(PDF) Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance

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 themodel, 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 andNFL football coacheswe found general support for specific predictionsmade 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.

Criticisms of the dominant leadership perspectives in the literature are increasing and, as such, a growing number of scholars are calling for more complex and conceptually sound theories of leadership. With a multi-faceted perspective on effective leadership, detailed conceptual underpinnings, and increasing body of empirical support, the Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership has the potential to address many of these concerns and substantively contribute to our understanding of effective leadership. Despite such advantages , however, wide scale proliferation of the model remains elusive. As such, this effort provides the first comprehensive review of the CIP model to analyze its potential to expand our understanding of leadership in science and practice. In doing so this review frames and organizes the existing CIP literature, identifies key strengths of the model, addresses key limitations of the model, and outlines future research opportunities that would benefit from adopting a CIP perspective.

The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 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 ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: An examination of leader–leader interactions Katrina Bedell-Avers a,⁎, Samuel T. Hunter b, Amanda D. Angie c, Dawn L. Eubanks d, Michael D. Mumford e a b c d e University of Oklahoma, 13575 SW 29th St., Yukon, OK 73099, United States Penn State University, 112 Moore Building, State College, PA 16802, United States Department of Health and Human Services, 5113 Mary Switzer Bldg., 330 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20201, United States University of Bath, School of Management, Bath, England BA2 7AY, UK University of Oklahoma, 705 Dale Hall Tower, Norman, OK 73019, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Keywords: Leadership Outstanding leadership Historiometric Interactions Leader–leader exchange a b s t r a c t Although a number of researchers have examined and demonstrated the unique relationships different types of leaders develop with their followers (Dansereau, F., Graen, G.B., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.; Dienesh & Liden, 1986; Mumford, 2006), relatively little is known regarding how outstanding leaders interact or work together (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, Mumford, 2009-this issue). Given the particular importance of such questions, especially when considering leaders who have the potential to inﬂuence national and worldwide developments, the intent of the present study was to examine the leader–leader exchange relationships of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Due to the difﬁculty associated with examining high-level leader–leader exchanges, a hybrid qualitative–quantitative approach was taken to assess the interactions of Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, and Booker T. Washington – three high-level leaders who responded to the same crisis, in the same time period, in the same region of the world. The results provide preliminary evidence regarding the interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders; in fact, they indicate that leaders interact in a manner consistent with their mental model. Published by Elsevier Inc. 1. Introduction Outstanding leaders, the masters of inﬂuence who play a pivotal role in the success or failure of large organizations, also have a substantial impact on the broader social system and world in which we live (Bass, 1990). Given their impact on our lives, the study of outstanding leaders seems to be of considerable importance. In fact, an examination of the literature indicates that leadership researchers are devoting increased attention to the study of outstanding leaders and, more speciﬁcally, the alternative forms of outstanding leadership (Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999; Mumford, 2006). Although traditional theories of outstanding leadership have focused on charismatic or transformational leaders (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), the more recent literature suggests the existence of at least two alternative forms of outstanding, historically notable leaders, ideologues (e.g., Mumford, 2006; Mumford, Espejo, Hunter, Bedell-Avers, Eubanks, & Connelly, 2007; Strange & Mumford, 2002, 2005) and pragmatics (e.g., Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001; Tsui, Wang, Xin, Zhang, & Fu, 2004). In fact, substantial effort has been committed to theory development and validation of these alternative pathways to leadership (i.e., establishing the cognitive and behavioral differences of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders) (Mumford, 2006). ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 405 954 1199. E-mail addresses: katrina.avers@faa.gov (K. Bedell-Avers), samhunter@psu.edu (S.T. Hunter), Amanda.Angie@HHS.gov (A.D. Angie), D.Eubanks@bath.ac.uk (D.L. Eubanks), mmumford@ou.edu (M.D. Mumford). 1048-9843/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.014 300 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Table 1 Summary of differences among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Charismatic Ideological Pragmatic Crisis conditions Sense-making Type of experience Targets of inﬂuence Locus of causation Ordered Chaotic Localized Future vision Past vision Problem-solving Positive Negative Both Masses Base Cadre Elites People's actions Situational inﬂuences Both people and situation Integral to the distinctions drawn between these alternative forms of outstanding leaders is the notion that underlying these three forms – charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic – are differences in how leaders construe, or make sense of, crises that give rise to the opportunity for outstanding leadership (Bligh, Kohles, & Meindl, 2004; Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjain, 1999; Halverson, Holladay, Kazra, & Quinones, 2004; Hunt et al., 1999; Mumford, 2006). Accordingly, substantial evidence indicates that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders are, indeed, characterized by differential cognitive orientations and use different methods of inﬂuence (Bedell-Avers, Hunter, Angie, & Vert, 2006; Ligon, Hunter, & Mumford, 2008; Mumford, 2006; Mumford et al., 2007; Bedell-Avers, Hunter, & Mumford, in press; Mumford, Bedell-Avers, Hunter, Espejo, & Boatman, 2006; Strange & Mumford, 2002). Despite the clear observable distinctions witnessed among these three leader types, it should be noted that instances of mixed type leadership do occur (e.g., leaders evidencing both charismatic and ideological behavior) (Strange & Mumford, 2002). That said, to obtain a clear understanding of these three pathways, most studies have only considered leaders that could unambiguously be classiﬁed as charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic (e.g., Bedell-Avers et al., 2006; Bedell-Avers et al., 2008; Ligon et al., 2008; Mumford, 2006; Mumford et al., 2007; Mumford et al., 2006;). Accordingly, Mumford (2006) and colleagues (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008) summarize the underlying cognitive differences in terms of ﬁve key mental-model features that seem to dictate the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leader's response to crises: (1) crisis condition, (2) sensemaking, (3) type of experience, (4) targets of inﬂuence, and (5) locus of causation. A summary of these differences may be seen in Table 1. 1.1. Charismatic leaders To understand the differences that exist between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders, one must consider the cognitive framework that appears to shape each leader's method of inﬂuence. Charismatic leaders, for example, are deﬁned by their focus on a future-oriented timeframe – a focus that is most often evidenced by their use of an emotionally evocative, future oriented vision. In fact, charismatics appear to use their vision to provide a sense of shared experience and shared future as they appeal to the masses (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999). President John F. Kennedy provides an excellent communication sample that reveals his cognitive orientation in his unforgettable challenge to every citizen to “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”(Kennedy, 1961). In this instance, Kennedy demonstrates his (1) future-orientation, (2) inﬂuence over the masses (American citizens), and (3) identiﬁcation of people's actions as critical change agents. In fact, an examination of the empirical literature provides additional evidence bearing on the charismatic leader's method of inﬂuence. For example, charismatic leaders tend to be unusually skilled at engaging others in the vision they are advocating and most often use emotional persuasion, eloquence, a focus on followers' personal needs, or a focus on followers’ social needs to appeal to followers (e.g., Deluga, 2001; Mumford, 2006). 1.2. Ideological leaders Although similar in some ways (i.e., use vision-based leadership), ideologues make sense of situations using a very different cognitive framework (Strange & Mumford, 2002). In fact, an examination of ideological leaders indicates the ideologue's vision is based or founded on the past rather than the future. For example, ideological leaders develop emotionally evocative, traditionoriented visions that place an emphasis on a shared collective past and the values and standards necessary for a just society (e.g., Mumford et al., 2007; Strange & Mumford, 2002; 2005;). Characteristically, ideologues rally follower support by actively rejecting situational causes of injustices. Accordingly, the ideologue's visionary appeal is often focused toward developing a base cadre of followers willing to make strong commitments to the cause. In fact, the ideologue's vision is often framed in terms of a mission that emphasizes the importance of shared values and is particularly dependent on groups that share and reinforce the vision he articulates. Thus, it is not surprising to ﬁnd that ideologues are rigidly committed to beliefs, maintain tight group boundaries, and exhibit an oppositional character that makes it truly difﬁcult to develop a relationship unless trust, loyalty, and attitudinal similarity have been demonstrated (Mumford, 2006). 1.3. Pragmatic leaders Pragmatic leaders, on the other hand, do not articulate a vision for their followers. Rather, pragmatic leaders focus on current issues and exert their inﬂuence through an in-depth understanding and sensitivity to the social system and the causal variables operating (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). Pragmatics are often considered to be functional problem solvers that consider both situations and people when examining a problem and need for solution (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001; Mumford, 2006). In addition, the pragmatic's method of inﬂuence is most often targeted toward elite individuals invested in the problem and the solution. In such situations, the pragmatic places a premium on performance and appeals to followers' functional needs through 301 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Table 2 Example behaviors used to classify Douglas, Dubois, and Washington. Charismatic Existence of vision Time orientation Inﬂuence tactics Communication strategy Targets of inﬂuence Cause of problem Ideological Pragmatic Frederick Douglas W.E.B. Dubois Booker T. Washington Yes Future Focus on followers' personal or social needs Emotional persuasion eloquence Masses People Yes Past Focus on shared heritage or ideals Emotional persuasion Base Cadre Situation No Present Focus on followers' functional needs Rational persuasion negotiation Elites Both people and situation negotiation, an emphasis on shared outcomes, and respect for followers' unique concerns (Mumford, 2006). In fact, pragmatic leaders are notoriously skilled at using their expertise to devise actions that allow them to manipulate the current situation in a manner that brings about efﬁcient practical solutions to the crisis at hand (Bedell-Avers et al., 2006). Despite the recent advances in understanding leadership and how leaders inﬂuence their followers, relatively little is known regarding how outstanding leaders inﬂuence each other (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2009-this issue). Speciﬁcally, we do not know 1) if charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can work together and 2) how charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders work together. Given the particular importance of such questions, especially when considering leaders who have the potential to inﬂuence national and worldwide developments, the intent of the present study was to examine the leader– leader exchange relationships of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. The above being stated, there exist a number of difﬁculties that hinder the study of outstanding leader–leader exchanges. First and foremost, the rarity of outstanding leadership and problems associated with gaining access to outstanding leaders makes it difﬁcult to examine one leader, much less examine the interactions of multiple outstanding leaders (Simonton, 1994, 2003). Second, outstanding leaders do not necessarily arise at the same time. In fact, preliminary evidence indicates that leaders arise at different times depending on the degree of structure or chaos in the situation (Mumford, 2006). Third, different leader types arise in response to different issues. Speciﬁcally, outstanding leaders have a tendency to self-select into certain types of organizational environments (e.g., political, military, business) (Mumford, 2006). Accordingly, it is difﬁcult to ﬁnd different types of outstanding leaders that address the same types of issues. Thus, it seems, in order to circumvent the obstacles that hamper traditional studies of outstanding leadership and answer the questions of if and how charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders work together and interact, a non-normative strategy must be used. Accordingly, one such strategy was utilized in the present effort. Speciﬁcally, since outstanding leaders arise in times of crisis (Hunt et al., 1999), crises or signiﬁcant issues in history were examined to identify leaders responding to the same issue at roughly the same time – an approach that enables the investigation of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders under similar environmental conditions and constraints. Using this strategy, a number of potential crises were identiﬁed (e.g., the Great Depression, World War II) and associated leaders were assessed for leader type and orientation using the criteria suggested by Mumford & colleagues (2006). For example, a leader was classiﬁed as charismatic if he/she, among other criteria, articulated a vision based on perceived social needs and the requirements for effective, future-oriented change. An ideologue was identiﬁed if he/she articulated a vision emphasizing commitment to strongly held personal beliefs. A pragmatic was identiﬁed if he/she focused on the solution to immediate social problems. In addition, the orientation of leaders was assessed to ensure the selection of leaders with a socialized orientation. Although leaders with a personalized orientation do exist and exert substantial inﬂuence, the personalized orientation appears to inﬂuences relationship development and communication strategies in charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders (Mumford, 2006). Thus, in the present effort, it seemed necessary to control for inﬂuences of leader orientation by only examining socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatics leaders. Accordingly, leaders classiﬁed as personalized (i.e., they framed action in terms of their own self-aggrandizement and sought to enhance their power regardless of the cost to followers, organizations, and societies) were not considered in the present study. Conversely, leaders classiﬁed as having a socialized orientation (i.e., they sought to enhance others and effect change to serve society) were chosen (House & Howell, 1992). Using these criteria for selection, the issue of African American civil rights was identiﬁed as one instance, a rare instance, in which a collection of socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders co-occur and respond to the same issue. See Table 2 for example behaviors used to classify the socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leader. 1.4. Leaders of the U.S. civil rights movement During this period of history in the United States of America, the era following emancipation in 1865 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there existed a substantial amount of racial conﬂict. For example, the newly emancipated African Americans were struggling for literacy, political empowerment, and civil equality in a society that was recovering from civil war. During this period of strife and chaos, three key leaders rose to power through their efforts to establish racial equality, Frederick Douglas – a charismatic leader, W.E.B. DuBois – an ideological leader, and Booker T. Washington – a pragmatic leader. Although each leader worked toward the same goal, equal rights for African Americans, they each approached the issue in a distinct manner indicative of their typology. 302 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Frederick Douglas, a charismatic leader, is considered to be one of the most powerful voices of the U.S. antislavery movement. Despite his humble beginnings as a slave in the early 19th century, Douglas became a self-made intellectual who led African Americans through both the civil war and reconstruction. His road to fame and inﬂuence began as an escaped slave who recognized slavery as a crisis, a crisis that was destroying his people and his nation and required action. Although many recognized the problems associated with slavery, Frederick Douglas was willing to suffer beatings and the risk of recapture for the chance to rally Americans to the “blood chilling horrors [of the] hellish work of negro persecution” (p. 36, Douglas, 1894). This courage in the face of adversity, coupled with powerful oratory skills and an ability to share his vision for a better future made Frederick Douglas a primary leader in the ﬁght for liberation and equal rights. During the civil war, Douglas recruited African American slaves to ﬁght for the Union, in the face of prejudicial treatment, with the promise of a better future – a future of freedom and equality (Martin, 1984). In the chaotic post war era, Douglas actively advocated literacy, political empowerment, and racial equality for all Americans. Throughout his life, Douglas worked toward achieving his vision of a better future – a nation founded upon “human brotherhood and the self-evident truths of liberty and equality”(p. 36, Martin, 1984). Although the preceding paragraph provides only a glimpse of Frederick Douglas, a number of noteworthy features indicate he is a charismatic leader. First, Douglas presents an emotionally evocative and passionate vision – an indicator that he is either a charismatic or an ideological leader. Second, further examination of the vision content reveals a focus on the future of the United States of America rather than the reinstatement of past glory – indicating that Frederick Douglas is best categorized as a charismatic leader. Third, Douglas focuses on the needs he shares with other slaves, namely freedom, equality, and respect. Fourth, his communications evidence an eloquent appeal to followers' emotions rather than on, for example, pragmatic problem-solving. Fifth, Douglas makes every effort to appeal to the masses (i.e., slaves and non-slaves throughout the North and South) despite the potential for personal harm. Sixth, Douglas's efforts to change the hearts and minds of Americans are indicative of his belief that people are fundamental to problem solution. In fact, his strategy indicates that Americans (as a people group) are the focal point for initiating change. W.E.B. Dubois, an ideological leader who rose to power as a free man in the early 1900s, is also considered to be one of the most inﬂuential leaders in the U.S. civil rights movement. Dubois is renowned as both a scholar and an activist. In fact, Dubois was the ﬁrst African American man to graduate with a Ph.D. from Harvard University and is considered by many to be a father of the social sciences. Despite the developmental differences experienced by Dubois and Douglas, they both were committed to achieving the same objective – equal rights for African Americans. It is noteworthy, however, that they each interpreted and approached the problem in a distinctive manner consistent with their typology. Speciﬁcally, Dubois believed that racial prejudice and discrimination were rooted in African American ignorance. Thus, to overcome ignorance and instigate social change, Dubois proposed the higher education of a “Talented Tenth” (the most intelligent ten percent of the black race) who through their knowledge of modern culture could guide the African American into a higher civilization. He described the “Talented Tenth” as “men and women of knowledge and culture and technical skill who understand modern civilization … and have the training and aptitude to impart it to [those] under them” (p. 228, Dubois, The Talented Tenth). To achieve this vision, Dubois founded the “Niagara Movement” and later, the NAACP. As the spokesman for both organizations, Dubois critiqued all aspects of discrimination and demanded that white America accept black people on equal terms. At the same time, he challenged African Americans to take pride in their African heritage – a heritage of great spirituality and genius. Throughout his life, Dubois worked toward achieving his vision of a better future – a future in which the identity and integrity of the African race was restored and civil rights were assured. A cursory review of W.E.B. Dubois and his behaviors provides noteworthy evidence of his ideological leadership. First and foremost, Dubois presents a vision for the future. Although presentation of a vision is insufﬁcient for conclusively classifying Dubois as an ideologue, careful examination of the vision content reveals that the vision is rooted in the past. Speciﬁcally, Dubois presents a vision based on the reinstatement or restoration of the African race to its past glory. Of course, this evidence serves as a particularly strong indication that Dubois is an ideologue. A number of other behaviors also indicate he is an ideological leader. For example, Dubois appeals to his followers by reminding them of their shared values and evoking emotions of pride and discontent. Moreover, Dubois primarily directs his appeals to a base cadre of individuals – individuals he refers to as the Talented Tenth. Booker T. Washington, a pragmatic leader, also played a critical role in the civil rights movement. Although Washington was born into slavery in the Deep South, he was emancipated in 1865. Following emancipation, Washington worked to pay his way through school and was ultimately recognized as the nation's foremost African American educator. Consistent with the objectives of both Douglas and Dubois, Washington was also committed to achieving equal rights for African Americans. That being said, he analyzed and approached the problem with a pragmatic strategy that is substantially different from that of Douglas and Dubois. Washington proposed a solution that would accommodate the needs of African Americans, as well as the North and the South. Speciﬁcally, Washington urged African Americans to accept social segregation and discrimination for the present and concentrate instead on elevating themselves through hard work and economic prosperity. In fact, Washington counseled African Americans to obtain a useful education, save money, work hard, and purchase property – a strategy he believed would “earn” African Americans full citizenship in American society. In exchange for black compliance, Washington called on white America to provide jobs and industrial education for African Americans. Although Washington's strategy was considered traitorous by some, his willingness to collaborate with White Americans undoubtedly improved the availability of educational institutions for African Americans – a necessary ﬁrst step for academic development and civil rights attainment. That being said, Washington's conciliatory gestures should not be mistaken as forfeiture; rather his actions were strategically planned to achieve his ultimate goal, “full equality in all respects” (p. 91, Cox). K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 303 As evidenced in the preceding paragraph, Booker T. Washington exhibits a number of behaviors that are markedly different from both charismatic and ideological leaders. Most noteworthy, is the lack of an emotionally evocative vision. In fact, he frames his response to the crisis in terms of problem-centered objectives for goal attainment. Although this evidence could be considered sufﬁcient for classifying a leader as pragmatic, other behaviors conﬁrm this classiﬁcation. For example, Washington appeals to followers' logic and basic needs as he points out the functional beneﬁts of his solution (e.g., education, monetary gain) to both White Americans and African Americans. Moreover, Washington responded to the crisis by examining both situational factors and people characteristics (i.e., the South was economically unstable and untrusting of African Americans and African Americans were unable to advance economically without a basic education) – an indicator of the pragmatic leader's causal focus on situations and people. See Table 2 for a more complete list of behavioral differences observed among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. 1.5. Interactions Although increasing effort has been devoted to the study of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership, little is known regarding the interactions that occur among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Simply put, we do not know what form of interaction should be expected when charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders respond to the same crisis. That being said, it seems reasonable to assume that different leader types will react and respond to each other in a manner that is consistent with their sensemaking strategy. Thus, depending on the type of leader–leader exchange (e.g., ideologue-pragmatic), differences in sensemaking may lead to exchanges characterized by miscommunication and increased levels of conﬂict. Conversely, it is also possible that differences in sensemaking may lead to an enhanced collaboration in which each leader capitalizes on and/or compensates for the other leader's strengths and weaknesses. For instance, one may expect ideologues to have the greatest difﬁculty engaging in collaborative exchanges with other leaders, especially pragmatics. In fact, the ideologue's tight group boundaries, oppositional character, and rigid commitment to a set of beliefs and values often results in an unwillingness to consider alternative strategies for vision achievement (Mumford, Scott, & Hunter, 2006). Thus, the ideologue may experience a particularly volatile exchange with a pragmatic that advocates an adaptive problem-solving strategy and is willing to sacriﬁce ideological principles to achieve an objective (Bedell et al., 2006). That being said, conﬂict may be avoided and collaboration established with leaders who share the ideologue's trust, loyalty, and values (Mumford et al., 2006). Alternatively, a charismatic should respond to both ideologues and pragmatics in a manner that facilitates collaboration. Speciﬁcally, a charismatic does not maintain the same rigidity characterizing ideologues and is willing to have mutual inﬂuence, high levels of contact and participation (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) – a combination of characteristics that make them open to collaboration on projects. Given these cognitive and behavioral differences, it seems reasonable to assume that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will have different types of exchange relationships. In fact, at the most basic level, the three leader types will differentially perceive each other. Hypothesis 1: The interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will be differentially characterized by various levels of liking, hostility, and perceived contribution to the cause. Although leader perceptions of other leaders are a fundamental characteristic of leader–leader exchanges, it is also important to understand how leaders respond to an approach introduced by other leaders. For instance, a leader may use another leader's approach as a building block for his own approach. Alternatively, a leader may denigrate another leader's approach and demand radical change. Pragmatic leaders, in particular, will analyze the approaches of other leaders using a functional problem-solving approach – an approach that will look for the best solution to accommodate current needs (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). The pragmatic will determine points on which they agree/disagree, areas that need to be changed, issues he is willing to negotiate, etc. (Mumford, 2006). In addition, a pragmatic will defend his strategy in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. An ideologue, in contrast, will note minimal acceptance of existing strategies and espouse the wrongness of existing views (Mumford et al., 2007). He will react particularly strongly to strategies that oppose his ideological beliefs. In contrast, a charismatic will identify areas in need of change and seek to develop a degree of mutual inﬂuence. In fact, a charismatic will most often utilize coalition tactics to develop alliances and further his vision for a better future. Thus, the approach used by charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders seems to be inﬂuenced by their exchange relationship with other leaders – an exchange that can differentially involve support or denigration. Hypothesis 2: The interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will be characterized by different responses to the approach of another leader. Speciﬁcally, leaders will differentially support or denigrate the approaches of other leaders. Additionally, given the differences in sensemaking, it seems reasonable to assume that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will have different reasons for supporting or denigrating the approach of another leader. For example, an ideologue may denigrate the approach of either a pragmatic or charismatic leader if their strategy is morally inconsistent with his/her principles (Mumford et al., 2007). A pragmatic, in contrast, will support or denigrate another leader's approach if it is useful for achieving his/her functional objectives (Bedell et al., 2006). A charismatic will most likely be supportive of another leader's approach if it is consistent with his/her vision for the future (Conger, 1999). Thus, it appears that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders may respond to other leaders in a similar manner, but for varying reasons that are consistent with their mental models. 304 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Hypothesis 3: Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will respond to other leaders for varying reasons that are consistent with their mental models. See Table 3 for more explicit predictions regarding expected differences among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders on each of the aforementioned hypotheses. 2. Method Given the difﬁculty associated with locating outstanding leaders who co-occur and respond to the same issue, the analysis and interpretation of their exchange relationships remains a challenge with traditional experimental designs. Thus, in the present study, the historiometric method, a hybrid quantitative–qualitative approach, was utilized to assess the exchange relationships of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. The historiometric method involves the quantitative analysis of historical records (Simonton, 1991, 1994, 2003). Some forms of historical records include archival data (Rowe, Cannella, Rankin, & Gorman, 2005), speeches (Fiol et al., 1999), historical biographical material (Strange & Mumford, 2002) and autobiographies (Welch-Ross, 2001). Accordingly, the historiometric approach is well-suited to examining the exchange relationships of high-level leaders, leaders for whom there are numerous, detailed historical records. In fact, an examination of the recent leadership literature demonstrates the viability of such an approach with a variety of samples and research questions (e.g., Bedell et al., 2006; Bligh & Hess, 2007; Ligon et al., 2008; Mumford, 2006; Mumford et al., 2007; Warner, 2007). Through these successful efforts, leadership researchers have identiﬁed four key issues that must be considered in the development of a meaningful historiometric study: 1) the accuracy of behavioral observations, 2) the operational deﬁnitions for behaviors of interest, 3) the nature of observations (i.e., public/private), and 4) the viability of the sampling plan. Thus, the present historiometric study was developed using a rigorous protocol that addresses each of the aforementioned issues. 2.1. Sample and data sources 2.1.1. Leader sample To circumvent the challenges associated with studies of outstanding leadership, researchers have recently begun to apply nonnormative strategies (e.g., Bedell et al., 2006; Bligh & Hess, 2007; Ligon et al., 2008; Mumford, 2006; Warner, 2007). In the present study, a non-normative sampling strategy was employed. Speciﬁcally, to examine high-level leader–leader interactions, historical records were reviewed to identify a crisis or signiﬁcant issue in history in which different types of outstanding leaders co-occurred and responded to the same issue. Although this strategy limits the study to a sample of three leaders, it enables the investigation of interactions among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders under similar environmental conditions and constraints. Using this strategy, the issue of African American civil rights was identiﬁed as the crisis or issue of interest in the present study. Accordingly, the leaders of interest were selected if they met a number of criteria: 1) the leader could be unambiguously classiﬁed as charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic by three expert raters (100% agreement) using the behavioral criteria identiﬁed by Strange & Mumford (2002), Mumford & Van Doorn (2001), and Mumford (2006), 2) the leader could be unambiguously classiﬁed as having a socialized orientation by three expert raters (100% agreement) using the criteria suggested by O'Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly (1995), 3) there existed at least 15 academic volumes available for analysis, 4) the leader's time “in power” overlapped with each of the other leader's time “in power”, and 5) the leader was actively involved in African American civil rights. Using these criteria, Frederick Douglas (charismatic), W.E.B. Dubois (ideological), and Booker T. Washington (pragmatic) were selected as the critical leaders of interest. Table 3 Speciﬁc hypotheses regarding expected differences. Hypotheses Charismatic– ideological Charismatic– pragmatic Pragmatic– ideological Pragmatic– charismatic Ideological– charismatic Ideological– pragmatic Hypothesis 1: The interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will be differentially characterized by various levels of liking, hostility, and perceived contribution to the cause High liking Low hostility High liking Low hostility High liking Low hostility High contribution High contribution Low liking Mod/high hostility Low/mod contribution High contribution Moderate liking Moderate hostility Moderate contribution Low liking Mod/high hostility Low contribution Support Denigrate Support Denigrate Moderate change Radical change Moderate change Support/ denigrate Moderate change Low wrongness Moderate rightness Mod/high wrongness Low rightness Low wrongness Moderate rightness Hypothesis 2: The interactions of charismatic, ideological, Support and pragmatic leaders will be characterized by different Moderate responses to the approach of another leader change (e.g., support/denigrate, request radical change) Hypothesis 3: Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will respond to other leaders for varying reasons that are consistent with their mental model (consider approach to be based on right or wrong principles) Low wrongness Moderate rightness Low/mod wrongness Low rightness Radical change Mod/high wrongness Low rightness K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 305 2.1.2. Data sources To examine the exchange relationships of Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. DuBois, and Booker T. Washington a collection of material was examined. Speciﬁcally, letters, speeches, communications, autobiographies, and academic biographies were investigated to preliminarily assess the quality of the data and ensure that all available evidence was collected. Upon examination of the materials, it became evident that usage of all available evidence introduced a substantial variation in the quality of documentation, as well as author bias. Moreover, the academic biographies and academic texts (e.g., published letters) seemed to ensure both the quality of material and sufﬁcient coverage of the interactional information available regarding Douglas, Dubois, and Washington. Thus, to ensure quality, breadth, and minimized bias, ﬁfteen to twenty academic volumes were selected for each leader. Speciﬁcally, a book was selected if: 1) it was considered to be an academic publication that stressed accurate and detailed reporting of the leader's interactions over the course of his/her career, 2) there was evidence of adequate scholarly work, as indicated by the citations provided and types of sources examined, and 3) the text included multiple incidents of leader–leader interactions with the other leaders of interest. See Appendix A for the complete listing of books used. 2.1.3. Material selection Once the academic texts were selected for each leader, a strategy for identifying and selecting leader–leader interactions was applied. In fact, a strategy similar to one used by Mumford et al. (2006), to investigate the relationships leaders develop with their key lieutenants, was employed. Speciﬁcally, to identify instances of leader–leader interactions, the index of each text was examined. Subsequently, the sections in each chapter that described the leader's interactions with a leader of interest were identiﬁed and selected for further examination. Although some studies of outstanding leadership specify a time of interest in the leader's career (e.g., “rise to power”), no such limitation was placed on this study. Given the characteristics of this sample, in particular the differential overlap in power, it seemed important to capture interactions across the leader's span of inﬂuence. Thus, leader–leader interactions were selected from the “rise to power”, “in power”, and “decline from power” chapters. Of course, only meaningful interactions were selected for content coding. An interaction was deﬁned as meaningful if there was an exchange between two leaders of interest, the context of the interaction was described in some detail and included leader responses to the interaction. To ensure reliable identiﬁcation of meaningful interactions, three judges were asked to identify and select meaningful interactions in 6 academic volumes. A comparison of the judges' selections resulted in 94% agreement in their assessment of meaningful leader–leader interactions. Using this strategy, 672 leader–leader exchanges were identiﬁed (charismatic– ideological = 57, charismatic–pragmatic = 127, ideological–pragmatic = 488). Interactions were generally half a page to a page in length. Typically, 10 to 15 interactions were abstracted per text with no text having fewer than 5 or more than 73 exchanges. 2.2. Measures and procedures 2.2.1. Rating procedures Once the leader–leader exchanges were selected, four judges, all doctoral students in industrial/organizational psychology, were presented with the selected material and asked to make a series of present/absent and 5-point Likert ratings intended to assess each interaction in terms of the type of exchange (e.g., speech, letter, face-to-face), the nature of the exchange (e.g., signiﬁcance, public/private) and the characteristics of the exchange relationship (e.g., what the leaders draw from each other). Prior to making the ratings, the four judges were questioned regarding their knowledge of Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, and Booker T. Washington to assess potential biases. Responses to questions indicated, that each judge was sufﬁciently unaware of the activities of each leader, in fact, prior knowledge of each leader indicated existence of name recognition only. Subsequently, each judge was exposed to a 20 h training program. In this training program, the judges were familiarized with the questions used to assess both the type and nature of the exchange, as well as the ratings used to assess speciﬁc exchange characteristics. Subsequently, judges practiced applying the rating scales to a sample of ten interactions drawn from six different academic texts. Once the practice session was completed, judges met to discuss their ratings and clarify any disagreements. Application of these procedures resulted in an adequate interrater agreement coefﬁcient (ICC = .85). 2.2.2. Controls Consistent with previous studies assessing charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders (Mumford, 2006), a number of interactional characteristics were examined. In an effort to account for both the type and nature of interactions the leaders engage in, the four judges made a number of assessments regarding the type and nature of the interaction. Speciﬁcally, judges were asked to assess nine characteristics of the interaction that might inﬂuence the exchange: 1) the type of interaction (e.g., speech, letter), 2) the length of the interaction, 3) the signiﬁcance of the interaction, 4) the interaction issue, 5) the extent to which the interaction was public, 6) the formality of the interaction, 7) the number of people involved in the interaction, 8) the education level of people involved in interaction, and 9) the basis of the interaction (e.g., working together/against). In addition, the judges made assessments regarding characteristics of the academic text: 1) total number of interactions identiﬁed in text, 2) amount of bias in the text, 3) the amount of material quoted in the text, and 4) year text was published. 2.2.3. Exchange characteristics Once judges completed their assessments regarding the type and nature of the interaction, they were asked to analyze the exchange characteristics. Speciﬁcally, the judges were asked to evaluate the interactions in terms of 1) what leaders think of each other (e.g., like/ dislike, hostile/not hostile), 2) what leaders draw from each other (e.g., same key causes, goals), 3) why leaders draw from each other 306 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Fig. 1. Example interactions involving charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. (e.g., rightness/wrongness of other's approach), 4) how leaders react to each other (e.g., positively/negatively), and 5) the reasons for the leader's reaction to others (e.g., principles, agreement, usefulness). To evaluate these ﬁve exchange characteristics, judges were asked to answer a series of 6 to 8 present/absent or 5-point Likert scale ratings. In total, 43 ratings were made to assess the aforementioned exchange characteristics of each interaction. Example interactions may be seen in Fig. 1. 2.3. Analyses To examine the exchange relationships of high-level leaders, speciﬁcally the exchange relationship of Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, and Booker T. Washington, a series of analyses were conducted. First, a series of chi-square frequency analyses were conducted to examine the frequency of leader–leader exchanges, as well as the type and nature of the exchanges that were identiﬁed for each leader interaction. Given the large number of observed interactions between Douglas, Dubois, and Washington it seems that a necessary precursor to examining the more central aspects of the present effort, was met. Stated another way, it is apparent that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do interact to varying degrees. However, to understand how the three leader types interact, a series of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) were conducted. Speciﬁcally, MANCOVAs were run to 1) determine the extent to which leader–leader exchanges vary with regard to liking, hostility, and perceived contribution, 2) assess how leaders differentially support or denigrate the approaches of other leaders, and 3) assess the 307 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Table 4 Frequency of exchange type by leader–leader interaction. Letter Interpersonal communication Biographical observation Washington–Dubois (n = 488) Frequency 53 Percent a 10.8% Speech 91 18.6% 34 7.0% 310 63.5% Washington–Douglas (n = 127) Frequency 8 6.3% Percent a 6 4.7% 10 7.9% 103 81.1% Dubois–Douglas (n = 57) Frequency Percent a 2 3.5% 0 0% 51 89.5% a 4 7.0% Percent within each leader–leader interaction. differential reasoning for leader responses to other leaders. In all analyses, respective covariates were retained if they were signiﬁcant beyond the p b .05 level. 3. Results 3.1. Type and nature of exchanges Table 4 illustrates the frequency with which charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders interacted. An examination of the results indicate that Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois interacted more frequently with each other (n = 488 Washington– Dubois interactions) than with Frederick Douglas (n = 127 Washington–Douglas interactions; n = 57 Dubois–Douglas interactions) – not surprising given the type and nature of exchanges these leaders engage in. In fact, the chi-square analysis revealed signiﬁcant contrasts among leader–leader exchanges with regard to the different types of interactions (χ2(6) = 36.12, p ≤ .001). Speciﬁcally, the interactions of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois are characterized by more direct interpersonal engagements, namely speeches (n = 53), letters (n = 91), and interpersonal communications (n = 33) while the Washington–Douglas and Dubois–Douglas interactions seem to be characterized more by the indirect engagements evidenced in biographical observations (n = 103, n = 51 respectively). To better understand the variation in type of interactions, the nature of interactions was examined. Table 5 demonstrates the nature of the interactions in terms of the frequency of focal issues in each leader–leader exchange. The chi-square analysis revealed signiﬁcant contrasts among leader–leader exchanges with regard to the nature of issues (χ2(12) = 44.17, p ≤ .001). Not surprisingly, the results indicate that civil rights and the treatment of African Americans are among the most common focal points for each leader–leader exchange. That said, the most common issue in the Washington–Dubois exchange was interpersonal issues (30.1%) – a ﬁnding that to some extent accounts for the high number of direct exchanges observed between Washington and Dubois. Although interpersonal issues also account for a substantial percentage of Washington–Douglas (29.1%) and Dubois–Douglas (22.8%) interactions it is apparent that the nature of the interpersonal issues does not require the direct contact necessitated in Washington–Dubois interactions. In fact, a qualitative examination of the interpersonal issues reveals that the Washington–Douglas and Dubois–Douglas interactions most often involved an exchange of respect or deference while the Washington–Dubois interactions were most often characterized by hostility or volatility. In general, the evidence seems to indicate that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do interact. In fact, they appear to have different types of interactions that revolve around a varied group of issues and are dependent on their mental models. Table 5 Frequency of issues by leader–leader interaction. Treatment of blacks NAACP Tuskegee Niagara Movement Interpersonal issues Other Washington–Dubois (n = 488) Frequency 91 18.6% Percent a Civil rights 124 25.4% 11 2.3% 60 12.3% 41 8.4% 147 30.1% 14 2.9% Washington–Douglas (n = 127) Frequency 40 31.5% Percent a 35 27.5% 0 0.0% 4 3.1% 4 3.1% 37 29.1% 7 5.5% Dubois–Douglas (n = 57) Frequency 8 Percent a 14.0% 29 50.8% 1 1.8% 1 1.8% 4 7.0% 13 22.8% 1 1.8% a Percent within each leader–leader interaction. 308 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Table 6 MANCOVA results demonstrating varied levels of liking, hostility, and perceived contribution to the cause by leader interaction type. F Covariates Excerpt length Amount of bias Education level of observers Public interaction Main effect Interaction type charismatic–ideological, ideological–charismatic, charismatic–pragmatic, pragmatic–charismatic, ideological–pragmatic, pragmatic–ideological p η2 652 652 652 652 .001 .001 .001 .010 .024 .036 .037 .017 5, 654 .001 .32 df 5.28 8.05 8.35 3.64 60.24 3, 3, 3, 3, Note. F = F Ratio, df = Degrees of freedom, p = Signiﬁcance level (Determined by using Roy's Largest Root), η 2 = Effect size. 3.2. Hypotheses Hypothesis one predicted that the interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders would be differentially characterized by liking, hostility, and perceived contribution. To assess if differences exist between the different leader–leader exchanges, a MANCOVA was conducted. The results revealed multiple signiﬁcant main effects for leader–leader exchanges (e.g., Washington–Dubois, Dubois–Washington, Douglas–Washington) on scores of liking, hostility, and perceived contribution to the Civil Rights Movement. Table 6 presents the results obtained in the multivariate analysis of covariance for liking, hostility, and perceived contribution while Table 7 presents the estimated marginal means and associated standard errors. As might be expected based on the ﬁndings of Mumford et al. (2006), only four covariates were retained in this analysis – length of excerpt (F(3, 652) = 8.05, ρ ≤ .001), amount of author bias (F(3, 652) = 5.28, ρ ≤ .001), publicity of interaction (F(3, 652) = 3.64, ρ ≤ .01), and education level of followers (F(3, 652) = 8.35, ρ ≤ .001). The between subject effects evidence signiﬁcant leader–leader exchange differences for each of the three dependent variables – liking (F(5,654) = 56.15, ρ ≤ .001), hostility (F(5,654) = 35.66, ρ ≤ .001), and perceived contribution (F(5,654) = 48.64, ρ ≤ .001). A closer examination of the cell means reveals ﬁndings consistent with our expectations. Speciﬁcally, it appears that the ideological characteristics of W.E.B. Dubois, namely his strong group boundaries, oppositional character, and rigid commitment to vision attainment, play a particularly strong role in guiding his interactions with other high-level leaders. With regard to liking, Dubois consistently exhibits a somewhat negative opinion of other civil rights leaders (both charismatic and pragmatic), at least in his exchanges he always held a more negative opinion of the other party. For example, in his interactions with Frederick Douglas, Douglas likes Dubois (M = 4.49, SE = .26) more than Dubois likes Douglas (M = 3.75, SE = .23). Regardless of the differences in liking, it is important to note that both Dubois and Douglas share a positive regard for each other – a regard that is most likely due to the socialized charismatic's willingness to collaborate and “get along” with leaders who share the same vision, in this case, equal rights for African Americans. The interactions of Dubois and Washington illustrate a very different exchange relationship. Despite working towards the same end goal, the exchanges of Dubois and Washington evidence a mutual dislike that is rooted in their opposing strategies for goal achievement (M = 2.20, SE = .07 and M = 2.23, SE = .09). Speciﬁcally, Dubois' rigid commitment to attaining immediate respect Table 7 Estimated marginal means and standard errors for liking, hostility, and perceived contribution to the cause. Dependent variable Interaction type⁎ Mean Std. error To what extent does the leader like the other leader? Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington 4.49 3.75 4.32 4.12 2.23 2.20 1.45 1.30 1.50 1.44 2.92 2.96 4.31 3.67 3.98 3.99 2.32 2.28 .26 .23 .22 .14 .09 .08 .26 .23 .21 .13 .09 .07 .24 .22 .20 .13 .08 .07 To what extent is the leader hostile to the other leader? To what extent is the other leader considered to be contributing to the cause? Note:⁎the ﬁrst leader listed is the actor, the second leader is the actant. 309 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Table 8 MANCOVA results demonstrating varied responses to other leader's approach. F Covariates Excerpt length Amount of bias Education level of observers Public interaction Main effect Interaction type charismatic–ideological, ideological–charismatic, charismatic–pragmatic, pragmatic–charismatic, ideological–pragmatic, pragmatic–ideological p η2 653 653 653 653 .008 .020 .060 .003 .015 .012 .009 .018 5, 654 .001 .26 df 4.83 3.95 2.82 5.92 45.81 2, 2, 2, 2, Note. F = F Ratio, df = Degrees of freedom, p = Signiﬁcance level (Determined by using Roy's Largest Root), η2 = Effect size. and restoration for African Americans is at odds with Washington's willingness to compromise his beliefs for the short-term (i.e., industrial education) to achieve the long-term objective of equal rights. Given the inherent oppositional nature of these two strategies, Dubois being rigidly committed to the end goal and Washington being rigidly committed to compromise and adaptation, it was not surprising to ﬁnd that the exchanges between Dubois and Washington were relatively more negative and hostile (M = 2.96, SE = .07 and M = 2.92, SE = .09) than those of others (e.g., Dubois–Douglas M = 1.30, SE = .23). In fact, Dubois and Washington's strategies for goal achievement were so divergent they considered each other to be detracting from the cause (M = 2.28, SE = .07 and M = 2.32, SE = .08). In contrast, both Dubois and Washington perceived Douglas to be contributing to the cause (M = 3.67, SE = .22 and M = 3.99, SE = .13) – a perception that was apparently reciprocated by Douglas (M = 4.31, SE = .24 and M = 3.98, SE = .20). Thus, the results seem to indicate that charismatic leaders are more willing to accept and support leaders using very different strategies when working toward the same end goal than either ideologues or pragmatics. Hypothesis two predicted that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders would differentially respond to the approaches of other leaders. To determine whether differences exist in how leaders respond to each other, a MANCOVA was conducted. The results revealed two signiﬁcant main effects for how leaders support the approaches of other leaders (F(5,654) = 43.99, p ≤ .001) and the type of changes they would like to see regarding the other leader's approach (F(5,654) = 16.74, p ≤ .001). Table 8 presents the results obtained in the MANCOVA while Table 9 presents the estimated marginal means and associated standard errors. An examination of the cell means reveals ﬁndings consistent with study expectations. Speciﬁcally, the results indicate that charismatic leaders are supportive of both ideological (M = 4.53, SE = .27) and pragmatic approaches (M = 4.09, SE = .22) while ideologues and pragmatics differentially support or denigrate other leaders’ approaches. In particular, W.E.B. Dubois somewhat supports Frederick Douglas’ approach (M = 3.66, SE = .24) and denigrates Booker T. Washington (M = 2.24, SE = .08). Similarly, Booker T. Washington is supportive of Frederick Douglas's approach (M = 4.01, SE = .14) and denigrates W.E.B. Dubois's approach (M = 2.37, SE = .09). Thus, it is apparent that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do differentially support or denigrate other leaders' approaches. A closer examination of the cell means reveals additional information regarding each leader's support. For example, an examination of the Douglas–Dubois exchange indicates that Douglas is satisﬁed with Dubois's strategy for pursuing equal rights (M = 1.74, SE = .29) and somewhat dissatisﬁed with the approach employed by Washington (M = 2.45, SE = .24). In fact, Douglas makes it evident in his exchanges that he would like Washington to make changes to his current approach. Thus, it is interesting to note that the charismatic leader was capable of being both supportive and dissatisﬁed with the pragmatic's approach. Moreover, it is even more interesting to observe the ideological and pragmatic leaders' inability to be even moderately supportive of an approach with which they disagree – despite their shared overarching objective. To truly understand the differential support leaders show for other leaders, the reasons underlying their support or denigration of other approaches must be examined. Accordingly, a MANCOVA was conducted to examine how leaders differentially analyze Table 9 Estimated marginal means and standard errors for leader response to other leader's approach. Dependent variable Interaction type⁎ Mean Std. error To what extent does the leader support/denigrate the other leader's approach? Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington 4.53 3.66 4.09 4.01 2.37 2.24 1.74 1.97 2.45 1.74 2.87 3.12 .27 .24 .22 .14 .09 .08 .29 .25 .24 .15 .10 .08 To what extent does the leader request radical change to the leader's approach? Note:⁎the ﬁrst leader listed is the actor, the second leader is the actant. 310 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Table 10 MANCOVA results demonstrating varied rational for leader's support of other approaches. F Covariates Excerpt length Amount of bias Education level of observers Public interaction Main effect Interaction type charismatic–ideological, ideological–charismatic, charismatic–pragmatic, pragmatic–charismatic, ideological–pragmatic, pragmatic–ideological df p η2 3.91 0.64 15.33 3.63 6, 6, 6, 6, 648 648 648 648 .001 .697 .001 .001 .035 .006 .124 .033 48.53 5, 652 .001 .31 Note. F = F Ratio, df = Degrees of freedom, p = Signiﬁcance level (Determined by using Roy's Largest Root), η 2 = Effect size. other leaders' approaches. The results reveal a signiﬁcant multivariate effect indicating that leaders do support or denigrate other leader approaches using different rationales (F(6,652) = 48.53, p ≤ .001). Table 10 presents the results obtained in the MANCOVA while Table 11 presents the estimated marginal means and associated standard errors. The between subject effects evidence signiﬁcant leader–leader exchange differences for each of the dependent variables – (a) agree about cause of problem (F(5,653) = 42.27, p ≤ .001), (b) agree about solution to problem (F(5,653) = 33.82, p ≤ .001), (c) identiﬁes strengths in other's approach (F(5,653) = 47.92, p ≤ .001), (d) identiﬁes weaknesses in other's approach (F(5,653) = 23.32, p ≤ .001), (e) states other's approach is based on right principles (F(5,653) = 3.69, p ≤ .005), and (f) states other's approach is based on wrong principles (F(5,654)= 25.76, p ≤ .001). In fact, a closer examination of the cell means reveals that leaders provide support and analyze other's approaches in a manner that is consistent with their mental models. Frederick Douglas, the charismatic leader, is clearly supportive of both the ideological and pragmatic leaders working to achieve equal rights for African Americans – not surprising given the charismatic leader's focus on the future and willingness to “get along” Table 11 Estimated marginal means and standard errors for leader rationale. Dependent variable Interaction type⁎ Mean Std. error To what extent do the leaders agree about the cause of the problem? Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington Douglas–Dubois Dubois–Douglas Douglas–Washington Washington–Douglas Washington–Dubois Dubois–Washington 4.21 3.56 4.04 3.92 2.37 2.29 4.04 3.58 3.35 3.44 2.08 2.12 3.91 2.97 3.84 3.40 1.84 1.94 1.56 1.62 1.79 1.61 2.89 2.97 1.56 1.63 1.64 1.49 2.80 2.97 1.86 1.92 2.82 2.13 1.91 1.92 .25 .22 .21 .13 .08 .07 .25 .22 .21 .13 .08 .07 .24 .21 .20 .12 .08 .07 .27 .24 .22 .14 .09 .08 .27 .24 .22 .14 .09 .08 .25 .22 .21 .13 .08 .07 To what extent do the leaders agree about the solution to the problem? To what extent does the leader identify strengths in the other leader's approach? To what extent does the leader identify weaknesses in the other leader's approach? To what extent does the leader believe that the approach is based on wrong principles? To what extent does the leader believe that the approach is based on right principles? K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 311 with other leaders if they are working toward the same goal (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman 1975; Mumford, 2006). That said, the charismatic leader differentially provided support to ideological and pragmatic leaders in a manner that is both consistent with his mental model and intuitively perceptive of the other leader's mental model. In his exchanges with W.E.B. Dubois, Douglas makes every effort to develop a trust relationship with the somewhat cynical ideologue – a ﬁnding that is evidenced by his agreement on key causes (M = 4.21, SE = .25), agreement on solution to problem (M = 4.04, SE = .25), emphasis on strengths of approach (M = 3.91, SE = .24), avoidance of weaknesses in approach (M = 1.56, SE = .27), and emphasis on rightness of approach (M = 1.86, SE = .25) over wrongness of approach (M = 1.56, SE = .27). In other words, when interacting with the ideological leader, Frederick Douglas focuses on the positive aspects of Dubois' approach, emphasizes the strengths of his vision, and identiﬁes points of agreement (e.g., same key causes). In his exchanges with Booker T. Washington, however, a very different pattern of support can be observed. In fact, Douglas appears to recognize the pragmatic's receptiveness to feedback and willingness to exchange ideas to solve the problem when he initiates interactions with Washington. Accordingly, Douglas identiﬁes points of disagreement and provides feedback to Washington in a manner that is both diplomatic and issue focused – an ode to his charismatic strengths as he focuses on change issues. This pattern of support is most notably demonstrated by his agreement on key causes (M = 4.04, SE = .21), identiﬁcation of strengths in approach (M = 3.84, SE = .20), and emphasis on the rightness of principles (M = 2.82, SE = .21) while voicing moderate disagreement about the solution to the problem (M = 3.35, SE = .21) and recommending somewhat radical changes to Washington's strategy (M = 2.45, SE = .24). W.E.B. Dubois, the ideological leader, evidences a more consistent and straightforward set of interactions that seem to be grounded in his commitment to achieving immediate restitution for African Americans. In fact, he clearly outlines points of disagreement and either minimally accepts or openly denigrates alternative approaches. Despite Douglas's best efforts to establish rapport, Dubois's acceptance appears to be somewhat reserved. This pattern of reserved acceptance and support of Douglas can best be understood in terms of his moderate agreement on key causes (M = 3.56, SE = .22), moderate agreement about solution to problem (M = 3.58, SE = .22), identiﬁcation of some strengths (M = 2.97, SE = .21) and weaknesses (M = 1.62, SE = .24) in Douglas' approach, and recognition that Douglas is somewhat focused on the right principles (M = 1.92, SE = .22). In other words, Dubois acknowledges that Douglas is generally working toward the same objective but is unwilling to ﬁrmly commit support – an expected ﬁnding given the ideologue's mistrust of others and the different visions they hold for the future. In Dubois's exchanges with Booker T. Washington, however, a much more volatile pattern of denigration can be observed. Speciﬁcally, Dubois demonstrates his unwillingness to consider a strategy that involves the temporary sacriﬁce of his beliefs – even if it will result in the faster attainment of end goals. To the ideologue, the end does not justify the means (Bedell et al., 2006). This ﬁnding is clearly evidenced by Dubois' disagreement over the cause of the problem (M = 2.29, SE = .07) and the solution to the problem (M = 2.12, SE = .07), as well as his emphasis on weaknesses in Washington's approach (M = 2.97, SE = .08) and focus on the wrongness of his approach (M = 2.97, SE = .08). It is apparent that despite Washington's good intentions for African Americans, Dubois considers his compromising strategy to be the “wrong” approach. Booker T. Washington, the pragmatic leader, differentially supports and denigrates other leaders' approaches in a manner that is consistent with his functional, problem-solving approach. In other words, he emphasizes the strengths in approaches that he supports and emphasizes the weaknesses in approaches that he does not support. Moreover, it appears as if he responds to other approaches in a way that most appeals to public opinion. This pattern of selective support or denigration of other's approaches is most evident in his differential interactions with Frederick Douglas and W.E.B. Dubois. In his exchanges with Frederick Douglas, considered by some to be the founder of the civil rights movement, Washington maintains a high level of respect and to some degree deference. For example, Washington emphasizes his agreement regarding key causes of the problem (M = 3.92, SE = .13) and demonstrates moderate support regarding the solution to the problem (M = 3.44, SE = .13). Moreover, Washington minimally focuses on the rightness (M = 2.13, SE = .13) or wrongness of principles (M = 1.49, SE = .14) and emphasizes the strengths of Douglas's approach (M = 3.40, SE = .12) more than the weaknesses (M = 1.61, SE = .14). Thus, despite their differences in strategies, Washington recognizes the power Douglas wields and demonstrates a remarkably perceptive understanding of follower support with his deference. However, Washington does not exhibit the same degree of respect or deference when interacting with W.E.B. Dubois. In fact, in his exchanges with Dubois, Washington seems to emphasize the differences between their approaches – perhaps to appeal to followers with the immediate utility of his approach (i.e., the immediate need for jobs and education to provide for family). Regardless of the intent, Washington makes it apparent that he does not support Dubois' approach. Speciﬁcally, he disagrees with Dubois over the cause of civil inequality (M = 2.37, SE = .08) and the solution to the problem (M = 2.08, SE = .08). Moreover, he identiﬁes the weaknesses in Dubois' approach (M = 2.89, SE = .09) and focuses on the wrongness of his principles (M = 2.80, SE = .09). Thus it seems as if Washington selectively supports or denigrates the approaches of charismatic and ideological leaders in a manner that will both enhance his functional appeal and improve follower support – a strategy that seems to capitalize on the strengths and weaknesses of Frederick Douglas and W.E.B. Dubois in this case. 4. Discussion 4.1. Limitations Before turning to the broader implications of the present effort, certain methodological and conceptual limitations should be noted. First and foremost, it should be noted that the present study was not based on the direct observation of leaders as they interacted with followers. Instead, self-reports or academic accounts of the exchange occurrence were used to make assessments regarding leader–leader interactions. Although this historiometric approach is commonly applied in studies of high-level leaders, 312 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 (e.g., Deluga, 2001; Fiol et al., 1999; Mumford, 2006) two notable potential biases when examining leader–leader interactions must be noted: 1) the use of self-report and academic texts may result in a bias towards the inclusion of more observable, public exchanges, and 2) the use of biographical material introduces the possibility of author bias. In an effort to control for these transactional biases, publicity and author bias were used as controls in the present study. Second, the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders used in this study were systematically selected according to leader type, orientation, issue, location, and time in history. Speciﬁcally, Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, and Booker T. Washington were selected because they represented a rare occurrence in history in which socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders responded to the same crisis situation (i.e., civil inequality for African Americans), were co-located in the same region of the world, and were “in power” at the same time. Although strategically sampling in this manner enables researcher control of leader orientation, the crisis issue, environmental conditions, and timing; the fact remains that it also reduces the generalizability of ﬁndings to other conditions. Third, the present study's emphasis on the exchanges of socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders results in ﬁndings that do not speak to the exchanges that occur between leaders with 1) differing orientations and types (e.g., personalized-charismatic and socialized-ideologue) (House & Howell, 1992; Mumford, 2006; O'Connor et al., 1995), 2) alternative forms of leadership (e.g., charismatic–ideologue, charismatic–pragmatic) (Strange & Mumford, 2002), or 3) same type leaders (e.g., pragmatic–pragmatic). Fourth, despite the large sample of leader–leader interactions, the present study should primarily be used as an exploratory and qualitative examination of high-level exchanges between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders – a notably rare event. In other words, the limited sampling strategy utilized in the current study, although necessary, should be noted and generalizations made cautiously (e.g., Bryman, Stephens, & Campo, 1996; Deluga, 2001; Simonton, 1984; 1986; 1999; Mumford, 2006; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001;). Fifth, and ﬁnally, the statistical approaches applied (i.e., MANCOVAs) should be interpreted with care due to certain violations of assumptions, namely independence. Of course, the results are particularly useful for interpreting basic cellmean trends and accounting for the relevant covariates. 4.2. General ﬁndings Even bearing these limitations in mind, however, we believe that the results obtained in the present study have some noteworthy implications for understanding the leader–leader exchanges of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Most generally, the results indicate that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can and do work together, albeit, in notably different ways. In particular, results reveal that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders interact with varying frequency and intensity. Pragmatic and ideological leaders, for example, have more frequent and volatile interactions with each other than with charismatic leaders. In fact, a closer examination of the interactions reveals that the Dubois–Douglas and Washington–Douglas interactions most often involve an exchange of respect or deference while the Washington–Dubois interactions are most often characterized by hostility or volatility. Thus, at the most general level, the results seem to support the expectation that pragmatic and ideological leaders will not only espouse the most divergent approaches, they will experience greater conﬂict because of the fundamental differences in their approach. In addition, the strategic ﬂexibility of charismatic leaders appears to be quite useful in both their interactions with pragmatic and ideological leaders (Harvey, 2001). The MANCOVA results provide additional support for the aforementioned ﬁndings. Speciﬁcally, the results indicate that the exchanges of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders have differential characteristics – characteristics largely guided by the leader's mental model and method of inﬂuence. In general, charismatic leaders are considered to facilitate collaboration and “get along” with others as they work toward their future oriented vision (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). In the present study, the charismatic leader demonstrates an unusual ability for identifying the needs of others (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Fiol et al., 1999) and effectively using coalition tactics to develop alliances with leaders working toward the same end objective (Mumford, 2006). In fact, the charismatic leader appears to provide support to ideological and pragmatic leaders in a manner that is both consistent with his mental model and sensitive to the other leader's mental model. The results reveal that Frederick Douglas, a charismatic leader, is differentially supportive of both ideological and pragmatic leaders if they are working towards the same goal. For example, in his exchanges with W.E.B. Dubois, Douglas makes every effort to develop a collaborative trust relationship by focusing on the strengths of Dubois' vision and emphasizing the positive aspects of his approach – an intuitive strategy given the ideologue's oppositional character and tight group boundaries. In Douglas' exchanges with Booker T. Washington, however, a very different pattern of support can be observed. In fact, Douglas appears to recognize the pragmatic's receptiveness to feedback and willingness to exchange ideas to solve the problem when he initiates interactions with Washington. In particular, Douglas demonstrates his support for Washington while identifying points of disagreement and providing feedback – an intuitive strategy for dealing with pragmatic leaders that are interested in resolving issuerelated problems. In interactions with both leaders, however, it should be noted that Douglas does not use emotionally evocative appeals – a ﬁnding that suggests it is an ineffective strategy for developing alliances with ideological and pragmatic leaders. Rather, an emphasis on collaboration and working towards the same goal seems to be most useful for the charismatic. Ideological leaders most often maintain strong group boundaries, demonstrate an oppositional character, and maintain a rigid commitment to their beliefs and values in a manner that precludes their acceptance of alternative leadership strategies (Mumford, 2006; Mumford et al., 2007; Bedell et al., 2006). Accordingly, W.E.B. Dubois, the ideological leader, evidences a more consistent and straightforward set of interactions with high-level leaders that seem to be grounded in his extant beliefs and values. In fact, he clearly outlines points of disagreement and either minimally accepts or openly denigrates alternative approaches. In particular, the results reveal a degree of general support for Douglas and his efforts to achieve equal rights for African Americans. However, Dubois remains unwilling to ﬁrmly commit support to Douglas – a reserve that evidences the difﬁculty other leaders face in K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 313 overcoming the mistrust an ideological leader has for leaders who do not explicitly share his values and the vision he articulates. In Dubois' exchanges with Booker T. Washington, a much more volatile pattern of denigration can be observed. Speciﬁcally, Dubois demonstrates his unwillingness to consider a strategy that involves the temporary sacriﬁce of his beliefs – even if it will result in the faster attainment of end goals. To the ideologue, the end does not justify the means (Bedell et al., 2006) and in his interactions with Washington, Dubois makes it clear that the pragmatic's compromising strategy is the “wrong” approach. That said, the results seem to indicate that Dubois' uses an inﬂuence strategy with charismatic and ideological leaders that is very similar to his method of inﬂuencing followers. Speciﬁcally, Dubois appeals to charismatic and pragmatic leaders using his beliefs and values – an approach that is not conducive to developing alliances or improving collaboration with leaders who fail to share his beliefs. Although this strategy is evidence of the ideologue's strong commitment, it seems to indicate that the development of alliances with other leaders will be much more dependent on the efforts of either charismatic or pragmatic leaders. Pragmatic leaders tend to be functional problem-solvers with a present oriented focus. In addition, pragmatic leaders place an emphasis on performance and appeal to followers' functional needs (Mumford, 2006; Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). In the present study, Booker T. Washington, the pragmatic leader, differentially supports and denigrates other leaders' approaches in a manner that is consistent with his functional, problem-solving approach. In other words, he emphasizes the strengths in approaches that he supports and emphasizes the weaknesses in approaches that he does not support. Moreover, it appears as if he responds to other approaches in a way that most appeals to public opinion and shows respect for follower concerns (Mumford, 2006). This pattern of selective support or denigration of other's approaches is most evident in his differential interactions with Frederick Douglas and W.E.B. Dubois. In his exchanges with Frederick Douglas, considered by some to be the founder of the civil rights movement, Washington maintains a high level of respect and to some degree deference. For example, Washington minimally focuses on the rightness or wrongness of principles and emphasizes the strengths of Douglas' approach. Thus, despite their differences in strategies, Washington recognizes the power Douglas wields and demonstrates a remarkably perceptive understanding of follower support with his deference. However, Washington does not exhibit the same degree of respect or deference when interacting with W.E.B. Dubois. In fact, in his exchanges with Dubois, Washington seems to emphasize the differences between their approaches – perhaps to appeal to followers with the immediate functionality of his approach (i.e., jobs and education right now). Regardless of the intent, Washington makes it apparent that he does not support Dubois' approach. Speciﬁcally, he disagrees with Dubois over the cause of civil inequality and the solution to the problem. Moreover, he identiﬁes the weaknesses in Dubois' approach and focuses on the wrongness of his principles. Thus it seems as if Washington selectively supports or denigrates the approaches of charismatic and ideological leaders in a manner that will both enhance his functional appeal and improve follower support – a strategy that seems to capitalize on the strengths of Frederick Douglas and the weaknesses of W.E.B. Dubois in the present case. 4.3. Implications In summary, this study targeted an unexplored and important domain of research, namely the interactions and exchanges that occur between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders responding to the same crisis. As such, the investigation provides a preliminary understanding of how high-level leaders with different mental models interact and provides a foundation on which to develop future research. First, the data demonstrates that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can and do work together when responding to the same crisis. That said, it is equally apparent that leaders can work against each other when responding to the same crisis. Second, the pattern of results clariﬁes the interactional strategies employed by charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. In fact, the ﬁndings indicate that each leader type employs an interactional strategy that is consistent with his/ her mental model. Moreover, the results appear to indicate that interactions with other high-level leaders involve a hybrid application of Leader–Member Exchange tactics (i.e., methods leaders use to develop relationships with followers) and political tactics (Basu, & Green, 1997; Deluga, 2001). In other words, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do not interact with leaders in exactly the same way they interact with followers. Rather, they appear to utilize their Leader–Member Exchange strengths (e.g., awareness of follower's personal needs) and pair them with their political tactics (e.g., coalition building). Although these ﬁndings evidence progress, more work needs to be done. Future research should capitalize on the current ﬁndings and further examine the inﬂuence tactics high-level leaders use when interacting with each other. For example, despite the large number of interactions used in the present study, there were an insufﬁcient number of direct and indirect interactions to analyze them separately. Thus future examinations of direct and indirect leader–leader interactions would be of interest. In addition, given the present focus on socialized leaders, future research investigating the inﬂuence of a personalized leader on leader–leader exchanges (e.g., Marcus Garvey) may provide additional information regarding high-level leader–leader interactions. Although follow-up studies to the present effort appear to be somewhat difﬁcult given the rarity of occurrence issue, another avenue of research could be to examine the high-level exchanges that occur between leaders using the same mental model (i.e., ideological–ideological) and responding to the same crisis. In sum, the results of the present effort have demonstrated unique differences among the three leader types. Although these leaders all responded to the same crisis, during the same time period, and in the same environmental region, it is evident by their exchange relationships that they utilize very different mental models. In fact, how they interact with other high-level leaders seems to be highly dependent on their interpretive mental model. Charismatic and pragmatic leaders, for example, appear to capitalize on the strengths and weaknesses of other leaders in a manner that better serves their goals. Ideological leaders, in contrast, remain loyal to their beliefs and values and appear to be unfaltering in their vision commitment – despite the best efforts of both charismatic and pragmatic leaders. 314 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 Appendix A. Bibliography for academic texts used to examine leader–leader interactions Adeleke, T. (Ed.) (1998). Booker T. Washington – Interpretative Essays. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press. Andrews, W.L. (1985). Critical Essays on W.E.B. DuBois. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co. Andrews, W.L. (Ed.) (1991). Critical Essays on Frederick Douglass. Boston: G.K.Hall & Co. Ansbro, J.J. (2004). The Credos of Eight Black Leaders: Converting Obstacles into Opportunities. Lanham: America UP. Aptheker, H. (1989). The Literary Legacy of W.E.B. DuBois. White Plains: Kraus International Publications. Aptheker, H. (Ed.). (1973). The Correspondence of W.E.B. DuBois 1877–1934. Vol. 1. Boston: Massachusetts UP. Aptheker, H. (Ed.). (1976). The Correspondence of W.E.B. DuBois 1934–1944. Vol. 2. Boston: Massachusetts UP. Aptheker, H. (Ed.). (1978). The Correspondence of W.E.B. DuBois 1944–1963. Vol. 3. Boston: Massachusetts UP. Blight, D.W. (1989). Frederick Douglass' Civil War: Keeping Faith in Jubilee. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP. Bloom, H. (Ed.). (2001). Modern Critical Views: W.E.B. DuBois. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. Broderick, F.L. (1959). W.E.B. DuBois: Negro Leader in a Time of Crisis. Stanford: Stanford UP. Brundage, W.F. (Ed.) (2003). Booker T. Washington and Black Progress: Up From Slavery 100 Years Later. Gainesville: Florida UP. Byerman, K.E. (1994). Seizing the Word: History, Art, and Self in the Work of W.E.B. DuBois. Athens: Georgia UP. Colaiaco, J.A. (2006). Frederick Douglass and the Fourth of July. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Davis, R.F. (2005). Frederick Douglass: A Precursor of Liberation Theology. Macon: Mercer UP. Foner, P.S. (1955). The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass: Reconstruction and After. Vol. 4. New York: International Publishers. Foner, P.S. (1975). The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass: 1844–1860. Vol. 5. New York: International Publishers. Fontenot, C. J., Morgan, M.A., & Gardner, S. (Eds.). (2001). W.E.B. DuBois and Race. Macon: Mercer UP. Harlan, L.R. (1972). Booker T. Washington: The Making of a Black Leader 1856–1901. Oxford: Oxford UP. Harlan, L.R. (1983). Booker T. Washington: The Wizard of Tuskegee 1901–1915. Oxford: Oxford UP. Harlan, L.R. (1988). Booker T. Washington in Perspective. Ed. Raymond W. Smock. Jackson: Mississippi UP. Harlan, L.R., & Smock, R.W. (Eds.). (1981). The Washington Papers: 1909–1911. Vol. 10. Urbana: Illinois UP. Harlan, L.R., & Smock, R.W. (Eds.). (1981). The Washington Papers: 1911–1912. Vol. 11. Urbana: Illinois UP. Harlan, L.R., & Smock, R.W. (Eds.). (1984). The Washington Papers: 1914–1915. Vol. 13. Urbana: Illinois UP. Horne, G. (1986). Black and Red: W.E.B. DuBois and the Afro-American Response to the Cold War, 1944–1963. New York: New York State UP. Horner, G. & Young, M. (Eds.). (2001). W.E.B. DuBois: An Encyclopedia. Westport: Greenwood Press. Jin-Ping, W. (2000). Frederick Douglass and the Black Liberation Movement: The North Star of American Blacks. New York: Garland Publishing. Juguo, Z. (2001). W.E.B. DuBois: The Quest for the Abolition of the Color Line. New York: Routledge. Lacy, L.A. (1963). The Life of W.E.B. DuBois: Cheer the Lonesome Traveler. New York: The Dial Press. Lawson, B.E., & Kirkland, F.M. (Eds.) (1999). Frederick Douglass: A Critical Reader. Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Lewis, D.L. (1993). W.E.B. DuBois: Biography of a Race 1868–1919. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Lewis, D.L. (2002). W.E.B. DuBois: The Fight for Equality and the American Century 1919–1963. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Marable, M. (1986). W.E.B. DuBois: Black Radical Democrat. Boston: Twayne Publishers. Martin, W.E., Jr. (1984). The Mind of Frederick Douglass. Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP. Mathews, B. (1948). Booker T. Washington: Educator and Interracial Interpreter. Cambridge: Harvard UP. McFeely, W.S. (1991). Frederick Douglass. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Reed, A.L., Jr. (1997). W.E.B. DuBois and American Political Thought: Fabianism and the Color Line. Oxford: Oxford UP. Rice, A.J., & Crawford, M. (Eds.) (1999). Liberating Sojourn: Frederick Douglass and Transatlantic Reform. Athens: Georgia UP. Spencer, S.R., Jr. (1955). Booker T. Washington and the Negro's Place in American Life. Ed. Oscar Handlin. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Sundquist, E.J. (Ed.) (1990). Frederick Douglass: New Literary and Historical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Thornbrough, E.L. (1969). Great Lives Observed: Booker T. Washington. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc. Trotman, C.J. (Ed.) (2002). Multiculturalism: Roots and Realities. Bloomington: Indiana UP. Verney, K. (2001). The Art of the Possible: Booker T. Washington and Black Leadership in the United States, 1881–1925. New York: Routledge. Wallace, M.O. (2002). Constructing the Black Maculine: Identity and Ideality in African American Men's Literature and Culture, 1775–1995. Durham: Duke UP. Wolters, R. (2002). DuBois and His Rivals. Columbia: Missouri UP, 2002. Zamir, S. (1995). Dark Voices: W.E.B. DuBois and American Thought, 1888–1903. Chicago: Chicago UP. Zuckerman, P. (Ed.) (2004). The Social Theory of W.E.B. DuBois. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. References Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications, (3rd ed.) New York: Free Press. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader–member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477−499. K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315 315 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. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 89–106. Bligh, M. C., & Hess, G. D. (2007). Leading cautiously: Alan Greenspan, rhetorical leadership, and monetary policy. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 87–104. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211−239. Bryman, A., Stephens, M., & Campo, C. A. (1996). The importance of context: Qualitative research and the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 353−370. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider's perspective on developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145−180. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46−78. Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 334−363. Douglas, F. (1894). Sermon presented at Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjain, R. K. (1999). Multi-level theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286−329. Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. J. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 449−482. Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers (pp. 143−165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Halverson, S. E., Holladay, C. C., Kazra, S. M., & Quinones, M. A. (2004). Self-sacriﬁcial behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of behavioral and situational factors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211−240. Harvey, A. (2001). A dramaturgical analysis of charismatic leader discourse. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14, 253−265. House, R., & Howell, J. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81−102. 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. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423−448. Hunter, S.T., Bedell-Avers, K.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2009-this issue). Examination of charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders in complex environments: A computerized simulation. The Leadership Quarterly. Kennedy, J. F. (1961, January). Inaugural Address of the President of the United States. Presented at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Ligon, G.M., Hunter, S.T., & Mumford, M.D. (2008). Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 312–334. Martin, W. E., Jr (1984). The mind of Frederick Douglass. Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP. Mumford, M. D. (Ed.). (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press. Mumford, Bedell-Avers, Hunter, Espejo, & Boatman (2006). Problem-solving. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press. Mumford, M. D., Espejo, J. E., Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., Eubanks, D. L., & Connelly, M. S. (2007). The sources of leader violence: A comparison of ideological and non-ideological leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3). Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., & Hunter (2006). Theory. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership 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. O'Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T., & Connelly, M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: A historiometric study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529−555. Rowe, W. G., Cannella, A. A., Rankin, D., & Gorman, D. (2005). Leader succession and organizational performance: Integrating the common-sense, ritual scapegoating, and vicious-circle succession theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 197−219. 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. Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1986). Presidential personality: Biographical use of the Gough Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 149−160. Simonton, D. K. (1991). Psychology, science, and history: An introduction to historiometry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Signiﬁcant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4, 425−451. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Qualitative and quantitative analyses of historical data. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 617−640. Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343−377. Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). The origins of vision: Effects of reﬂection, models, and analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 121−148. Tsui, A. S., Wang, H., Xin, K. R., Zhang, L. H., & Fu, P. (2004). Let a thousand ﬂowers bloom: Variation of leadership styles in Chinese ﬁrms. Organization Dynamics, 33, 5−20. Warner, N. (2007). Screening leadership through Shakespeare: Leader–follower relations in Henry V on ﬁlm. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 1–15. Welch-Ross, M. (2001). Personalizing the temporally extended self: Evaluative self-awareness and the development of autobiographical memory. In C. Moore & K. Lemmon (Eds.), The Self in Time: Developmental Perspectives (pp. 97−120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. View publication stats

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS