LEAQUA-00693; No of Pages 22
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a
First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP
leadership model
Samuel T. Hunter a,⁎, Liliya Cushenbery a, Christian Thoroughgood a,
Johanna E. Johnson a, Gina Scott Ligon b
a
b
Pennsylvania State University, USA
Villanova University, USA
a r t i c l e
Available online xxxx
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Emerging from the early work of Weber (1924), the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP)
model of leadership (Mumford, 2006) has enjoyed a recent surge in research attention. According
to the model, the three leader types differ in a number of fundamental ways — differences largely
tied to how the leaders provide sensemaking to followers. Although these differences are central
to the model, these components have yet to be examined directly. As such, the aim of this study
was to explicitly test the core tenants of the CIP model. Using a historiometric sample of college
and NFL football coaches we found general support for specific predictions made by the model and
in the aggregate, the model as a whole. We also examined the unique patterns and features that
were used to distinguish among the leader types providing useful insight into how leaders may be
categorized. Implications and future directions are discussed.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
“On the morning of Super Bowl XXXVI, Belichick had no remarkable speeches for the team. He gave the Patriots the major points
of the plan once again, guessing it was the twentieth time they had heard these instructions from him” (Holley, 2004, p. 66).–
Bill Belichick preparing his team for the Super Bowl — pragmatic leader
“I believe God has prepared the leaders of our team for this time. Over the last four years, starting in 2003, we have had the most
wins in football, yet each season has ended in disappointment. Until this one” (Whitaker, 2007, p. 291).– Tony Dungee
preparing his team for the Super Bowl — ideological leader
“We've got only one more half to play in the Coliseum for a long time. Remember it's about us; it's not about them. Show them
how we do it and give everything you got — so we can win forever” (Malcomsen, 2008).– Pete Carroll preparing his team for
the second half — charismatic leader
Recently, the leadership literature has witnessed a reemergence of Weber's (1924) original conceptualization of leadership
styles — a reemergence that has expanded our thinking about leaders from largely a charismatic or transformational perspective to
include those leaders that are more ideological and pragmatic in nature. In fact, the development of the charismatic, ideological
and pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership (Mumford, 2006; Strange & Mumford, 2002; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001) has resulted
in several new studies examining multiple differences among the three leader types; differences that include creative
⁎ Corresponding author. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Penn State University, 112 Moore Building, State College, PA 16802, USA. Tel.: +1 814 865
0107 (office).
E-mail address: samhunter@psu.edu (S.T. Hunter).
1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
2
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
performance, communication exchanges, political behaviors, and Machiavellianism (Bedell, Hunter, Angie & Vert, 2006), among
others (cf. Mumford, 2006). Despite a growing body of literature on the model, however, there has yet to be a direct test of the
model's core tenants in any of these prior research endeavors. Moreover, previous investigations of the model have been
confounded by leadership domain, making it difficult to assess if differences among key outcomes are due to common domain
differences (i.e., similar leader types emerging from similar domains) or the leaders themselves. Thus, the aim of this study is to
directly examine these tenants and consider the validity of the model using a sample of leaders emerging from a common domain —
in this case, using a biographical sample of National Football League (NFL) and college football coaches. We begin with a historical
review of the CIP model's emergence.
1. History of the CIP model
Max Weber is well known for his impact on modern day perspectives of management, shaping many of our current views on
bureaucracy and organizational functioning (Adair-Toteff, 2005; Miller, 1963; Weiss, 1983). One of his more notable contributions
included propositions about differing styles or approaches to leadership which he referred to as the three types of management
authority (Weber, 1924). The first was termed “traditional” and included leaders who emphasized a strong focus on the past.
Leaders employing this type of authority were concerned with stability, core values, and customs; they placed a great emphasis on
family and tradition. The second type of authority was termed “rational” or legal. Weber suggested that these leaders emphasized
logic and led via rational appeals to followers. The rational style, moreover, involved impartiality as leaders often dealt with the
pragmatic concerns and problems associated with bureaucracy. Third and finally, Weber introduced the “charisma” label into the
management ethos. He suggested that the charismatic leader was unique from both traditional and rational leaders in that they
emphasized change and a break from bureaucracy. Weber was also aware of the transient nature of charisma as well as the unique
characteristics of the followers who were most impacted by charismatic leaders. Despite the current emphasis on charismatic
leadership in the literature, some have contended that Weber had little interest in charisma and instead saw the largest value in
understanding the traditional and rational leadership styles (e.g., Hennis, 1996). Although this point is debatable, the end result is
not: charismatic leadership and its visionary counterpart, transformational leadership, have emerged as the dominant ways of
conceptualizing how we think of leaders (Hunt, 1999; Lowe & Gardner, 2000).
1.1. Charismatic leadership
As alluded to, Weber's work gave way to many of the seminal pieces of leadership literature emerging in the twentieth century.
For example, Burns' (1978) introduction of transformational leadership has influenced a number of scholars who produced several
variations of, and expansions on, his core concepts. Some of the most notable include the full range model by Bass (1985) and
colleagues (e.g., Avolio, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Around the similar time period and also largely influenced by Weber, House
(1977) introduced his version of charismatic leadership which has led to several variations including those by Conger and
Kanungo (1988; 1998) as well as expanded versions such as that by Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) and Howell and Shamir
(2005). Despite notable differences, these conceptualizations have more recently been viewed under a broader rubric of visionary
or charismatic leadership (e.g., Hunt, 1999; Shamir et al., 1993).
1.2. Pragmatic leadership
A collection of researchers have returned to Weber's work and suggested that in addition to the charismatic style there are at
least two other styles of leading: pragmatic and ideological. In their review of Benjamin Franklin's leadership, for example,
Mumford and Van Doorn (2001) observed that Franklin emphasized pragmatic problem solving over vision-based leadership.
Similarly, in Collins's (2001) review of 11 outstanding businesses, he found that the organizational leaders were nearly the
opposite of the charismatic style and employed behaviors much more akin to the rational (i.e., pragmatic) and traditional leaders
described by Weber. Others have recently suggested that an overemphasis on charismatic leadership may be dangerous and,
instead, we must turn our attention to leaders who emphasize intelligence and rational decision-making over vision formation
(Khurana, 2002). In Hunt and Ropo's (1995) case study of General Motor's CEO, for example, the authors found that more
pragmatic behaviors such as structuring and framing problems in a broader system were critical components of
outstanding leadership. Finally, in their study of 40 fortune 500 firms, Pasternack and O'Toole (2002) reported “… our research
finds that the CEOs whose companies are best weathering the recent economic downturn are practicing old-fashioned, pragmatic
management … (p. 3).”
1.3. Ideological leadership
Building off the “traditional” leadership concept put forth by Weber (1924), Strange and Mumford (2002) quantitatively analyzed
the biographies of 60 historical leaders. The researchers observed that ideological leaders engaged followers in very different ways
than charismatic leaders, emphasizing strong values and ideological beliefs over inspiration and intellectual stimulation. Despite these
differences in style, ideological leaders were not inferior to their charismatic counterparts — they simply differed in their approach to
sensemaking. Along similar lines, in a recent study of Chinese CEO's, Tsui, Zhang, Wang, Xin, and Wu (2006) also observed differences
in leadership types suggesting that some CEO's emphasized traditions while the others emphasized a more charismatic or
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
3
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
transformational approach. Tsui et al. (2006) noted that “… non-charismatic leaders are associated with strong cultures because of
their attention to internal integration issues (institutionalize the values and systematize the processes)” (p. 131). As a whole, these
studies highlight the importance of expanding our perspectives on leadership to include those that may not fit cleanly into visionbased molds — a point echoed by a number of influential scholars (e.g., Hunt, 1999; Yukl, 1999; Yukl, 2006).
2. Charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leadership: defining the CIP model
As a result of observations such as those noted above, Mumford (2006) and colleagues (e.g., Bedell-Avers, Hunter, & Mumford,
2009) returned to, and expanded on, Weber's (1924) original classification by conducting a series of studies extensively examining
this tri-style leadership perspective comprised of charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders or more simply termed the CIP
model of leadership. We will now explore this model, its core tenets, the results of the studies examining it, and finally, the critical
questions that still remain.
2.1. Sensemaking
Although differences among the three leadership styles may be witnessed in multiple contexts, Mumford and colleagues
(Strange & Mumford, 2002; Mumford, 2006) suggested that their unique forms of influence are best observed during times of
crisis. That is, the three leader types are theorized to fundamentally differ in how they provide sensemaking to followers —
differences most readily observed when subordinates are in the greatest need of comfort, guidance, and direction (Beyer, 1999;
Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999; Pillai & Meindl, 1998). Accordingly, leaders are thought to help subordinates make sense of their
environments by providing information about the direction they will be taking, and why. This description of future events is
known as a prescriptive mental model, and it is this description that helps subordinates make sense of an ambiguous, stressful
situation (Habermas & Bluck, 2000).
Before they can offer this prescriptive framework, however, leaders must understand the situation as it currently is, a
framework known as a descriptive mental model (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Sein & Bostrom, 1989). Descriptive mental models, or
ways of seeing the world, are largely derived from past experiences. Illustrating this concept, Ligon, Hunter, and Mumford (2008)
found that due largely to differences in early developmental experiences, the three leader types form very different perspectives of
the world. As a result they offer varying prescriptive mental models to subordinates during the sensemaking process.
Thus, the CIP model emerges from a collection of leaders that take very different approaches to sensemaking. Charismatic
leaders, for example, are theorized to develop future-oriented visions that are often centered on a hope for a better future. Classic
examples of charismatic leaders include John F. Kennedy, Fiorello La Guardia, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Ideological leaders, on the
other hand, are focused on the past and correcting previous mistakes. Examples of ideological leaders are Michael Collins, Jane
Addams, and Lech Walesa. Finally, pragmatic leaders are more problem-solving and present focused; concerned with handling the
task at hand in any way necessary. Examples of pragmatic leaders include Alfred Dupont, Thomas Watson, and Sam Walton. Even
with this small set of leader exemplars it becomes evident how different – yet highly successful – the three leader types can be.
Mumford and colleagues (Mumford, 2006; Bedell-Avers, Hunter & Mumford, 2008) summarized the variations in prescriptive
mental models, suggesting that there are at least nine unique features that distinguish the three leader types — features that
ultimately define the CIP framework: (a) time frame, (b) type of experience used, (c) nature of outcomes sought, (d) type of
outcomes sought, (e) focus in model construction, (f) locus of causation, (g) controllability of causation, (h) targets of influence,
and (i) crisis conditions associated with emergence and optimal performance. In addition, Mumford and colleagues have
suggested that the use and type of emotionality in prescriptive mental models are also key differences among leader types
(Mumford, 2006; Mumford et al., 2008). These core features and their associations to each leader type are summarized in Table 1.
3. Research on the CIP model
3.1. Early studies
To date, there has been a reasonably strong collection of studies investigating the CIP model — a number approaching 15
empirical efforts. We should note that in this review of previous research we will focus only on those studies that have
Table 1
Hypothesized differences for charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders.
Charismatic
Ideological
Pragmatic
Time frame
orientation
Type of
experienced
used
Nature of
outcomes
sought
Number of
outcomes
sought
Focus in
model
construction
Locus of
causation
Controllability
of causation
Targets of
influence
Crisis
conditions
Use of
emotions
Future a
Past a
Present a
Positive a
Negative a
Both a
Positive b
Transcendent
Malleable a
Multiple b
Few b
Variable a
External
Internal
External
People a
Situations
Interactive a
High a
Low
Selective b
Masses a
Base Cadre
Elites b
Ordered
Chaotic
Localized
Positive a
Negative b
Rational
Note. Table represents predictions taken from Mumford and colleagues (Bedell-Avers, Hunter and Mumford, 2008; Mumford, 2006; Mumford & Strange, 2002).
a
Fully supported by the study.
b
Partially supported by the study.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
4
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
expressly examined the CIP model and not on those studies that are congruent with the model (e.g., Collins, 2001;
Pasternack & O'Toole, 2002; Pasternack, Williams, & Anderson, 2001; Tsui et al., 2006; Weber, 1924). As mentioned earlier,
one of the earliest studies examining pragmatic leadership was by Mumford and Van Doorn (2001) who examined 10
qualitative case examples of Benjamin Franklin's leadership approach. These cases included the initiation of the volunteer
fire department, introduction of paper currency, and development of the University of Pennsylvania. What is witnessed by
considering these cases is the notable lack of charismatic or transformational behaviors exhibited by Franklin. Rather, each
was initiated via a rational approach to problem-solving and an emphasis on convincing key players or “elites” Franklin saw
as necessary to bring about change. Complimenting these results and expanding the CIP model was a study by Strange and
Mumford (2002) who investigated differences between charismatic and ideological leaders using the historiometric
approach (Simonton, 1990). Specifically, Strange and Mumford content coded the biographical information of 60 historical
leaders, examining selections from both rise to power and in-power time periods. Their results indicated that the two leader
types exhibited markedly different behaviors, particularly with regard to those behaviors associated with values, such as
value autonomy and value commitment.
3.2. Compilation of studies
The compelling results of these two articles and affiliated book chapters (e.g., Mumford & Strange, 2002) prompted the
comprehensive examination of the CIP model in relation to a host of key organizational and societal outcomes. The methodology
employed was historiometric, where 120 historical leader biographies were coded by multiple independent judges who examined
a host of key behaviors and outcomes. The collection of studies was published in book format, and contained roughly six unique
examinations of the leadership model (Mumford, 2006). For example, Mumford, Strange, Scott, Dailey, and Blair (2006) examined
LMX relationship differences among the three leader types, observing that ideological leaders, in particular, depended on closefollower relationships to achieve their goals. Other topics included the investigation of the varying political tactics taken by
charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. In their examination, Mumford, Licuanan, Marcy, Dailey, and Blair (2006) found
that pragmatic leaders emphasized rational persuasion whereas charismatic and ideological leaders emphasized tactics that led to
conditions of conflict and tension — conditions that more ideally suited their leadership styles. Although the book contains several
other studies examining key leadership topics including problem-solving, communication strategies, and developmental
influences, the above should suffice to make our basic point: the CIP model was examined quite extensively in this collection. It
must be noted that one particularly important observation emerging from the book was, in many ways, a key “non-finding.”
Namely, the authors did not observe general performance differences among the three leader types. This point emerged as a key
theme of the book: There are multiple pathways (i.e., styles or ways) to becoming an outstanding leader and we must expand our
thinking to include those individuals that may not fit current stereotypical molds — stereotypes often tied to vision-based forms of
leadership.
3.3. Experimental studies
Following the book and related articles, researchers also examined the CIP model in an experimental context. Bedell-Avers et al.
(2008), for example, used a sample of undergraduates to examine differences in problem solving approaches among the three
leader types. Participants were initially categorized as being ideological, pragmatic, charismatic, or mixed, and were presented
with ambiguous problems from two different domains and within two different contexts. Participants were then asked to provide
solutions to these problems which were then assessed for their quality and originality by an independent set of raters. Results
indicated that, similar to the book, there were not overall performance differences among the three leadership styles. Rather,
performance differences were observed only when the specific problem types were considered. Pragmatic leaders, for example,
were generally more consistent and tended to be fairly adaptable problem solvers across study conditions. Ideological leaders, on
the other hand, tended to succeed when they were clearly designated as a leader. Finally, charismatic leaders did well under
problem-solving conditions that allowed for more flexibility in their approach.
Along similar lines, Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford (2009) examined performance differences among 240 undergraduate
students who engaged in a computerized leadership simulation. The use of the simulation allowed researchers to manipulate the
complexity of the task as well as how the problem was framed (e.g., as an ideological problem, pragmatic, problem or charismaticoriented problem). Results indicated that pragmatic leaders were generally consistent in their performance — performing well
across all conditions in the study. Ideological leaders, on the other hand, had difficulty in conditions that conflicted with their
beliefs and values, yet succeeded in fairly complex situations where their beliefs helped provide guidance amidst the chaos. Finally,
charismatic leaders performed well in several conditions, but had difficulty in high-complexity contexts where it proved difficult
to solve problems using a largely future-oriented perspective.
3.4. Recent efforts
The results of these early studies as well as various book chapters have given way to several recent studies exploring the CIP
model. For example, Bedell et al. (2006) examined differences in Machiavellianism among the three leader types using
historiometric analysis. The researchers found that pragmatic leaders were the most Machiavellian — likely due to their emphasis
on flexibility when attempting to solve problems (Mumford, 2006; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). Falling lower on the
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
5
Machiavellianism spectrum were the charismatic leaders and finally ideological leaders who were observed to be the least
Machiavellian. The results were consistent with predictions given an ideological leader's uncompromising commitment to their
beliefs and values. Another recent study conducted by Bedell-Avers et al. (2009) examined interactions among the three leader
types. The researchers asked coders to systematically analyze multiple leader biographies of three leaders during the civil rights
movement: W.E.B. Dubois (ideological), Frederick Douglas (charismatic) and Booker T. Washington (pragmatic). The results
indicated that pragmatic leaders were the most flexible, getting along with either leader type when it served their problem solving
needs. Ideological and charismatic leaders, on the other hand, often conflicted quite fiercely with other leader types. Finally,
Mumford, Antes, Caughron, & Friedrich (2008) recently provided a multilevel framework for understanding the individual, group,
organization, and environmental conditions which facilitate the emergence and performance of the three leadership styles,
providing some insight into when and where the leader types are most likely to come into power and succeed once positions of
influence are attained.
3.5. Study impetus
Upon consideration of the general methodologies employed in the above studies, a few key observations emerge. First, given
the sheer volume of research, there is at least a preliminary indication that it is worthwhile to (re)consider Weber's views of
management authority. At the same time, however, we must also be both careful and critical in our assessment of the CIP model
as much of this research is relatively recent and as such, the model is still in its early stages of development; it is likely to need
further refinement and adjustment. Second, studies have relied upon a priori taxonomies of leadership styles (e.g., charismatic
versus pragmatic), where leaders where initially categorized (or selected) by a set of judges as being charismatic, ideological
and pragmatic, yet this coding process has not been examined in any great detail. As these categorizations were made early in
the CIP model development, it is unclear if this coding process made use of any or all of the ten identified mental model
differences (see Table 1) to classify these leaders. Moreover, in previous studies, once a leader was categorized a separate set of
coders typically assessed various behavioral differences and outcomes among the three leader types (e.g., creative problem
solving, political behavior). What has not been examined, however, is a direct comparison of the theorized mental model
differences proposed in Table 1. Thus, the primary aim of this study was to examine if there are, as predicted, theorized mental
model differences among the three leader types. A full list of directional hypotheses – derived from the CIP model – may be seen
in Table 1. The secondary aim of the study was to aid in the revision and extension of the model by determining which
components of the leaders' prescriptive mental models are used more or less heavily to differentiate leaders as being
charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic.
4. The CIP model and domain
Careful consideration of the previous studies examining the CIP model also reveals a trend that is both valuable and in some
ways, problematic. Specifically, historical leaders were chosen from a wide variety of domains including political, business,
military, and social justice. The use of domain breadth in sample selection is beneficial in that it allows for some degree of external
validity — that is, the results can be reasonably generalized to multiple domains due to the broad sampling of leaders. What is
problematic in many of these studies, however, is that the three leader types tended to emerge from similar domains. For example,
charismatic leaders often emerged from political arenas, pragmatic leaders from military or business, and ideological leaders were
often associated with social justice endeavors. Thus, although there was a reasonable overlap in the sample (i.e., some military
leaders were charismatic, some politicians were ideological), it is still unclear exactly how much variability in the results may be
attributed to either domain or leadership style, specifically. This problem was addressed on a small scale by Bedell-Avers et al.
(2009) in her examination of three leaders interacting in a common domain — the civil rights movement. To provide more data
around these issues, our study examines multiple leaders within a common leadership domain: football. By examining leaders in
the same arena, we can determine with increased accuracy the extent to which behavior may be attributed to the leader versus the
domain from which they emerged. Before turning to the methodology and results of the study, however, it is useful to first
consider the use of sports teams in the study of leadership.
The use of sports teams in research has been fairly common and appears to be reasonably accepted as a source for exploring
related organizational and managerial phenomena (Avery, Tonidandel, Griffith & Quinones, 2003). Giambatista (2004), for
example, examined leader life cycles in NBA teams. Similarly, Dirks (2000) explored the relationship between leadership and trust
using a sample of men's college basketball teams. Using NHL teams, Day, Sin and Chen (2004) examined role changes in leadership
among team captains and how these changes impacted performance over time. Other studies have examined leadership and
related phenomena in baseball teams (Hawkins, & Tolzin, 2002), NBA teams (Avery et al., 2003), softball teams (Shields, Gardner,
Bredemeier, & Bostro, 1997), and mixed sports teams (Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001). More central to the present effort,
Garland and Barry (1990) examined Chellandurai and Carron's (1978) multidimensional theory of leadership by measuring
coaches' personality and leader behaviors in relation to football player performance. Results indicated that coaches had a
significant impact on the rated performance of the player over the course of the season. As a whole, the above studies highlight an
important point — leadership is readily observable in sports teams and, it would seem, the results have applicability to other
applied forms of management.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
6
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
5. Method
5.1. Sample
The historiometric sample used in the study was comprised of championship winning NFL and college head football coaches.
Although the subordinates may differ somewhat from college to professional ranks, the general leadership tasks associated with
coaching at the two levels are roughly equivalent — albeit with some notable differences (e.g., slight rule changes, increases in
pay). This relative comparability is evidenced by several coaches who have made the transition from college to professional and
vice versa (professional to college). Moreover, most professional football players (i.e., subordinates) begin in the college ranks,
further providing illustration of continuity between the two levels. Finally, the use of both college and NFL coaches allows us to
increase our sample size and, therefore, our capacity to test the study hypotheses. Along these lines, it should be noted that this
variable was coded and examined as a potential moderating variable in our analyses.
The use of championship caliber coaches ensures that we have a sample of proven “outstanding” leaders within a common
domain thereby providing some additional control for the study. In an attempt to also control for time period, we began our search
for a sample of coaches starting with the year 1967 — the first year of the NFL super bowl (championship game). Although college
teams played before this time, based on suggestions by Simonton (1990) we felt it important to control for time and only chose
college coaches that won (or tied) national championships from 1967 on. This relatively recent sample of leaders may also provide
increased applicability to current and future leaders. It should also be noted that the designation of a clear national champion in
college football is a fairly recent phenomenon. Prior to 1992 there was no systematic attempt to allow the best teams in the
country to play one another allowing for the emergence of a clear national champion. As a result, in some years there were two
national champion head coaches. In these instances, a search was made for the multiple coaches who would reasonably be viewed
as outstanding leaders in these shared championship years. This initial search resulted in 66 coaches identified for possible
inclusion in the study.
Once our list was comprised, an attempt was made to obtain historical biographies of the outstanding coaches. In some
instances, multiple biographies were available and were retained. In other instances, no biography was available and this coach
was dropped from the sample. Once the biographies were obtained, they were examined for two major criteria. First, they had to
contain a chapter, or preferably multiple chapters, where the leader's approach to interacting, motivating, and coaching his
subordinates was detailed. If a book did not contain such information, it was dropped from the study. Second, the chapter had to be
of reasonably high quality and provide detailed descriptions of how the leader behaved. Not surprisingly, we found that many
coaches' books contained a high amount of superfluous information (i.e., pictures, anecdotes, etc.) and in those instances the books
were also dropped from the study. The end result was 103 biographies examining 54 coaches (presented in Appendix A). Of these,
29 were college coaches and 25 were NFL coaches. This final sample is presented in Table 2.
Once the biographies were selected, two independent researchers selected book chapters that best represented a coach's
leadership approach. More specifically, chapters were selected if they 1) contained descriptions of how the coach interacted with
players and 2) provided a description of a coach's philosophy toward leading and/or coaching and 3) could be read and understood
by raters with little or no football background. There was 80% agreement on chapter selection. In the cases of disagreement, the
two researches conferred until a consensus was reached. On average, selected material was 24 pages long and contained 10,351
words.
5.2. Coding procedures
With chapters selected, work began on coding the biographical material. Prior to beginning final ratings four independent
judges, all graduate students in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, participated in 20 h of rater training. Raters were chosen,
in part, based on their lack of familiarity with the football domain and, more specifically, lack of familiarity with the coaches in the
study. This limited some of the bias associated with making ratings about known leaders. Upon satisfactory completion of training
(ICC above .80 on sample rating materials), raters assessed the biographies for the mental model differences proposed by the CIP
model. For example, to assess differences in the “time-frame” mental model component, coders were asked to provide ratings on
three questions: 1) to what extent does this leader focus on the future, 2) to what extent does this leader focus on the present and
3) to what extent does the leader focused on the past? See Appendix B for all rating scale items used in the study. By posing these
questions as continuous scales we were able to analyze the data using more traditional statistical techniques and avoid the
problems often associated with ipsative scales (Chan, 2003). Similar questions were asked for each of the 10 proposed mental
model differences. Using ICCs, the average interrater reliability was .78 across all rating material. With respect to the use of
multiple biographies, results indicated very consistent results across biographical information (average ICC = .94). Thus, in the
instances of multiple biographies for coaches, information was aggregated resulting in a single set of scores for each coach.
In addition to the initial four raters, three supplemental raters were given the chapters and asked to simply categorize the
leader as being charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic. These raters were also graduate students in Industrial and Organizational
Psychology with notable interest and emerging expertise in the study of leadership — although this was their first direct exposure
to the CIP model. Following protocol set forth by Mumford and colleagues, leaders were also categorized as being personalized or
socialized (House & Howell, 1992) — a variable later used as a covariate to control for differences in orientation. These raters were
not given material on the theoretical framework of the CIP model and were provided the list of 120 leaders and their respective
categorizations used in the Mumford (2006) book. Decisions about final categorization were made by using the selection made by
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
7
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Table 2
Classification results.
Coach
Leader type
Coaching level
Bill McCartney
Bill Walsh
Bob Stoops
Bobby Bowden
Brian Billick
Bud Wilkinson
Chuck Noll
Dan Devine
Danny Ford
Dennis Erickson
Dick Vermeil
Don Shula
Jim Tressel
Joe Paterno
John Robinson
Lavell Edwards
Lloyd Carr
Lou Holtz
Mack Brown
Mike Shanahan
Nick Saban
Pete Carroll
Tom Osborne
Vince Dooley
Duffy Daugherty
George Seifert
Hank Stram
Joe Gibbs
John Madden
John McKay
Johnny Majors
Mike Ditka
Mike Holmgren
Paul “Bear” Bryant
Phillip Fulmer
Steve Spurrier
Tom Landry
Vince Lombardi
Ara Parseghian
Barry Switzer
Bill Belichick
Bill Cowher
Bill Parcells
Bob Devaney
Darrell Royal
Don James
Gene Stallings
Gene Stallings
Jimmy Johnson
Jon Gruden
Tom Flores
Urban Meyer
Weeb Ewbank
Woody Hayes
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Ideological
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
Pragmatic
College
NFL
College
College
NFL
NFL
NFL
College
College
College
NFL
NFL
College
College
College
College
College
College
College
NFL
College
College
College
College
College
NFL
NFL
NFL
NFL
College
College
NFL
NFL
College
College
College
NFL
NFL
College
NFL
NFL
NFL
NFL
College
College
College
College
NFL
NFL
NFL
NFL
College
NFL
College
at least 2 of the 3 judges. There was complete agreement for categorization for approximately 65% of the coaches. There were no
instances of complete disagreement, where each judge selected a differing categorization (i.e., judge 1 chose charismatic, judge 2
chose pragmatic and judge 3 chose ideological). Coaches and their respective categorizations are presented in Table 2.
When considering the use of historiometric analysis, a few points should be born in mind. First, Hunter, Bedell-Avers and
Mumford (2007) have recently argued that to move beyond our current understanding of leadership, we must be creative in our
research approaches and turn to alternative methods of assessment and investigation. The historiometric approach stands as one
of those unique and emerging methods that allows for the examination of a leader sample not attainable using more traditional
approaches such as surveys or even direct interviews. This method, however, also brings with it a share of challenges including
author bias and variability in material selected for coding. Fortunately, several of these biases can be controlled for (Simonton,
1990; Mumford, 2006) allowing for more substantive conclusions to be drawn. Thus, the second group of coders also rated eight
control variables, including: assessments about the bias of the biographer, nature of the book (autobiographical or biographical),
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
8
General category
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Time frame
orientation
Type of
experience used
Nature of
outcomes sought
Number of
outcomes sought
Focus on model
construction
Locus of causation
Controllability
of causation
Targets of influence
Crisis conditions
Use of emotions
Covariates
Variable
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Future
Present
Past
Positive
Negative
Both
Positive
Transcendent
Malleable
Multiple
Few
Variable
External
Internal
People
Situations
Interactive
High
Low
Selective
Masses
Base Cadre
Elites
Ordered
Chaotic
Localized
Positive
Negative
Rationale
Autobiography
Quoted material
Quality of material
Years as a coach
Author's view of leader
Number of words a
Age of coach
Amount of bias
Personalized/socialized
3.49
3.53
2.57
3.73
2.71
3.49
4.66
3.91
2.28
3.61
2.42
2.09
3.01
4.13
3.98
2.66
3.45
4.45
1.37
1.81
3.97
3.22
2.61
4.26
1.86
3.21
3.66
2.53
3.78
.63
2.06
3.71
3.25
4.21
103.51
56.15
3.19
.26
.80
.60
.78
.81
.76
.67
.35
.69
.64
.89
.82
.66
.57
.43
.56
.46
.60
.53
.35
.48
.65
.66
.56
.47
.52
.54
.74
.83
.59
.55
.43
.51
.84
.54
3.47
7.98
.72
.46
1.00
− .08
− .31
.53
− .17
− .18
.46
.24
− .17
.45
− .30
− .19
.00
.20
.21
− .13
− .20
.31
− .27
− .39
.31
− .09
.01
− .01
− .09
.23
.27
− .14
.03
.09
− .02
.06
− .03
.03
.03
− .01
.13
− .22
1.00
− .22
.30
− .07
.09
− .04
− .11
.03
− .02
.11
.19
− .02
.21
− .03
− .14
.01
− .13
− .19
− .01
.04
− .20
− .06
.14
.01
.06
− .10
− .18
.11
− .24
.02
.09
− .03
.22
.16
− .04
.29
.21
1.00
− .36
.40
.08
− .23
.13
.35
− .11
.12
.16
.36
− .37
− .26
.32
.23
− .25
.18
.32
− .14
.01
− .01
− .16
− .46
− .16
.16
.43
− .11
.35
.02
− .15
.11
− .11
− .13
.08
− .24
.08
1.00
− .36
.40
.08
− .23
.13
.35
− .11
.12
.16
.36
− .38
− .27
.33
.23
− .25
.18
.32
− .14
.00
− .01
− .16
.15
− .46
− .16
.43
− .11
.35
.02
− .15
.11
− .11
− .13
.08
− .24
1.00
− .42
− .18
.50
.24
− .13
.50
− .33
− .19
− .09
.26
.29
− .12
− .18
.11
− .26
− .27
.52
− .39
− .13
.10
− .07
.04
.43
− .37
.02
.07
− .03
− .11
.05
.09
.00
.02
.22
1.00
.43
− .45
− .19
.27
− .35
.51
.17
.36
− .16
− .21
.04
− .02
− .03
.17
.28
− .33
.25
.16
− .34
.42
− .14
− .41
.70
− .01
.13
− .04
.19
− .06
− .24
.10
.03
− .13
1.00
− .16
− .19
.13
− .34
.24
.19
.16
− .23
− .07
− .11
.15
.07
− .08
.09
− .15
.16
.36
.01
.00
− .23
− .28
.34
.06
.10
− .05
.22
− .16
− .13
.11
− .09
− .08
1.00
.44
− .13
.37
− .48
− .09
− .18
.31
.29
.05
.09
.13
− .10
− .36
.43
− .18
− .06
.24
− .28
.10
.31
− .41
.11
.11
− .05
.01
.02
.08
− .14
.08
.13
1.0
− .04
.58
− .53
− .22
.10
.08
.10
.16
.11
.19
− .03
.04
.37
− .26
− .17
.02
.03
− .13
.13
− .10
− .27
.31
− .10
− .22
.10
.19
.04
− .01
.15
1.00
− .03
.30
.41
.57
− .23
− .38
.38
.49
− .44
.49
.38
− .12
.14
.21
− .43
.14
− .50
− .30
.28
.32
.14
− .04
− .15
− .03
− .18
− .13
− .03
− .23
1.00
− .73
− .22
.07
.17
.13
.05
.08
.20
− .16
− .12
.41
− .40
− .08
.20
− .18
− .04
.38
− .25
− .15
.15
− .15
− .16
.24
.23
.00
.15
.16
1.00
.23
.16
− .22
− .22
− .02
− .07
− .30
.23
.32
− .50
.26
− .11
− .41
.29
− .06
− .42
.39
.16
− .06
− .01
.03
− .22
− .45
.11
− .24
− .32
1.00
.28
− .21
− .28
.12
.45
− .15
.23
.42
− .18
.13
.19
− .12
− .09
− .33
− .09
.05
.36
− .02
.02
.03
− .15
− .18
.00
− .06
− .12
1.00
− .36
− .46
.48
.56
− .40
.42
.49
− .03
.07
.22
− .25
.13
− .53
.05
.21
.11
.15
− .05
− .09
− .03
− .25
.05
− .02
− .06
1.00
.37
− .41
− .32
.45
− .13
− .26
.30
− .18
− .16
.27
.04
.39
.20
− .32
− .09
− .26
.24
.38
.30
.34
.12
.40
.50
1.00
− .28
− .36
.49
− .40
− .37
.25
− .17
.02
.27
− .20
.32
.25
− .28
− .16
.04
− .03
.09
.04
.10
− .07
.14
.14
Note. Correlations significant at p ≤ .05 if above the absolute value of .27.
a
Number of words presented in 1000 U.
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
Table 3
Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among study variables.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
1.0
.56
− .52
.41
.33
− .15
.13
.02
− .39
.16
− .58
.10
.03
.16
.21
.15
− .31
− .18
− .16
− .03
− .27
− .30
1.00
− .44
.39
.35
.02
.10
.17
− .19
− .04
− .56
− .04
− .02
.14
.11
− .09
− .19
− .04
− .12
− .06
− .09
− .15
1.00
− .45
− .42
.19
− .03
.11
.48
− .27
.37
.06
.02
− .16
− .04
.07
.12
.08
.10
.15
.08
.20
1.00
.47
− .05
.06
− .06
− .34
.22
− .27
− .01
.01
.27
.04
− .02
− .02
.03
− .08
− .07
.02
− .15
1.00
− .16
− .10
− .14
− .32
.21
− .44
− .08
.23
.14
.12
− .01
− .05
− .03
− .08
.13
− .15
− .09
1.00
− .34
− .04
.08
.07
.00
.39
− .21
− .18
− .03
.09
.00
.14
.26
− .17
.16
.27
1.00
.66
− .23
.18
− .03
− .19
.21
− .08
− .13
.12
.05
− .10
− .15
.06
− .05
− .19
1.00
.01
− .02
− .12
.05
.11
.03
− .08
.03
.14
.03
.02
.00
.13
− .04
1.00
− .74
.39
.13
− .23
− .06
− .14
− .17
.20
.40
.18
.25
.36
.33
1.00
− .20
− .06
.22
− .17
.03
.40
.04
− .26
.02
− .19
− .13
− .03
1.00
− .02
− .09
− .11
− .22
− .07
.39
.09
.21
.16
.13
.25
1.00
− .67
− .05
.10
.13
.06
.01
.08
− .03
.06
.15
1.00
− .12
.09
− .04
.04
.00
− .25
.05
− .05
− .26
1.00
.09
− .13
.01
− .08
− .04
.05
− .12
− .08
1.00
− .07
− .29
.00
− .14
.27
− .24
− .24
1.00
.21
− .24
.07
− .09
− .10
.01
1.00
.14
.32
.09
.44
.42
1.00
.20
.31
.77
.21
1.00
− .01
.27
.73
1.00
− .12
− .02
1.00
.46
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
Table 3
Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among study variables.
9
10
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Table 4
Multivariate analysis of covariance for proposed mental model differences.
Covariates
Orientation
Author bias
Quoted material
Main effects
Level (college or pro)
Leader type
Interaction
Level ⁎ leader type
F
df
p
η2p
3.02
1.54
1.57
29, 17
29, 17
29, 17
.01
.17
.17
.83
.73
.73
7.12
4.85
29, 17
58, 34
.00
.00
.92
.89
1.42
58, 36
.09
.71
Note. F = F-value using Pillai's trace; df = degrees of freedom; p = p-value; η2p = partial eta squared effect size.
percentage of quoted material, overall quality of the material presented, author's view of the leader, total number of pages, and age
of coach at the time of the book. The average ICC across covariates was .91.
5.3. Analyses
Data were analyzed using two primary procedures. The first was a MANCOVA, used to determine if there were general mean
differences in expressions of the leaders' mental models across the three leader types. Follow-up univariate analyses were also
conducted to examine the specific differences in the dependent variables. Moreover, to more accurately assess cell mean
differences, 95% confidence intervals were also formed — a task necessary as the application of covariates precludes the use of
multiple comparison procedures (Toothaker, 1993). The second primary analysis performed was a discriminant function analysis
which was used to determine which components of the leader's expressed mental models most strongly predicted discrimination
among the three leader types.
6. Results
Descriptive results including means, standard deviations and correlations are presented in Table 3. The results of the MANCOVA
are presented in Table 4. With regard to control variables, all covariates were entered simultaneously and assessed for their
applicability to the analyses. To maximize degrees of freedom (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), only those covariates significant at
p b .20 were retained in final multivariate and univariate analyses, resulting in three retained control variables: leader orientation
(personalized versus socialized), degree of author bias, and amount of quoted material in the selection.
As may be seen in the table, there was an overall significant main effect for leader type F(58, 34). It should also be noted that
the interaction term between level of coaching was not significant, although it did approach traditional levels of significance (F(58,
34) = 4.428, p = .09). Closer inspection of the univariate results, moreover, revealed that across 29 dependent variables only 1
interaction reached significance. As such, when taken in conjunction with results from previous studies it appears that the CIP
model is relatively robust within the football domain and that the results are applicable across both professional and college
samples.
6.1. Leader type
Univariate results for leader type are presented in Table 5, along with associated means for the three leader types. One
interesting set of results not appearing in the descriptive statistics is the frequency of leader types occurring within college versus
professional arenas. In the college domain, the number of leader types was as follows: charismatic = 16, ideological = 6, and
pragmatic = 7. Within the professional ranks, the breakdown of leader types was: charismatic = 8, ideological = 8, and
pragmatic = 9. Although strong conclusions cannot be drawn from these frequency values (χ2 = 2.92, p = .23), the prevalence of
charismatic leaders in the college ranks appears noteworthy. Given that college coaches are essentially leading non-professional
subordinates, these results are consistent with others (e.g., Howell & Shamir, 2005) who have suggested that charismatic leaders
are best suited to contexts where subordinates are open to guidance and direction via a charismatic leader's vision.
6.1.1. Time frame orientation
As may be seen when examining univariate results for leader type in Table 5, results are consistent with predicted theoretical
frameworks. Specifically, charismatic leaders were more future oriented, pragmatic leaders were more present focused and
ideological leaders focused on past events — results well illustrated in Fig. 1. Given these results, there appeared to be strong
support for this component of the theory.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
11
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Table 5
Univariate results for leader type.
Dependent variables
F
Time frame orientation
Future
6.62
Present
6.12
Past
9.96
Type of experience used
Positive
16.33
Negative
6.25
Both
3.60
Nature of outcomes sought
Positive
3.50
Transcendent
1.09
Malleable
6.35
Number of outcomes sought
Multiple
13.69
Few
3.37
Variable
4.75
Focus on model construction
External
5.64
Internal
6.51
Locus of causation
People
4.54
Situations
2.09
Interactive
10.19
Controllability of causation
High
9.22
Low
4.06
Selective
8.19
Targets of influence
Masses
3.22
Base Cadre
.624
Elites
3.07
Crisis conditions
Ordered
1.36
Chaotic
.186
Localized
3.96
Use of emotions
Positive
7.17
Negative
6.75
Rationale
1.84
df
p
η2p
Charismatic mean (SE)
Ideological mean (SE)
Pragmatic mean (SE)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.01
.01
.01
.22
.21
.31
3.96 (.16)
3.46 (.18)
2.20 (.15)
3.08 (.21)
3.20 (.14)
3.29 (.14)
3.16 (.18)
3.84 (.13)
2.42 (.17)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.01
.04
.04
.42
.21
.14
4.14 (.13)
2.43 (.14)
3.27 (.15)
2.95 (.16)
3.21 (.17)
3.53 (.19)
3.81 (.14)
2.59 (.15)
3.84 (.17)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.04
.34
.01
.14
.05
.22
4.79 (.07)
4.00 (.14)
1.93 (.14)
4.47 (.09)
3.90 (.18)
2.40 (.17)
4.67 (.08)
3.70 (.16)
2.70 (.15)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.01
.04
.01
.38
.13
.17
4.13 (.13)
2.10 (.16)
1.84 (.14)
3.11 (.16)
2.70 (.20)
2.09 (.18)
3.28 (.14)
2.64 (.18)
2.51 (.16)
2, 45
2, 45
.01
.01
.20
.22
2.71 (.12)
4.29 (.07)
3.10 (.15)
3.86 (.09)
3.33 (.14)
4.05 (.08)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.02
.14
.01
.17
.09
.31
4.26 (.12)
2.49 (.10)
3.09 (.12)
3.86 (.09)
2.80 (.13)
3.46 (.15)
4.04 (.08)
2.75 (.11)
3.93 (.14)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.01
.05
.01
.29
.15
.26
4.78 (.10)
1.20 (.08)
1.52 (.10)
4.30 (.13)
1.43 (.10)
2.03 (.12)
4.01 (.12)
1.54 (.09)
2.07 (.11)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.05
.54
.06
.13
.03
.12
4.13 (.12)
3.16 (.12)
2.62 (.12)
3.60 (.15)
3.25 (.15)
2.39 (.15)
3.93 (.14)
3.37 (.13)
2.88 (.13)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.27
.83
.03
.06
.01
.15
4.41 (.10)
1.81 (.11)
3.49 (.12)
4.15 (.13)
1.92 (.14)
2.99 (.15)
4.21 (.11)
1.85 (.12)
3.06 (.13)
2, 45
2, 45
2, 45
.01
.01
.17
.24
.23
.08
4.09 (.15)
2.20 (.17)
3.69 (.14)
3.13 (.19)
3.19 (.21)
3.71 (.17)
3.57 (.17)
3.37 (.19)
4.05 (.15)
Note. F = F-value; df = degrees of freedom; p = p-value; η2p = partial eta squared effect size.
Covariates used in analyses: leader orientation, degree of author bias and use of quoted material.
6.1.2. Type of experience used
With regard to the type of experience used, charismatic leaders focused on more positive experiences than ideological leaders — yet
did not differ substantially from pragmatic leaders who also appeared to draw on positive experiences when they deemed it necessary. As
Fig. 1. Mean results for time frame orientation.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
12
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
predicted (see Table 1), ideological leaders used negative experiences significantly more than charismatic and pragmatic leaders (Table 5).
Finally, pragmatic leaders changed the type of experiences used more often than charismatic leaders, yet did not differ from ideological
leaders in this way. These results highlight general support for the theory regarding this component of the CIP model.
6.1.3. Nature of outcomes sought
The CIP model predicts that charismatic leaders will seek positive outcomes, ideological leaders will seek transcendent
outcomes and pragmatic leaders will be malleable or flexible in the nature of the outcomes sought. Overall, there was general
support for this aspect of the model. Charismatic leaders produced the highest means on with respect to seeking positive
outcomes and ideological leaders sought transcendent outcomes to a greater degree than pragmatic leaders but not
charismatic leaders. Finally, pragmatic leaders produced higher means with respect to being malleable in the nature of the
outcomes sought — producing higher means than both ideological and charismatic leaders.
6.1.4. Number of outcomes sought
As predicted by the theoretical framework, we found that charismatic leaders sought more positive outcomes than ideological
leaders. In contrast to theorized trends, however, charismatic leaders did not significantly differ from pragmatic leaders in this
way, although means were in the predicted directions (Table 5). With regard to transcendent outcomes sought, means were again
in predicted directions, but ideological leaders did not significantly differ from either pragmatic or charismatic leaders. Finally,
consistent with the proposed theoretical framework, pragmatic leaders were more malleable in their agendas for goal attainment,
differing significantly from both ideological and charismatic leaders. Thus, as a whole, there is moderate support for the theory
regarding this component of the model.
6.1.5. Focus on model construction
According to the CIP model, charismatic leaders and pragmatic leaders are predicted to focus on external factors when
constructing their prescriptive mental models in contrast to ideological leaders, who are theorized to be more internally focused.
Results of the univariate analyses, however, failed to support this trend and in fact revealed a nearly opposite effect (Table 4). More
specifically, with respect to an external focus, pragmatic leaders produced the highest means followed by ideological leaders, and
finally results indicated that charismatic leaders produced significantly lower means than both of the other leader types. As may be
surmised given the nature of the items, a similar pattern – albeit in the opposite direction – was observed for internal focus.
Notably, with internal focus, ideological leaders produced the lowest means when theory predicted they would produce the
highest. Thus, these results do not support the pattern predicted by the CIP model.
6.1.6. Locus of causation
As predicted, univariate results revealed that charismatic leaders viewed people as the core of outcome causality to a greater
degree than ideological and pragmatic leaders. With regard to viewing the situation as the primary cause of outcomes, ideological
leaders produced significantly higher means than charismatic leaders but not pragmatic leaders (Table 5). Finally, pragmatic
leaders largely viewed causality as the interaction between people and the situation, producing significantly higher means than
both of the other leader types for this dependent variable. Overall, then, there appears to be general support for the locus of
causation component of the CIP theoretical framework.
6.1.7. Controllability of causation
The CIP model predicts that charismatic leaders will view the situation as highly controllable — that it can be changed, altered,
or adjusted. The results were consistent with this prediction; charismatic leaders producing means higher than both ideological
and pragmatic leaders. The model also predicts that ideological leaders will view the situation outside of their control, attributing
the context to external drivers such as fate or destiny. The results supported this prediction relative to charismatic leaders but not
pragmatic leaders who actually produced means greater than ideological leaders. Finally, pragmatic leaders were predicted to be
selective in how they viewed the situation — at times seeing it as controllable, at others seeing it as out of their hands. Means trend
in predicted direction, with the strongest support being for pragmatic leaders compared to charismatic leaders. Overall, there is
some support for this aspect of the CIP model.
6.1.8. Targets of influence
According to the CIP model, charismatics are theorized to appeal to the masses, while ideological leaders are theorized to
appeal to a core base of close individuals. In contrast, pragmatic leaders are theorized to appeal to elites, or those in a position to
have substantive influence in a broader social context. Within the football domain, elites were defined as the star players on the
team, regardless of rank or seniority. Generally speaking, the results of this model component support these propositions —
charismatic leaders produced means highest on appeals to the masses (Table 4). Similarly, ideological leaders appealed to their
core followers to a greater degree than both pragmatic and charismatic leaders. With respect to the football domain directly, core
followers were players on the team for a long period of time and were strongly enculturated into the coach's philosophy. Finally,
mean trends suggest that pragmatic leaders attempted to appeal to the elites to a greater degree than both charismatic and
ideological leaders — although this difference was only significant when comparing means to charismatic leaders. On the whole,
there was relatively strong support for this component of the model.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
13
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
6.1.9. Crisis conditions
With respect to crisis conditions, the CIP model predicts that charismatic leaders emerge and succeed in more ordered
conditions, ideological leaders in more chaotic conditions, and pragmatic leaders in more localized conditions. Results, however,
do not support this trend. In fact, for the one dependent variable that was significant, localized conditions, means are in directions
opposite from what is predicted by the model. Thus, there was no support for this component of the model — although as will be
noted in the limitation section, the crises faced by coaches may represent a unique form of crisis relative to those faced by other
high-level leaders.
6.1.10. Use of emotions
Although not explicitly described as a core prescriptive mental model component, the use of emotions when providing
sensemaking is discussed as a critical element for both charismatic and ideological leaders. In contrast, we predicted that
pragmatic leaders would use rational appeals rather than emotional appeals to followers. Moreover, given the emphasis on
presenting an idealized future, for charismatics we predicted a greater use of positive emotions and given the emphasis on righting
the wrongs of the past, we predicted a greater use of negative emotions for ideological leaders. Univariate results for all three
dependent variables were generally as predicted, providing support for predictions regarding the use of emotions (Table 5).
6.1.11. Summary
Overall, there was fairly strong support for the components of the CIP framework. More specifically, of the 10 components
analyzed, roughly 8 were supported — albeit to varying degrees. When examining the observed effect sizes, these differences were
not trivial. These mean differences, however, tell us only part of the story. It is useful, then, to examine which components are most
heavily used when discriminating among leader types. We turn now to the results of the discriminant function analysis.
6.2. Discriminant function analyses
The results of the discriminant function analyses revealed a number of interesting trends. First, it should be noted that both
discriminant functions were significant: F1 (r = .93, χ2 = 137.67, p ≤ .001) and F2 (r = .91, χ2 = 63.89, p ≤ .001). Given the
significance of both functions, it seems relevant to consider each of them to gain a better understanding of what aspects of the
leaders' mental models were most heavily used by coders when categorizing the three leader types. Before examining function
loadings, however, it is critical to understand what each function represents — a task requiring careful consideration of the group
mean centroids. These means, along with other requisite function statistics are presented in Table 6. As may be seen in the table,
the function means indicate that the first function best represents the distinction of ideological leaders (M = − 4.13) relative to
both pragmatic (M = 1.51) and charismatic leaders (M = 1.40) as a whole, who scored very similarly on this function. Again, these
means help inform interpretation on the factor loadings, where high scores on this function are indicative of charismatic and
pragmatic leaders, while low (negative scores) are representative of ideological leaders. Not surprisingly, the second function
essentially represents the distinction between charismatic (M = −2.01) and pragmatic leaders (M = 2.94) with ideological
leaders scoring near zero on the function (M = .07). Again, these means help us understand that high scores are indicative of
pragmatic leaders and lower scores (negative loadings) are more indicative of charismatic leaders.
Inspection of the factor loadings, presented in Table 7, also highlights a number of interesting trends. When examining
ideological leaders, for example, it is evident that what separates them from their charismatic and pragmatic counterparts is a
strong emphasis on the past (F1 = − .27), a focus on a few key outcomes (F1 = −.14), and a reasonably high amount of negative
emotionality (F1 = − .24). When considering what separates charismatic leaders from ideological and pragmatic leaders, on the
other hand, is seems that a strong emphasis on positive experiences (F1 = .36, F2 = −.15), seeking multiple outcomes (F1 = .18,
F2 = − .30), offering their vision to a wide array of individuals (F1 = .20, F2 = − .17), and using a strong amount of positive
emotions (F1 = .19, F2 = − .16) best categorizes this leader type. Finally, pragmatic leaders appeared fairly malleable, using
positive (F1 = .36), negative (F1 = .23, F2 = .12) and combinations (F2 = .21) of experiences when necessary. In addition,
pragmatic leaders appear to vary the number of outcomes sought (F2 = .21), and viewing the locus of causality as interactive
(F2 = .23). Finally, pragmatic leaders also placed a reasonable amount of focus on the present — something that separated them
Table 6
Discriminant function results.
Leader type
Charismatic
Ideological
Pragmatic
Canonical correlation
Wilks lambda
Chi-square
p-value
Function 1
Group centroids
Function 2
Group centroids
1.40
− 4.13
1.51
− 2.01
.07
2.94
Function 1
Function 2
.93
.02
137.68
.00
.91
.18
63.89
.00
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
14
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Table 7
Discriminant function analyses structure matrix.
Dependent variable
Time frame orientation
Future
Present
Past
Type of experience used
Positive
Negative
Both
Nature of outcomes sought
Positive
Transcendent
Malleable
Number of outcomes sought
Multiple
Few
Variable
Focus on model construction
External
Internal
Locus of causation
People
Situations
Interactive
Controllability of causation
High
Low
Selective
Targets of influence
Masses
Base Cadre
Elites
Crisis conditions
Ordered
Chaotic
Localized
Use of emotions
Positive
Negative
Rationale
Function 1
Loadings
Char and Prag versus Ideo
Function 2
Loadings
Char versus Prag
− .15
.16
− .27
− .25
.15
.03
.36
.23
− .02
− .18
.12
.21
.18
.02
− .03
− .15
− .18
.21
.18
− .14
.00
− .30
.23
.25
− .03
.22
.19
− .16
.12
− .07
.01
− .18
.07
.23
.09
− .05
− .10
− .28
.15
.20
.20
.06
− .08
− .17
.17
.16
.09
− .04
.09
− .10
.06
− .11
.19
− .24
.04
− .16
.07
.11
from both ideological and charismatic leaders (F1 = .16, F2 = .15). On the whole, these results are consistent with predictions, but
are also unique in that they reveal which variables were used more heavily than others in the categorization process used by
coders. Going further, there is at least some indication that these factor loadings may be reflective of which aspects of the
prescriptive mental models may be the most salient or distinctive components of the differing types of leaders.
7. Discussion
Before turning to the broader implications of the study, it is important to bear in mind a few limitations. The first is the
somewhat small sample size of football coaches used in the study, which may be viewed as limiting the capacity to observe
predicted effects affiliated with the model. Although we concede that the sample size is not overwhelming, we do feel justified
with the sample size given that the hypothesized differences examined in this study were the fundamental tenants of the CIP
model. As such, these differences were predicted to produce large effect sizes which would require a smaller sample size to detect
(Cohen, 1992). Power analyses, furthermore, indicated that the sample size was adequate for examining effects of this predicted
size. It should also be noted that although the final sample was comprised of 54 coaches, over 100 leader biographies were rated in
the coding process. Finally, because results were generally consistent with the predicted model, there is substantive evidence that
the sample size was large enough to examine the proposed effects.
Second, although the use of leaders from a single domain was an intended aspect of the study, caution is warranted when
generalizing the results to domains outside the football arena. In particular, the crises and associated emotional contexts faced by
leaders may be somewhat unique with respect to other forms of outstanding leadership; every game may feel like a crisis and
emotions typically run very high in sports contexts — particularly the very physical and frequently violent sport of football. When
taken in conjunction with previous studies examining the CIP model, however, we do feel that the results of the study have reasonable
applicability to other forms of leadership. Moreover, given the prevalence of leadership books and materials affiliated with sports
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
15
coaches, it seems reasonable to suggest that there may be some leadership lessons to be learned from the sports arena — even if in
limited fashion (e.g., Avery et al., 2003; Day et al., 2004; Lansing, 1989).
Third, rated material assessing the mental model differences among leader types was tested against categorizations made by a
second set of judges and it is important to note that this second set of judges should not be taken as the “correct” categorization.
Indeed, it is likely that miscategorizations were made by these coders when they were asked to assess a leader as being
charismatic, ideological or pragmatic. However, given the predicted directionality of the results, miscategorizations are likely to
have lessened or negated the observed results (i.e., type II errors). As such, the findings of the study are likely to be more
conservative, rather than liberal, estimates. Moreover, because the observed patterns were generally consistent with the CIP
model, there is at least partial evidence of rater capacity to make valid judgments about leader types.
Fourth, along similar lines, leader types were assessed by the second set of coders in a categorical manner. That is, judges were
instructed to code a leader as being ideological, pragmatic, or charismatic rather than rating charisma, ideology, or pragmatism
on a continuum. Moreover, there is some evidence that mixed model types may exist (e.g., Bedell-Avers et al., 2009; Hunter et al.,
2009). Once again, this miscategorization (e.g., coding a leader as pragmatic when they are mixed) is likely to have introduced
greater error into analyses, thereby resulting in a reduction of effects (type II errors) rather than more liberal estimates (type I
errors). Because results are consistent with predictions, it seems that most type II errors were avoided. The point remains,
however, that some leader types may be mixed and this area stands as an important avenue for future research.
Fifth and finally, the use of biographical information is not without its share of limitations as a research method. The
information available to raters is, in many ways, bound by what was chosen by the authors of the books. Moreover, within the
leadership arena there is oftentimes a substantial emphasis on heroic leadership — viewing the leader as a driving force behind
team success (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). Although we concede these limitations, we do want to note that several author
biases were controlled for and that by choosing only championship coaches we have limited many of the confounds associated
with using a sample of coaches in general (with various records). Moreover, the use of historiometric analysis allowed us to
examine a sample of coaches literally unattainable via other more traditional methods. The fact remains, however, that all
methods have their limitations, and the historiometric approach is not without its share of them.
7.1. Conclusions
Despite these limitations, we feel that the manuscript makes a number of unique and important contributions to our
understanding of leadership. First, this study represents a direct attempt to examine the core tenants of the CIP model — a
task yet to be undertaken in the nearly 15 previous studies examining the model. The results of this effort provide general
support for the tenants of the model as a whole. More specifically, of the 10 components of leaders' prescriptive mental
models, 8 were found to be significant and in the predicted directions. Although predicted, these findings are hardly trivial
and lend substantive credence to an emerging leadership model that significantly expands on previous perspectives of
viewing leadership. Moreover, these results were obtained in a sample of leaders who have proven that they are capable
of outstanding achievement. It is even more noteworthy that the sample was drawn from a common domain and because
of this we can more confidently say that it appears leaders can be successful in a variety of ways, employing a number of
different styles. In short, these results highlight the emerging conclusion that we can no longer ignore the fact that not all
outstanding leaders employ a charismatic leadership style (Yukl, 1999). Our views of leadership must be expanded to
include other forms of leadership beyond the more traditional vision-based models. This is not to say that charismatic
leadership is ineffective — quite the opposite is true (e.g., Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Rather, our results
provide evidence supporting the core theoretical framework of an expanded leadership model, one that includes multiple
approaches to outstanding leadership.
Second, despite the generally supportive results, not all predictions were observed. In particular, results failed to support the
“focus in model construction” and “crisis conditions” components of the model. It must be conceded that the nature of the study
precluded rich and detailed investigation of these aspects of the leaders' mental models. Moreover, the crises faced by football
coaches may be unique and as such, results may not be applicable to other forms of outstanding leadership. Taken together, this
pattern of non-findings may best be attributed to the study method, rather than incorrect specification of theory. The lack of
predicted results, however, provides some indication as to areas of future research that might explore specific boundary conditions
or the inclusion of key contextual moderators.
Third, given the strong results observed in the use of emotions component of the model, it seems warranted to suggest that this
element be included in future discussions of the model. More specifically, this component of the CIP model has only been discussed
peripherally to date. Due to the fairly strong results observed in this study, however, it would seem that the use of emotions when
expressing and framing a prescriptive mental model is an important discriminating factor across leader types — if perhaps only in
specific domains (e.g., those that allow for frequently displays of emotion). These results seem to suggest that future revisions to
the model include explicit reference to the varied uses of emotional appeals by the three leader styles (George, 2000; McCollKennedy & Anderson, 2002).
Fourth and finally, the results of the discriminant function analyses revealed an interesting trend regarding how the three
leader types differ from one another. That is, although the results of the MANOVA and follow-up ANOVAs demonstrated that
the three leader types differ on most of the hypothesized mental model components, when examining what was used to
discriminate each leader type from the other, a unique pattern emerged for each leader type. Specifically, charismatic leaders
may be summarized as being very positive, appealing to the masses and offering hope for a brighter future. Ideological
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
16
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
leaders, on the other hand, are more succinctly described as being focused on a few key outcomes, placing a greater emphasis
on the past and drawing on some degree of negativity when making appeals to followers. Finally, pragmatic leaders are aptly
summarized as being very malleable; changing and altering their behavior when necessary — a summary consistent with the
findings of Bedell and colleagues' (2006) examination of Machiavellianism, where pragmatic leaders were willing to do
whatever it took to accomplish a given objective. The point here is that although the leader types differed on the mental
model components predicted by the model, the pattern that defined a leader as pragmatic, charismatic or ideological was
unique for each leader type.
7.2. Implications
The results of this study have a number of important theoretical implications. The first is that we clearly need to expand our view on
what it takes to be an outstanding leader. More directly, although it is abundantly clear that vision-based models are essential
components of outstanding leadership, they are not the only means of achieving significant outcomes. In our sample of winning
coaches, for example, we saw a number of leaders who do not lead in a charismatic fashion yet were able to achieve the ultimate
outcome in their respective domains. Once again, this is not to discount the impact or importance of vision-based models — rather, we
must realize from a theoretical perspective that there is much to be learned from other forms of leadership.
With respect to the CIP model directly, our results suggest there is value in taking a sensemaking perspective in leadership
theory. More specifically, by validating the core framework of the CIP model, there is increased evidence that a sensemaking
perspective is a useful means of understanding differences among leader types (Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Keller, 2003). This suggests
that future leadership frameworks may benefit by considering how leaders form their mental models as well as how
they are expressed to followers. Natural extensions of the sensemaking perspective, moreover, include gaining an understanding
of the respective mental models of followers and how they resonate, or fail to resonate, with a given leader (Howell & Shamir,
2005).
The final theoretical implication is associated with the increased frequency of charismatic leaders in the college ranks relative
to the professional ranks. Although still speculative given the size of the sample (n = 29 college versus n = 25 of NFL), these results
are consistent with the propositions put forth by Howell and Shamir (2005) who suggested that subordinates with low selfconcept clarity would develop stronger relationships with charismatic leaders relative to those subordinates who have a high self
concept clarity and identify more strongly with the group as a whole. Moreover, in their multilevel discussion on leader
emergence, Mumford et al. (2008) suggested that charismatic leaders would emerge in populations that are more vulnerable in
contrast to pragmatic leaders who would emerge in more autonomous populations. Given the contrast of subordinates in the
samples – student-athletes (college) versus professional (NFL) – these trends are in the proposed directions and would support
the propositions put forth by Howell and Shamir (2005) as well as Mumford et al. (2008). Thus, it seems that more work is
warranted in examining the conditions under which the leader types might emerge and be most successful.
In addition to the theoretical implications, the results of this study also speak to a number of practical implications as well. The
most critical is related to leadership training and development (Day, 2000). Stated simply, emerging research on the CIP model is
forcing us to consider the possibility that leadership development programs solely emphasizing vision-based models may not be
applicable to all individuals (Pasternack & O'Toole, 2002; Khurana, 2002). In fact, by attempting to develop all individuals into a
charismatic or transformational mold, we may be opposing their descriptive mental models — mental models that are crystallized
and were likely shaped during early formative stages in life (Ligon et al., 2008). Along similar lines, leadership development
programs aimed at more pragmatic or even ideological training may not be suitable for individuals with a charismatic perspective
on leading. Although challenging to practitioners and leader development experts, we must explore the possibility that tailored
training programs may be required to maximize the potential for leaders falling into differing styles of leadership (Espejo, Day, &
Scott, 2005).
Another practical implication of the study is derived from considering the results of the discriminant function analysis.
Specifically, the results provide some indication about possible scoring weights with respect to the future development of
measures used to distinguish among leader types. Although previous measures have been used with reasonable success (BedellAvers et al., 2008; Hunter et al., 2009) there is room for refinement and improvement. In particular, these measures take upwards
of 30 min to administer, require high-levels of cognitive engagement and are fairly taxing on participants overall. More directly,
however, given the results of the discriminant function analyses in this study, these measures may benefit from increased
sophistication with respect to scoring weights. Thus, future scale development should consider improved scoring methods derived
from the results of this study and others to come.
7.3. Future research
Turning now to future research opportunities, this study lends credence to the notion that future research on the CIP model,
and other models like it (e.g., Collins, 2001; Tsui et al., 2006; Pasternack & O'Toole, 2002), is necessary. That is, by validating the
core components of the model, we contribute to the growing evidence supporting the notion that expanded leadership
perspectives are critical areas of research. Generally speaking, then, future research should emphasize broader frameworks of
leadership as they clearly merit increased exploration (Yukl, 1999).
With regard to the CIP model specifically, it would appear critical to examine the malleability of leader behaviors within and
across the styles — a point noted by Weber (1924) in his original classification. It is clear, for example, that charismatic leaders can
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
17
act in pragmatic ways when solving problems. Similarly, ideological leaders are not always negative and may offer perspectives of
hope and optimism by means of a strong connection to beliefs and values. However, it is evident that there are stable differences
across the leader types — differences that may be used to reliably categorize the leaders. Thus, future research must explore which
behaviors are universal to all forms of leadership and which are more centrally indicative of a given type. The core sensemaking
components explored in this study are certainly steps in this direction, but future research is needed to examine the malleability
and consistency of other behaviors and cognitions.
Along similar lines, future research should examine the mixed-type leader who may share aspects of multiple styles of
leadership. It is unclear at this point if such a leader would be superior given their flexibility or if they would lack the strengths
associated with having a clear leadership style. There is some evidence suggesting that mixed-type leaders are effective in a variety
of conditions. For example, Hunter et al. (2009) found that mixed-type leaders performed well across a variety of conditions; a
finding consistent with research by Bedell-Avers et al. (2009) that also included a mixed-type category and found that they were
effective problem solvers. Mumford (2006) also discusses leaders such as Malcolm X who was both ideological and charismatic —
yet is historically viewed as a highly effective, albeit controversial, leader (Clarke, 1990). Despite this anecdotal evidence, however,
we know very little about this leader type and as such, more work is needed in this area.
Shifting focus onto the subordinate, future research would be well served to examine follower characteristics and their impact
on leader performance. Within the sports domain, for example, it is apparent that teams with outstanding subordinate talent can
be successful with only mediocre leadership (Lazenby, 2002). Conversely, there is some anecdotal indication that great coaches
(i.e., outstanding leaders) have little success without requisite subordinate talent. Thus, understanding the role of subordinate
KSAs in leadership and team success appears to be a worthwhile endeavor within the sports domain specifically — with potential
research and practical implications beyond this arena.
Finally, it is essential that future research examine the congruence in mental models between leader types and followers.
Although this has been examined in some ways by Mumford, Strange, et al. (2006) in their investigation of LMX exchanges — more
work needs to be done if we continue to place a focus on sensemaking in our leadership models (Baker, 2007). As suggested by
Howell and Shamir (2005), aspects of the subordinate such as self-concept clarity and relationship orientation dictate the nature of
the ultimate relationship with the leader. Along these lines, by focusing on mental model congruence (and divergence), we may
gain a better understanding of the influence mechanisms at work both with regard to leader–follower influence as well as
influence from follower to leader (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001).
In sum, the results of the study underscore the importance of a growing trend in leadership and management research — expanding
our view beyond the dominant vision-based perspectives to include other forms of leadership (Hunter et al., 2007). Again, this is not to
the exclusion of charismatic or transformational leadership, but rather our results support a call for the extension of leadership
perspectives, more broadly. By finding general support for expanded perspectives such as those in the CIP model, we hope that others
are motivated to consider expanded leadership models and our study is an impetus for growth in this direction.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Brandon Vessey, Pamela Batson, Natalia Ayub, and Zachary Slaybaugh for their efforts on the project.
We would also like to thank Dr. Michael Mumford along with the three anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and help in
improving the manuscript.
Appendix A
Allen, G. (with Weiskopf, D.) (1975). Handbook in of winning football. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Baldoni, J. (2005). How great leaders get great results. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Banks, J. (1973). The Darrell Royal story. Austin TX: Shoal Creek Publishers, INC.
Bilinski, B. (1989). Champions: Lou Holtz's Fighting Irish. South Bend, IN: Diamond Communications, Inc.
Billick, B. & Peterson, J. A. (2001). Competitive leadership: Twelve principles for success. Chicago, IL: Triumph Books.
Blount, R. Jr. (1974). About three bricks shy of a load: A highly irregular lowdown on the year the Pittsburgh Steelers were super but
missed the bowl. Boston: Brown and Company.
Bouchette, E. (1999). Ready or not: Steelers sputtering as the opener dawns. In D. Eyring (Ed.), Cowher power (pp. 70–72). Chicago:
Triumph Books.
Bouchette, E. (2005). Facing the music: No longer a rookie, Roethlisberger has discovered the price of fame and high expectations.
In D. Eyring (Ed.), Cowher power (pp. 118–122). Chicago: Triumph Books.
Bowden, B. (with Bowden, C.) (2001). The Bowden Way. Marietta, GA: Longstreet Press, Inc.
Brown, M. & Little, B. (2006). One Heartbeat II: The road to the national championship. Albany, TX: Bright Sky Press.
Brown, M. & Little, B. (2001). One Heartbeat: A philosophy of teamwork, life, and leadership. Albany, TX: Bright Sky Press.
Browning, A. (2001). I remember Paul “Bear” Bryant: Personal memories of college football's most legendary coach as told by the people
who knew him best. Nashville, TN: Cumberland House.
Bryant, P. W., & Underwood, J. (1974). Bear: The hard life and good times of Alabama's Coach Bryant. Little, Brown, and Company: Boston.
Bynum, M. (1993). Pop Warner: Football's greatest teacher. USA: Gridiron Football Properties Corporation.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
18
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Cavanaugh, J. (1930). The autobiography of Knute K. Rockne. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Chastain, B. (2002). The Steve Spurrier story: From Heisman to head bull coach. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing.
Collier, G. (2006). Mission accomplished: Cowher finally gets the Steelers that “one for the thumb”. In D. Eyring (Ed.), Cowher
power (pp. 132–136). Chicago: Triumph Books.
Daugherty, D. (with Diles, D.) (1974). Duffy: An autobiography. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
Denlinger, K. (1994). For the glory: College football dreams and realities inside Paterno's program. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Devaney, B. (with Babcock, M., Bryant, D., Parker, V., & York, R.) (1981). Devaney. Lincoln, NE: Bob Devaney.
Devine, D. (with Steele, M.R.). Simply Divine: Memoirs of a Hall of Fame Coach. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing Inc.
Devine, D., Onofrio, A. Missouri Power Football: Revised Edition. Columbia, MO: Lucas Brothers Publishers.
Dickey, G. (1989). San Francisco 49ers: The super years. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
Ditka, M. (2001). Ditka on his bear days. In R. Wolfe (Ed.), Da coach (pp. 205–216). Chicago: Triumph Books.
Ditka, M. (with Pierson, D.) (1986). Ditka: An autobiography. Chicago: Bonus Books.
Dooley, V. (with Giles, B.). (2005). Vince Dooley's Tales from the 1980 Georgia Bulldogs. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing LLC.
Dooley, V.J. (with Barnhart, T.). (2005). Dooley: My 40 Years at Georgia. Chicago: Triumph Books.
Dunnavant, K. (1996). Coach: The life of Paul “Bear” Bryant. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Edwards, L. (as told by Nelson, L.). (1980). LaVell Edwards: Building a Winning Football Tradition at Brigham Young University. Provo,
UT: Council Press.
Edwards, L. (with Benson, L.). (1995). LaVell: Airing it Out. Salt Lake City, UT: Shadow Mountain.
Ellis, S., & Vilona, B. (2006). Pure Gold: Bobby Bowden. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing L.L.C.
Ewbank, W. (as told to Roiter, N.) (1972). Goal to go: The greatest football games I have coached. New York: Hawthorn Books.
Facer, D. (2005). BCS breakthrough: Utah's historic 2004 season. United States: Kci Sports Publishing.
Flores, T. (with Cooney, F.) (1992). Fire in the iceman: Autobiography of Tom Flores. Chicago: Bonus Books.
Flores, T. (with Fulks, M.) (2003). Tales from the Oakland Raiders. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing L.L.C.
Fox, L. (1969). Broadway Joe and his super Jets. New York: Coward-McCann.
Freeman, D. H., & Aron, J. (2001). I remember Tom Landry. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing L.L.C.
Fulmer, P. (with Hagwood, J., & Ward, J.). (1999). A Perfect Season. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press.
Fulmer, P. & Gerald, S. (1997). Legacy of Winning: “It Doesn't All Happen On Game Day.” Knoxville, TN: Pressmark International.
Gibbs, J. (with Abraham, K.) (2002). Racing to win. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers.
Gibbs, J. (with Jenkins, J.) (1991). Joe Gibbs: Fourth and one. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Golenbock, P. (2005). Landry's boys: An oral history of a team and an era. Chicago: Triumph Books.
Greenberg, S. & Ratermann, D. (1997 and 2004). I Remember Woody: Recollections of the Man They Called Coach Hayes. Chicago:
Triumph Books.
Gruden, J. (with Carucci, V.) (2003). Do you love football?!: Winning with heart, passion, and not much sleep. New York: HarperCollins.
Havel, C. (1996). Holmgren: The early years. In F. J. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Heir to the legacy: The memorable story of Mike Holmgren's Green
Bay Packers (pp. 8–15) Louisville, KY: AdCraft.
Hession, J. (1993). Forty Niners: Collector's Edition. U.S.: Foghorn Press.
Holley, M. (2004). Patriot reign: Bill Belichick, the coaches, and the players who built a champion. New York: Harper Collins.
Holtz, L. (with Heisler, J.). (1989). The fighting spirit: A championship season at Notre Dame. New York: Random House.
Holtz. L. (1998). Winning every day: The game plan for success. New York: Harper-Collins.
Hornung, P. (1991). Woody Hayes: A reflection. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing Inc.
Hubbard, S. (1997). Shark among dolphins: Inside Jimmy Johnson's transformation of the Miami Dolphins. New York: Ballantine Books.
Isaacson, K. (with Kessenich, T.) (1996). Return to glory: The inside story of the Green Bay Packers return to prominence. Iola, WI:
Krause Publications.
James, D. (as told to Virgil Parker). (1992). James. Lincoln, NB: Self-published.
Johson, J. (as told to Hinton, E.) (1993). Turning the thing around: Pulling America's team of the dumps-and myself out of the doghouse.
New York: Hyperion.
Krikorian, D. (2003). Pete Carroll: Carroll on top of game. Long Beach Press-Telegram. 120–121.
Limprecht, H.J., Denney, J., Silber, H.S. (1972). Bob Devaney: Portrait of a Winner. Omaha, NE: Kratville Publications.
Lombardo, J. (2005). A fire to win. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Madden, J. (with Anderson, D.) (1984). Hey, wait a minute, I wrote a book! New York: Willard Books.
Madden, J. (with Anderson, D.) (1996). All Madden: Hey, I'm talking pro football! New York: HarperCollins.
Majors, J. (with Byrd, B.). (1986). You can go home again. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press.
Martin, B. (2006). The boys from old Florida: Inside Gator nation. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing, LLC.
McCartney, B. (with Diles, D.). (1990). From ashes to glory. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
McGuff, J. (1970). Winning it all: The Chiefs of the AFL. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
McKay, J. (with Perry, J.). (1974). McKay: A coach's story. New York: Atheneum.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
19
McMahon, J. (2001). The monster of the midway. In R. Wolfe (Ed.), Da coach (pp. 93–106). Chicago: Triumph Books.
O'brien, M. (1987). Vince: A personal biography of Vince Lombardi. New York: William Morrow and Company.
O'Brien, M. (1998). No ordinary Joe: The biography of Joe Paterno. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press.
Osborne, T. (1996). On solid ground. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Book Publishing.
Osborne, T. (1999). Faith in the game: Lessons on football, work, and life. New York: Broadway Books.
Pagna, T. (with Best, B.). (1976). Notre Dame's era of Ara. Huntsville, AL: The Strode Publishers, Inc.
Parcellis, B. (with Lupica, M.) (1987). Parcells: Autobiography of the biggest Giant of them all. Chicago: Bonus Books.
Parcells, B. (with Coplon, J.) (1995). Finding a way to win: The principles of leadership, teamwork, and motivation. New York: Doubleday.
Parseghian, A., & Pagna, T. (1971). Parseghian and Notre Dame football. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, Inc.
Paterno, J. (with Asbell, B.). (1989). Paterno: By the book. New York: Random House.
Quakenbush, R., & Bynum, M. (1988). Knute Rockne: His life and legend. USA: October Football Corp.
Rappoport, K. (1974). The Trojans: A story of southern California football. Huntsville, AL: The Strode Publishers.
Robinson, J. (1996). Coach to coach: Business lessons from the locker room. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Co.
Robinson, J., & Jares, J. (1981). Quest.
Royal, D. (with Wheat, J.) (2005). Coach Royal: Conversations with a Texas football legend. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Saban, N. (2004). Nick Saban's tiger triumph. Chicago, IL: Triumph Books.
Saban, N. (with Curtis, B.) (2005). How good do you want to be? New York: Ballantine Books.
Sahadi, L. (1979). Steelers! Team of the decade. New York: Times Books.
Seaman, R.S. (1981). The Legend of Bill and Vince Dooley: Bowl Breaking Brothers. Huntsville, AL: The Strode Publishers.
Shanahan, M. (with Schefter, A.) (1999). Think like a champion. New York: Harper Business.
Shropshire, M. (2004). When the Tuna went down to Texas: How Bill Parcells led the Cowboys back to the promised land. New York:
Harper Collins Publishers.
Shula D., & Blanchard, K. (1995). Everyone's a coach: You can inspire anyone to be a winner. New York: Harper Business.
Shula, D. (with Sahadi, L.) (1973). The Winning Edge. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc.
Silverstein, T. (1996). Always a winner. In F. J. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Heir to the legacy: The memorable story of Mike Holmgren's Green Bay
Packers (pp. 35–42) Louisville, KY: AdCraft.
Sittler, D. (2001). Heir to the Sooner legacy: The championship story of Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops. USA: Epic Sports.
Snapp, S. & Tressel, J. (2006). 12-0: An insider's account of Ohio State's 2006 championship season. Chicago, IL: Triumph Books.
Spurrier, S. (with Carlson, N.) (1992). Gators: The inside story of Florida's first SEC title. Orlando, FL: Tribune Publishing.
Stambroski, J. (1998). J.J. straight talking: Jimmy Johnson's insights, outbursts, kudos, and comebacks. Hollywood, FL: Lifetime Books.
Stram, H. (with Sahadi, L.) (1986). They're playing my game. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
Switzer, B. (with Shrake, B) (1991). Bootlegger's boy. New York: William Morrow and Company, INC.
The Staff of the Mobile Register (1993). Back to glory: The amazing story of Alabama's 1992 championship season. Kansas City, KS:
Andrews and McMeel.
Towle, M. (2002). I remember: Bud Wilkinson. Nashville, TN: Cumberland House.
Triumph Books (2000). Gotta go to work: The Rams unforgettable championship season. Chicago: Triumph Books.
Tysiac, K. (2006). Tales from Clemson's 1981 Championship Season. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing LLC.
University of Michigan (1998). 1997 National Champions. Charlotte, NC: UMI Publications, Inc.
Vare, R. (1974). Buckeye: A Study of Coach Woody Hayes and the Ohio State Football Machine. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
Walsh, B. (with Billick, B. & Peterson, J.) (1998). Finding the winning edge. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing Inc.
Walsh, B. (with Dickey, G.) (1990). Building a Champion. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Wells, R. W. (1971). Vince Lombardi: His life and times. Madison, Wisconsin: Prairie Oak Press.
Wexell, J. (2004). Tales from behind the steel curtain. Champaign, IL: Sports Publishing L.L.C.
Wharton, D. & Klein, G. (1961). Conquest: Pete Carroll and the Trojans' climb to the top of the college football mountain. Chicago:
Triumph Books.
Wolfe, R. (2000). Jon Gruden: All it takes is all ya got take this job and love it. United States: Lone Wolfe Press.
Appendix B
For all ratings use the following scale:
5 = Nearly always
4 = The majority of time
3 = Some of the time
2 = Rarely
1 = Never
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
20
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Time frame
To what extent does the leader:
Use a future-oriented time-frame?
Use a present-oriented time-frame?
Use a past-oriented time-frame?
Type of experience used
To what extent does the leader:
Discuss positive prior experiences when interacting with (e.g., motivating) subordinates?
Discuss negative prior experiences when interacting with (e.g., motivating) subordinates?
Blend both positive and negative prior experiences when interacting with (e.g., motivating) subordinates?
Nature of outcomes sought
To what extent does the leader:
Seek positive outcomes?
Seek transcendent (e.g., going beyond normal bounds or expectations) outcomes?
Change or alter his discussion of outcomes sought, depending on the situation?
Number of outcomes sought
To what extent does the leader:
Discuss seeking multiple outcomes?
Discuss seeking only a few outcomes?
Change or alter the number of outcomes sought depending on the situation?
Focus in model construction
To what extent does the leader:
Discuss external influences/factors when motivating/coaching subordinates?
Discuss internal influences/factors when motivating/coaching subordinates?
Locus of causation
To what extent does the leader:
View people as the cause of outcomes?
View situations as the cause of outcomes?
View the interaction of people and situations as the cause of outcomes?
Controllability of causation
To what extent does the leader:
Discuss how he and his subordinates have a high degree of control over their destiny?
Discuss how he and his subordinates have a low degree of control over their destiny?
Change his discussion of controllability depending on the situation?
Targets of influence
To what extent does the leader:
Spend his time trying to convince/motivate the entire team and coaching staff?
Spend his time trying to convince/motivate only the key members of the team?
Spend his time trying to convince/motivate the star players on the team?
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
21
Crisis conditions
To what extent does the leader:
View the situation as ordered and highly structured?
View the situation as chaotic?
View the situation as existing only in the localized area (i.e., does not discuss external factors or influences)?
Use of emotional appeals
To what extent does the leader:
Use emotional appeals to motivate and engage followers?
Use rational persuasion to motivate and engage followers?
References
Adair-Toteff, C. (2005). Max Weber's charisma. Journal of Classical Sociology, 5, 189−204.
Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Griffith, K. H., & Quinones, M. A. (2003). The impact of multiple measures of leader experience on leader effectiveness. Journal of
Business Research, 56, 673−679.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 50−60.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bedell, K. E., Hunter, S. T., Angie, A. D., & Vert, A. (2006). A historiometric examination of Machiavellianism and a new taxonomy of leadership. Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 12, 50−72.
Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A
comparative experimental study. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 89−106.
Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: How do they interact? The Leadership Quarterly, 20,
299−315.
Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 307−330.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Chan, W. (2003). Analyzing ipsative data in psychological research. Behaviormetrika, 30, 99−121.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1521−1534.
Chellandurai, P., & Carron, A. V. (1978). Leadership. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation Sociology of Sport Monograph Series A. Calgary,
AB: University of Calgary.
Clarke, J. H. (1990). Malcolm X: The man and his times. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155−159.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. S. (1988). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership on organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12,
637−647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. S. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581−613.
Day, D. V., Sin, H., & Chen, T. T. (2004). Assessing the burdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadership roles on individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 57,
573−605.
Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. .
Espejo, J., Day, E. A., & Scott, G. (2005). Performance evaluations, need for cognition, and the acquisition of complex skill: An attribute-treatment interaction.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1867−1877.
Garland, D. J., & Barry, J. R. (1990). Personality and leader behaviors in collegiate football: A multidimensional approach to performance. Journal of Research in
Personality, 24, 355−370.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027−1055.
Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Jumping through hoops: A longitudinal study of leader life cycles in the NBA. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 607−624.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Institutional identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41(3), 370−403.
Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 748−769.
Hawkins, K., & Tolzin, A. (2002). Examining the team/leader interface: Baseball teams as exemplars of postmodern organizations. Group & Organization
Management, 27, 97−112.
Hennis, W. (1996). Max Webers Wissenschaft vom Menschen: Neue Studien zur Biographie des Werks. Mohr, Siebeck: Tübingen.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189−207). Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81−108.
Howell, J. S., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management
Review, 30, 96−112.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformation/charismatic leadership's transformation of the field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129−144.
Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1995). Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors. Leadership Quarterly, 6,
379−412.
Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of
charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423−448.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 435−446.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders:
Investigation using a computer simulation. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 383−404.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 14(2),
141−160.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
22
S.T. Hunter et al. / The Leadership Quarterly xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Khurana, R. (2002). The curse of the superstar CEO. Harvard Business Review, 80, 60−66.
Lansing, R. K. (1989). Football coach's lessons can lead your team to victory. Management Review, 78, 14.
Lazenby, R. (2002). Blood on the horns: The long strange ride of Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls. Lenexa, KS: Addax Publishing.
Ligon, G. S., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 312−334.
Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 459−514.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the
MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385−425.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545−559.
Malcomsen, B. (2008). Pete Carroll news — Victory against ASU. http://www.petecaroll.com. Retrieved Dec 10, 2008, from.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78−102.
Miller, S. M. (1963). Max Weber. New York, NY: Crowell Co..
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary
boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89.
Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. A., Caughron, J. J., & Friedrich, T. L. (2008). Charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 144−160.
Mumford, M. D., Licuanan, B., Marcy, R. T., Dailey, L., & Blair, C. (2006). Political tactics. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative
analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership (pp. 138−166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
Mumford, M. D., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Vision and mental models: The case of charismatic and ideological leadership. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Charismatic and transformational leadership: The road ahead (pp. 109−142). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Mumford, M. D., Strange, J., Scott, G., Dailey, L., & Blair, C. (2006). Leader–follower interactions. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A
comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership (pp. 138−166). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
Mumford, M. D., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). The leadership of pragmatism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 279−309.
Pasternack, B. A., & O'Toole, J. (2002). Yellow-light leadership: How the world's best companies manage uncertainty. Strategy and Business, 27, 1−10.
Pasternack, B. A., Williams, T. D., & Anderson, P. F. (2001). Beyond the cult of the CEO: Building institutional leadership. Strategy and Business, 22, 1−12.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A “meso” level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic
leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643−671.
Sein, M. K., & Bostrom, R. P. (1989). Individual differences and conceptual models in training novice users. Human–computer interaction, 4, 197−229.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577−594.
Shields, D. L. L., Gardner, D. E., Bredemeier, B. J. L., & Bostro, A. (1997). The relationship between leadership behaviors and group cohesion in team sports. The
Journal of Psychology, 131, 196−210.
Simonton, D. K. (1990). Psychology, science, and history: An introduction to historiometry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343−377.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Toothaker, L. E. (1993). Multiple comparison procedures. Newbery Park, CA: Sage.
Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Z., Wang, H., Xin, K. R., & Wu, J. B. (2006). Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behavior and organizational culture. Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 113−137.
Weber, M. (1924). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York: Free Press.
Weiss, R. M. (1983). Weber on bureaucracy: Management consultant or political theorist? Academy of Management Review, 8, 244−262.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285−305.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations VI. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Please cite this article as: Hunter, S.T., et al., First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership
model, The Leadership Quarterly (2011), doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008