismatic and ideological leaders, interpersonal trust does not appear to be integral
to the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders. Pragmatic leadership, however, does require people to work
together for shared interests (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). The basis of interaction to further a shared interest, in turn,
implies that the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders will be related more to perceptions of equity and
151
justice than to interpersonal trust. Hence, the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders will be conditioned by
perceptions of process, procedural, and distributive justicewith distributive justice proving a particularly important
influence on performance. Hence,
Proposition 10. At the group level, perceptions of process, procedural, and distributive justice will prove more
important to the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders than interpersonal trust.
In addition to trust, cohesion seems to influence the emergence and performance of all three types of leaders. The
importance of cohesion to the emergence and performance of ideological leaders is illustrated in a recent study by
Mumford et al. (in press-a,b). These researchers examined the characteristics of the groups giving rise to ideological,
charismatic, and pragmatic leaders. Qualitative material describing group processes was content-coded for a variety of
variables, including group exclusivity, strong group affect, and peer group influence. A subsequent discriminant
analysis contrasting groups revealed that groups led by ideologues differed from groups led by charismatics and
pragmatics with respect to group insecurity and oppositional bonding (actions taken to differentiate the group from
other groups). Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that high levels of group cohesioncohesion that may, in fact, be
created by the leader through techniques such as oppositional bondingare necessary for the emergence and
performance of ideological leaders.
In the case of charismatic and pragmatic leaders, cohesion appears to operate in a somewhat more complex fashion.
Because they articulate a future-oriented vision that defines the group and provides a basis for action, charismatic
leaders will require cohesion for the effective exercise of influence through people. At the same time, charismatic
leaders emerge, in part, because the vision being articulated provides a basis for cohesionan observation suggesting
that low levels of group cohesion may promote the emergence of charismatic leaders. Conversely, because pragmatic
leaders cannot function effectively when there is no consensus about shared goals and interests, the emergence of
pragmatic leaders will depend on at least a minimal level of cohesion in the group. These observations about cohesion
suggest the following three propositions:
Proposition 11. At the group level, the emergence and performance of ideological leaders will depend on high levels
of group cohesion.
Proposition 12. At the group level, the emergence of charismatic leaders will be linked to low levels of cohesion,
whereas the performance of charismatic leaders will depend on the leader creating high levels of cohesion.
Proposition 13. At the group level, the emergence of pragmatic leaders will depend on some minimal level of
cohesion, whereas the performance of pragmatic leaders will not depend on high levels of cohesion.
Cohesion, of course, proves beneficial to group performance when the level of interdependence in the activities of
group members is high (Zaccaro, Gualtieri, & Minionis, 1995). Interdependence also calls for shared mental models
(Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004). For these reasons, charismatic and ideological leaders may prove more likely to emerge
under conditions where interdependence is substantial by virtue of their articulation of a common vision. Moreover, the
interdependence of group members may promote the spread and acceptance of this model through social reinforcement
(Klein & House, 1998), while the institutional frameworks arising from this interdependence will promote effective
group action in relation to the vision being articulated by the leader (Jacobsen & House, 2001). Although
interdependence will facilitate the emergence and performance of both charismatic and ideological leaders,
interdependence will prove less important to pragmatic leaders. In fact, when group members evidence low levels of
interdependence and high levels of autonomy, the ability of pragmatic leaders to orchestrate action through planning
and the analysis of causation will prove especially beneficial. Hence,
Proposition 14. At the group level, high levels of interdependence will contribute to the emergence and performance
of charismatic and ideological leaders, whereas low levels of interdependence will contribute to the emergence and
performance of pragmatic leaders.
A final group-level variable of note in understanding the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological,
and pragmatic leaders may be found in the nature and quality of leaders' exchange relationships with followers. There
is reason to suspect not only that the nature of exchange relationships will differ across leader types but also that these
exchange relationships will have differential effects on leader emergence and performance. For example, Strange
(2005) contrasted charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders with respect to variables characterizing interactions
152
with lieutenants, or close followers. She found that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders differed with respect
to follower interaction. More specifically, charismatic leadersbut not pragmatic leaderswere likely to have
relationships characterized by a mutual exchange of support. This finding suggests that joint commitment to a vision is
critical for charismatic leadership. In contrast, ideological leadersbut not charismatic leaderswere more likely to
share the direction of the group with their key lieutenants. Shared leadership is likely to prove effective, and contribute
to the performance of ideological leaders, because the foundation of ideological groups lies in shared beliefs and
values. For charismatic leaders, however, the central role played by the leader in articulating his or her personal vision
may effectively prohibit shared leadership. Hence,
Proposition 15. At the group level, the emergence and performance of ideological but not charismatic leaders will be
influenced by shared leadership.
3.3. Organizational-level influences
Not only will group-level variables influence the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and
pragmatic leaders, but a number of variables operating at the organizational level also appear to exert some noteworthy
effects in this regard. Although a host of variables have been used to describe organizations, five variables appear
especially noteworthy in shaping the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders:
order, complexity, professionalism, politics, and culture.
The concept of order or its inverse, chaos, derives from recent applications of complexity theory in attempts to
account for organizational behavior (e.g., Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000; Colbert, 2004). Chaos may be defined as the
amount of uncertainty resulting from actions taken on potential causal operatives within an organizational system. In
other words, chaotic environments are characterized by shifting and unstable causation. Instability in causal operatives,
of course, limits the feasibility and effectiveness of the kind of causal analysis that provides a basis for formation of the
prescriptive models commonly applied by pragmatic leaders. Chaotic environments, as a result, will tend to inhibit
pragmatic leadership.
In contrast, the future, goal-oriented models constructed by charismatic leaders may prove more effective under
chaotic conditions. A future-oriented vision allows for emergent causes that are subject to potential exploitation in the
service of goal attainment. Moreover, charismatic models can be readily adjusted to take into account shifts in causation
provided that the opportunities being pursued remain stable. In this regard, a caveat is warranted: In highly chaotic
settings, uncertainty may become so pronounced it becomes effectively impossible to envision a futureany future.
These conditions will, of course, limit the effectiveness of charismatic leaders. By the same token, in highly chaotic
organizational settings where the future is shrouded in uncertainty, shared beliefs and values arising from the past might
provide a framework for organizational action. As a result, ideological leadership may prove particularly compelling,
and particularly effective, in a highly chaotic setting.
Taken as a whole, these observations about chaotic organizations imply the following proposition:
Proposition 16. At the organizational level, emergence and performance will vary as a function of the amount of
chaos in organizational operations, with pragmatic leaders emerging and performing well in stable settings,
charismatic leaders emerging and performing well in ordered settings, and ideological leaders emerging and
performing well in highly chaotic settings.
The amount of order (or chaos) in organizational operations represents only one variable that might be used to
understand the opportunities giving rise to different leader types. Another variable likely to prove of some importance
in this regard is the complexity of the organization's operations. Complexity, as it operates at the organizational level, is
a multifaceted construct. It is a function of technology and the nature of the production process, the number and nature
of shareholders, and the structure of roles and responsibilities within the organization.
Broadly speaking, the available evidence indicates that as the complexity of organizational operations increases,
planning becomes a progressively more important influence on organizational performance (Dean & Sharfman, 1996;
Miller & Cardinal, 1994; Mumford et al., 2002). The need for planning, in turn, suggests that greater levels of
complexity will call for pragmatic leaders. As complexity increases past a certain point, however, the effectiveness of
planning will decrease. High levels of complexity require overarching directive structures, such as those found in the
future-oriented visions of charismatic leaders (Jacobsen & House, 2001). Although the future-oriented prescriptive
153
models underlying the vision of charismatic leaders will prove useful in guiding planning, by virtue of their focus on
past shared beliefs and values, the visions articulated by ideological leaders will prove of substantially less value in this
regard. Hence,
Proposition 17. At the organizational level, organizational complexity will facilitate the emergence and performance
of pragmatic and charismatic leaders but not ideological leaders.
Complex organizational systems, as a result of their dependence on technology and functional specialization, are
characterized by a high degree of professionalization (Damanpour, 1991). In professionalized organizations, expertise, vis-vis role demands, provides a basis for decision making. Moreover, professionalized organizations typically grant
substantial autonomy, or discretion, to those people who possess requisite expertise, thereby encouraging the development
of a professional identity that goes beyond the organization. The focus of experts on their professional identity and the
value placed on autonomy with regard to professional decisions suggest that visionary leadership will not garner
widespread support in professional organizations, which may in turn inhibit the emergence and performance of charismatic
and ideological leaders. In keeping with this observation, studies of innovation (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003; Kahai, Sosik, &
Avolio, 2003) and leadership in research and development organizations indicate that charismatic and transformational
leadership often prove ineffective in these settings. Accordingly, these findings suggest the following proposition:
Proposition 18. At the organizational level, professionalism will facilitate the emergence and performance of
pragmatic leaders and inhibit the emergence and performance of charismatic and ideological leaders.
In addition to complexity and professionalism, organizations differ with respect to the nature of the political
behavior that characterizes organizational decision making and the intensity of people's involvement in political
behavior (Ammeter, Douglas, Gardner, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2002; Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, &
Ammeter, 2002). The nature and integrity of organizational political behavior may then influence leader emergence and
performance. For example, Mumford (2006) found that pragmatic leaders are more likely to apply rational influence
tactics, such as resource control and appeals to expertise, than control-based influence tactics such as aggression,
coalition building, appeals to status, and personal appeals. In fact, by virtue of others' commitment to their vision and
greater group cohesion, these control-based influence tactics may prove more effective for charismatic and ideological
leaders. Moreover, such leaders may find these tactics appealing due to the conflict that often surrounds the goals upon
which the prescriptive mental models underlying vision-based leadership are founded. These observations have the
following implication:
Proposition 19. At the organizational level, charismatic and ideological leaders will emerge and prove more
effective in organizations evidencing high levels of political conflict, whereas pragmatic leaders will emerge and
prove more effective in organizations evidencing low levels of political conflict.
Political behavior, of course, is influenced by the culture of the organization. Although culture may have a diverse
set of effects on the emergence and performance of different leader types, one key aspect of organizational culture
permits us to draw some general conclusions about leader emergence and performance. Organizations differ with
respect to the strength of their cultures (Ployhart & Schneider, 2002). In strong cultures, it may prove difficult to
acquire support for a future-oriented vision inconsistent with current organizational culture. In this way, strong culture
may act to undermine charismatic leadership. By the same token, the tendency of ideological leaders to anchor their
vision in culture should allow ideological leaders to exercise unusual influence.
Proposition 20. At the organizational level, a strong organizational culture will promote the emergence and
performance of ideological leaders and inhibit the emergence and performance of charismatic leaders advocating
culturally inconsistent visions.
3.4. Environmental-level influences
The preceding observations concerning organizational culture and politics, of course, suggest that broader
environmental variables will influence the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic
leaders. Although a number of environmental-level variables might exert some effects in this regard, four variables
appear especially important: culture, social disruption, turbulence, and elites.
154
All organizations exist within a broader cultural context. As one might suspect, the existence of a strong, traditionoriented culture appears to promote the emergence and acceptance of ideological leadership (Post et al., 2002). Culture,
however, is a multifaceted phenomenon. Thus it is possibleand indeed likelythat certain cultural values will
promote the emergence of certain types of leaders. In fact, Hofstede's (1983) distinction between individualistic and
collectivist cultures suggests a relatively straightforward hypothesis bearing on cultural conditions and leader
emergence. Specifically, by virtue of their emphasis on individual autonomy and the individual's pursuit of his or her
own future, individualistic cultures may by especially prone to produce pragmatic leaders. In contrast, collectivist
cultures, owing to their emphasis on shared social traditions, may be especially prone to produce ideological leaders.
Proposition 21. At the environmental level, the emergence of ideological leaders will be facilitated by collectivist
cultures, whereas the emergence of charismatic and pragmatic leaders will be facilitated by individualistic cultures.
Not only will broader cultural trends influence leader emergence and at least potentially leader performance, but
conditions where little agreement exists about the future course of society and where extant social systems have failed
will also prove difficult for charismatic and pragmatic leaders. Charismatic leadership will be undermined by
disagreement about goals and a negative appraisal of the future; similarly, pragmatic leadership will be undermined by
disorder. However, one might expect these conditions to promote ideological leadership as people look to shared
traditional values as a way of rebuilding society.
Some support for this conclusion has been provided by Mumford et al. (in press). These researchers obtained booklength qualitative descriptions of ideological and non-ideological groups that emerged across the twentieth century in
Western and non-Western societies. The environmental conditions characterizing society during the development of
these groups were assessed with respect to variables such as globalization, loss of institutions, and economic
displacement. A discriminant analysis indicated that ideological groups could be distinguished from non-ideological
groups on the basis of three variables: social disruption, social conflict, and institutional replacement. These findings
suggest the following proposition:
Proposition 22. At the environmental level, social disruption and the failure of extant institutions will promote the
emergence of ideological leaders.
Of course, turbulence and change in the environment need not always undermine society and extant social
institutions. Turbulence and change may also arise from the introduction of new technologies and the emergence of
new patterns of social relationships. Although changes in technology and social interaction patterns are more ordered
than the conditions giving rise to ideological leaders, they are also associated with the emergence of new opportunities
as well as the need to adapt extant institutions. These conditions, of course, will tend to promote charismatic leadership.
In keeping with this observation, Tushman & O'Reilly (1997) found that the survival of organizations under conditions
of radical technological change was often associated with the emergence of charismatic leaders who articulated a
positive vision for adaptive change through their prescriptive mental model.
Proposition 23. At the environmental level, conditions of social and technological change will contribute to the
emergence and performance of charismatic leaders.
Societies are commonly held to be composed of elites controlling access to resources and key institutions. Elite
control, however, is likely to be threatened by turbulence and social disruption. Thus, when societies have strong, stable
elites, the potential influence of charismatic and ideological leaders will be limited. By virtue of their power and
autonomy, elites will in turn tend to pursue their own interests. These observations imply that negotiation and the ability
of leaders to work through multiple elites will be a critical influence on leader emergence and performance in stable
societiesespecially stable meritocratic societies. Based on these observations, Mumford & Van Doorn (2001) argue
that the operation of viable elites will give rise to a preference for pragmatic leadership at least under conditions where
there is agreement among elites about relevant goals. When this goal consensus does not exist, however, charismatic
leaders, by bringing about a new consensus with regard to relevant goals, may be preferred. These observations, in turn,
led to our final proposition:
Proposition 24. At the environmental level, when institutions are subject to viable elite control, pragmatic leaders
will emerge and perform effectively under conditions of goal consensus, whereas charismatic leaders will emerge and
perform effectively under conditions of goal conflict.
155
4. Discussion
Before turning to the broader conclusions flowing from the present effort, certain limitations should be noted. To
begin, this article has not attempted to provide a comprehensive description of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic
leadership. In part, this 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. This limitation also arises from this study's focus on the individual, group, organizational, and
environmental variables influencing the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic
leaders.
Along related lines, the present study could notand, in fact, has notexamined all of the individual, group,
organizational, and environmental variables that might conceivably influence the emergence and performance of
charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Instead, we have focused on variables that account for differential
emergence and performance on the part of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. As a consequence, less
attention was given to communication skills (e.g., Fiol et al., 1999) than to cognitive skill requirements for pragmatic
leaders (e.g., Marcy & Mumford, 2007; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001) or social skill requirements for charismatic and
ideological leaders (e.g., Zaccaro et al., 1991).
Finally, observations with regard to individual, group, organizational, and environmental influences on differential
leader emergence and performance 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, does not 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, perhaps charismatic and ideological leaders may sometimes 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 minimize the tendency
of followers to scrutinize ideological leaders, thereby limiting the potential detrimental effects of follower evaluations
on ideological leadership. Moreover, ideological leaders 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 charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders.
Even with these caveats, 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. Table 1 summarizes these implications.
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 are noteworthy because they suggest that charismatic,
ideological, and pragmatic leaders differ not only in their behavior, but also in the conditions promoting emergence of
these leaders and in the conditions that facilitate effective exercise of influence on the part of such leaders. Our
observations, therefore, support the substantive meaningfulness of these three alternative pathways to outstanding
leadership.
In addition to providing evidence pointing to the distinction we have drawn between charismatic, ideological, and
pragmatic leadership, our observations support the general model of outstanding leadership held to give rise to these
alternative pathways. This model holds that outstanding leadership ultimately arises from sense-making activities in
relation to crises (Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999). In sense making, 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 sense making and vision formation (Mumford, 2006).
These differential frames for sense making are, in fact, consistent with the findings obtained in recent studies that have
examined individual, group, organizational, and environmental influences on the emergence and performance of
156
Table 1
Summary of hypotheses about multi-level influences
General characteristics of outstanding leaders

Crisis, change events present
Sensemaking by leader
Formation of viable mental models
Strength of follower commitment to leader
Goals stressed in mental models
Causes stressed in mental models
Support based on mass reactions
Support based on elite reactions
Individual level
Cognitive skills
Social skills
Amount of follower contact
Importance of leader mental model to followers
Pursuit of opportunities
Removal of threats
Self-sacrifice by leader
Group level
Trust required for emergence
Trust required for performance
Actions taken to maintain perceptions of fairness
Group cohesion and emergence
Group cohesion and performance
Level of group interdependence for emergence and performance
Amount of leadership shared with group
Organizational level
Lack of order
Amount of complexity
Amount of professionalism
Amount of political conflict
Strength of organizational culture
Environmental level
Collectivist cultures
Individualistic cultures
Social disruption
Conditions of socio-technical change
Consensus among elites
Lack of elite consensus
Charismatic
Ideological
Pragmatic
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Note: + indicates positive relationship.
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 prescriptive mental model. Consistent with these observations, Mumford et al. (in
press) 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 environmental influences, but it also generates hypotheses that seem to be consistent with
much of what we know about the emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. For
example, the proposition that pragmatic leaders rely on cognitive skills is consistent not just with the prior observations
of Mumford & Van Doorn (2001), but is in keeping with the finding of Marcy and Mumford (2007) that causal analysis
contributes to social innovationa 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
157
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, whereas ordered conditions favor pragmatic
leaders. Both pragmatic leaders and charismatic leaders appear more likely to emerge and perform effectively in
complex environments. Alternatively, the viability of the leader's prescriptive mental model might potentially be more
important for charismatic and ideological leaders than for pragmatic leadersa hypothesis that warrants some
attention in future studies.
A final piece of evidence bearing on the validity of this model relates to its ability to permit differential predictions
with regard to leader emergence and performance. While social disruption and conflict may promote the emergence of
ideological leaders, this conflict, when coupled with oppositional bonding at the group level, may 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 provide support not only for the validity of the model of outstanding leadership
under consideration, but also for the existence of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic pathways to outstanding
leadershippathways that emerge from a dynamic interaction of leaders and their environments as they seek to make
sense of crises. Although the suggestion that multiple alternative pathways to outstanding leadership exist is not new
(Weber, 1924), leadership theory has in the recent past focused almost exclusively on one form of outstanding
leadershipcharismatic leadership. This emphasis on charismatic leaders may have resulted in an overly simplistic
image of outstanding leadership. It leads to the 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 influence the emergence and performance of charismatic leaders and result in differential
opportunities for charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership. By illustrating how various conditions operating
at different levels influence the differential emergence and performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic
leaders, the current study sets the stage for new, more sophisticated studies that recognize the complex nature of the
different pathways to outstanding leadership.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Katrina Bedell, Jill Strange, Ginamarie Scott-Ligon, and Sam Hunter for their contributions
to the present article. Parts of this study were supported by a series of grants from the U.S. Department of Defense,
Michael D. Mumford, Principal Investigator.
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, 751796.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673705.
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, 1120.
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, 219227.
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. 231272). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Bedell, K. E. (2006). The different problem-solving tactics of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 307330.
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior.
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 195210.
158
Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. (2000). Relationality in organizational research: Exploring the space between. Organization Science, 11, 551564.
Colbert, B. A. (2004). The complex resource-based view: Implications for theory and practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 341358.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on developing streams of research.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. S. (1988). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review, 12, 637647.
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, 6586.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34,
555590.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857880.
Dean, J. W., Jr., & Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 368396.
Deluga, R. J. (2001). American president Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly,
12, 334363.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjain, R. K. (1999). Multi-level theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy
of Management Review, 24, 286329.
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. 3566)Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327344.
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. 179254). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. J. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 449482.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 16.
Frankwick, G. L., Walker, B. A., & Ward, J. C. (1994). Belief structures in conflict: Mapping a strategic marketing decision. Journal of Business
Research, 31, 183195.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Institutional identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370403.
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, 363383.
Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414466.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. In F. Dansereau & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multilevel approaches (pp. 103134). 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, 211240.
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, 117140.
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, 127138.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. A. (1982). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training and Development Journal, 36, 5052.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures revisited. Behavior Science Research, 18, 285305.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321338.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189207).
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81108.
Hunt, J. G. (2004). Consideration and structure. In J. M. Burns, G. R. Goethals, & L. Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 196204).
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, 423448.
Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 370387.
Jacobsen, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 75112.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 351368.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 109135.
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, 369376.
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, 3651.
159
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. 233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., Mumford, M.D. (in press). Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385425.
Lowe, P. (2001). The leadership strategies of top CEOs. Success, 48, 22.
Marcy, R., & Mumford, M. D. (1997). Social innovation: Enhancing creative performance through causal analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19,
4954.
Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and
planning. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97120.
Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (1994). Strategic planning and firm performance: A synthesis of more than two decades of research. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 16491666.
Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration. American Psychologist, 60, 161169.
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. (in press). Violence in ideological and non-ideological groups:
A quantitative analysis of qualitative data. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership
Mumford, M. D., Espejo, J., Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., Eubanks, D. L., Connelly, S. (in press-a). The sources of leader violence: A multi-level
comparison of ideological and non-ideological leaders. Leadership Quarterly.
Mumford, M. D., Marcy, R. T., Eubanks, D. L., Murphy, S. T. (in press-b). 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, 87114.
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. 336). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership
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. 109142). 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, 274309.
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 development. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 115133.
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, 376399.
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, 643671.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. L. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote.
Pillutla, M. M., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Attributions of trust and the calculus of reciprocity. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 448456.
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. 95140).
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, 73100.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly,
45, 456493.
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, 393404.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational
Science, 4, 577594.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Leadership style, anonymity, and creativity in group decision support systems: The mediating role of
optimal flow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 227256.
Strange, J. M. (2005). Exceptional leaders and their followers: An in-depth look at leaderfollower interactions.Dissertation Abstracts International,
65(1-B), 470 (UMI No. AAT 3120032).
Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343377.
Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). The origins of vision: Effects of reflection, models, and analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 121148.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
160
Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity
Research Journal, 14, 163178.
Weber, M. (1924). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York: Free Press.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effects of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 428436.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10,
285305.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. (1991). Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social perceptiveness and behavioral
flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 317331.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gualtieri, J., & Minionis, D. (1995). Task cohesion as a facilitator of team decision making under temporal urgency. Military
Psychology, 7, 7793.
Zaccaro, S. J., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Marks, M. A., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Assessment of leader problem-solving capabilities.

Pragmatic PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pragmatic PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144 160

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

General characteristics of outstanding leaders

Note: + indicates positive relationship.

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

M.D. Mumford et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 144160

You might also like