Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: An examination of leader–leader interactions

The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate / l eaqua

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: An examination ofleader–leader interactions

Katrina Bedell-Avers a,⁎, Samuel T. Hunter b, Amanda D. Angie c,Dawn L. Eubanks d, Michael D. Mumford e

a University of Oklahoma, 13575 SW 29th St., Yukon, OK 73099, United Statesb Penn State University, 112 Moore Building, State College, PA 16802, United Statesc Department of Health and Human Services, 5113 Mary Switzer Bldg., 330 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20201, United Statesd University of Bath, School of Management, Bath, England BA2 7AY, UKe University of Oklahoma, 705 Dale Hall Tower, Norman, OK 73019, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 405 954 1199.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Bedell-

(D.L. Eubanks), [email protected] (M.D. Mumford).

1048-9843/$ – see front matter. Published by Elseviedoi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.014

a b s t r a c t

Keywords:
Although a number of researchers have examined and demonstrated the unique relationshipsdifferent 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: Alongitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 13, 46–78.; Dienesh & Liden, 1986; Mumford, 2006), relatively little is knownregarding how outstanding leaders interact or work together (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, Mumford,2009-this issue). Given the particular importance of such questions, especially whenconsidering leaders who have the potential to influence national and worldwidedevelopments, the intent of the present study was to examine the leader–leader exchangerelationships of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Due to the difficulty associatedwith examining high-level leader–leader exchanges, a hybrid qualitative–quantitativeapproach was taken to assess the interactions of Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, andBooker T. Washington – three high-level leaders who responded to the same crisis, in the sametime period, in the same region of the world. The results provide preliminary evidenceregarding the interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders; in fact, theyindicate that leaders interact in a manner consistent with their mental model.
Published by Elsevier Inc.

LeadershipOutstanding leadershipHistoriometricInteractionsLeader–leader exchange

1. Introduction

Outstanding leaders, the masters of influence who play a pivotal role in the success or failure of large organizations, also have asubstantial impact on the broader social system and world inwhich we live (Bass, 1990). Given their impact on our lives, the studyof outstanding leaders seems to be of considerable importance. In fact, an examination of the literature indicates that leadershipresearchers are devoting increased attention to the study of outstanding leaders and, more specifically, the alternative forms ofoutstanding leadership (Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999; Mumford, 2006). Although traditional theories of outstanding leadership havefocused on charismatic or transformational leaders (e.g., Conger & Kanungo,1998; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), the more recentliterature 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) andpragmatics (e.g., Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001; Tsui, Wang, Xin, Zhang, & Fu, 2004). In fact, substantial effort has been committedto theory development and validation of these alternative pathways to leadership (i.e., establishing the cognitive and behavioraldifferences of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders) (Mumford, 2006).

Avers), [email protected] (S.T. Hunter), [email protected] (A.D. Angie), [email protected]

r Inc.

mailto:[email protected]





http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.014

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10489843

Table 1Summary of differences among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders.

Crisis conditions Sense-making Type of experience Targets of influence Locus of causation

Charismatic Ordered Future vision Positive Masses People's actionsIdeological Chaotic Past vision Negative Base Cadre Situational influencesPragmatic Localized Problem-solving Both Elites Both people and situation

300 K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315

Integral to the distinctions drawn between these alternative forms of outstanding leaders is the notion that underlying thesethree forms – charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic – are differences in how leaders construe, or make sense of, crises that giverise 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 ofinfluence (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 typeleadership do occur (e.g., leaders evidencing both charismatic and ideological behavior) (Strange & Mumford, 2002). That said, toobtain a clear understanding of these three pathways, most studies have only considered leaders that could unambiguously beclassified 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 thecharismatic, 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 thecognitive framework that appears to shape each leader's method of influence. Charismatic leaders, for example, are defined bytheir focus on a future-oriented timeframe – a focus that is most often evidenced by their use of an emotionally evocative, futureoriented vision. In fact, charismatics appear to use their vision to provide a sense of shared experience and shared future as theyappeal to the masses (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Fiol, Harris, & House, 1999). President John F. Kennedy provides an excellentcommunication sample that reveals his cognitive orientation in his unforgettable challenge to every citizen to “ask not what yourcountry 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 changeagents. In fact, an examination of the empirical literature provides additional evidence bearing on the charismatic leader's methodof influence. For example, charismatic leaders tend to be unusually skilled at engaging others in the vision they are advocating andmost often use emotional persuasion, eloquence, a focus on followers' personal needs, or a focus on followers’ social needs toappeal 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 differentcognitive framework (Strange & Mumford, 2002). In fact, an examination of ideological leaders indicates the ideologue's vision isbased or founded on the past rather than the future. For example, ideological leaders develop emotionally evocative, tradition-oriented 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 rejectingsituational causes of injustices. Accordingly, the ideologue's visionary appeal is often focused toward developing a base cadre offollowers willing tomake strong commitments to the cause. In fact, the ideologue's vision is often framed in terms of a mission thatemphasizes the importance of shared values and is particularly dependent on groups that share and reinforce the vision hearticulates. Thus, it is not surprising to find that ideologues are rigidly committed to beliefs, maintain tight group boundaries, andexhibit an oppositional character that makes it truly difficult to develop a relationship unless trust, loyalty, and attitudinalsimilarity 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 currentissues and exert their influence through an in-depth understanding and sensitivity to the social system and the causal variablesoperating (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). Pragmatics are often considered to be functional problem solvers that consider bothsituations and people when examining a problem and need for solution (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001; Mumford, 2006). Inaddition, the pragmatic's method of influence is most often targeted toward elite individuals invested in the problem and thesolution. In such situations, the pragmatic places a premium on performance and appeals to followers' functional needs through

Table 2Example behaviors used to classify Douglas, Dubois, and Washington.

Charismatic Ideological Pragmatic

Frederick Douglas W.E.B. Dubois Booker T. Washington

Existence of vision Yes Yes NoTime orientation Future Past PresentInfluence tactics Focus on followers' personal or social needs Focus on shared heritage or ideals Focus on followers' functional needsCommunication strategy Emotional persuasion eloquence Emotional persuasion Rational persuasion negotiationTargets of influence Masses Base Cadre ElitesCause of problem People Situation Both people and situation

301K. Bedell-Avers et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 299–315

negotiation, an emphasis on shared outcomes, and respect for followers' unique concerns (Mumford, 2006). In fact, pragmaticleaders are notoriously skilled at using their expertise to devise actions that allow them to manipulate the current situation in amanner 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 knownregarding how outstanding leaders influence each other (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2009-this issue). Specifically, we donot know 1) if charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can work together and 2) how charismatic, ideological, andpragmatic leaders work together. Given the particular importance of such questions, especially when considering leaders whohave 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. Firstand foremost, the rarity of outstanding leadership and problems associated with gaining access to outstanding leaders makes itdifficult 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 atdifferent times depending on the degree of structure or chaos in the situation (Mumford, 2006). Third, different leader types arisein response to different issues. Specifically, outstanding leaders have a tendency to self-select into certain types of organizationalenvironments (e.g., political, military, business) (Mumford, 2006). Accordingly, it is difficult to find different types of outstandingleaders 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 thequestions of if and how charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders work together and interact, a non-normative strategy mustbe used. Accordingly, one such strategy was utilized in the present effort. Specifically, since outstanding leaders arise in times ofcrisis (Hunt et al., 1999), crises or significant issues in history were examined to identify leaders responding to the same issue atroughly the same time – an approach that enables the investigation of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders undersimilar environmental conditions and constraints. Using this strategy, a number of potential crises were identified (e.g., the GreatDepression, World War II) and associated leaders were assessed for leader type and orientation using the criteria suggested byMumford & colleagues (2006). For example, a leader was classified as charismatic if he/she, among other criteria, articulated avision based on perceived social needs and the requirements for effective, future-oriented change. An ideologue was identified ifhe/she articulated a vision emphasizing commitment to strongly held personal beliefs. A pragmatic was identified if he/shefocused 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. Althoughleaders with a personalized orientation do exist and exert substantial influence, the personalized orientation appears to influencesrelationship 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 socializedcharismatic, ideological, and pragmatics leaders. Accordingly, leaders classified as personalized (i.e., they framed action in terms oftheir 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 toenhance others and effect change to serve society) were chosen (House & Howell, 1992). Using these criteria for selection, the issueof 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 thesocialized 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 of1964, there existed a substantial amount of racial conflict. For example, the newly emancipated African Americans were strugglingfor literacy, political empowerment, and civil equality in a society that was recovering from civil war. During this period of strifeand chaos, three key leaders rose to power through their efforts to establish racial equality, Frederick Douglas – a charismaticleader, W.E.B. DuBois – an ideological leader, and Booker T. Washington – a pragmatic leader. Although each leader worked towardthe same goal, equal rights for African Americans, they each approached the issue in a distinct manner indicative of their typology.


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 AfricanAmericans through both the civil war and reconstruction. His road to fame and influence began as an escaped slavewho recognizedslaveryas a crisis, a crisis thatwas destroying his people andhis nation and required action. Althoughmany recognized the problemsassociated with slavery, Frederick Douglas was willing to suffer beatings and the risk of recapture for the chance to rally Americansto the “blood chilling horrors [of the] hellishwork of negro persecution” (p. 36, Douglas,1894). This courage in the face of adversity,coupledwith powerful oratory skills and an ability to share his vision for a better futuremade Frederick Douglas a primary leader inthe fight for liberation and equal rights. During the civil war, Douglas recruited African American slaves to fight for the Union, in theface of prejudicial treatment, with the promise of a better future – a future of freedom and equality (Martin, 1984). In the chaoticpost 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-evidenttruths 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 isa charismatic leader. First, Douglas presents an emotionally evocative and passionate vision – an indicator that he is either acharismatic or an ideological leader. Second, further examination of the vision content reveals a focus on the future of the UnitedStates of America rather than the reinstatement of past glory – indicating that Frederick Douglas is best categorized as acharismatic 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 thepotential for personal harm. Sixth, Douglas's efforts to change the hearts and minds of Americans are indicative of his belief thatpeople are fundamental to problem solution. In fact, his strategy indicates that Americans (as a people group) are the focal pointfor initiating change.

W.E.B. Dubois, an ideological leaderwho rose to power as a freeman in the early 1900s, is also considered to be one of themostinfluential leaders in the U.S. civil rights movement. Dubois is renowned as both a scholar and an activist. In fact, Dubois was thefirst African Americanman to graduatewith a Ph.D. fromHarvard University and is considered bymany to be a father of the socialsciences. Despite the developmental differences experienced by Dubois and Douglas, they bothwere committed to achieving thesame objective – equal rights for African Americans. It is noteworthy, however, that they each interpreted and approached theproblem in a distinctive manner consistent with their typology. Specifically, Dubois believed that racial prejudice anddiscrimination were rooted in African American ignorance. Thus, to overcome ignorance and instigate social change, Duboisproposed the higher education of a “Talented Tenth” (the most intelligent ten percent of the black race) who through theirknowledge 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 understandmodern civilization… and have the training andaptitude 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 ofdiscrimination and demanded that white America accept black people on equal terms. At the same time, he challenged AfricanAmericans to take pride in their African heritage – a heritage of great spirituality and genius. Throughout his life, Dubois workedtoward achieving his vision of a better future – a future in which the identity and integrity of the African race was restored andcivil rights were assured.

A cursory review of W.E.B. Dubois and his behaviors provides noteworthy evidence of his ideological leadership. First andforemost, Dubois presents a vision for the future. Although presentation of a vision is insufficient for conclusively classifyingDubois as an ideologue, careful examination of the vision content reveals that the vision is rooted in the past. Specifically, Duboispresents a vision based on the reinstatement or restoration of the African race to its past glory. Of course, this evidence serves as aparticularly 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 anddiscontent. Moreover, Dubois primarily directs his appeals to a base cadre of individuals – individuals he refers to as the TalentedTenth.

Booker T. Washington, a pragmatic leader, also played a critical role in the civil rights movement. Although Washington wasborn into slavery in the Deep South, he was emancipated in 1865. Following emancipation, Washington worked to pay his waythrough school and was ultimately recognized as the nation's foremost African American educator. Consistent with the objectivesof both Douglas and Dubois, Washington was also committed to achieving equal rights for African Americans. That being said, heanalyzed 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 concentrateinstead on elevating themselves through hard work and economic prosperity. In fact, Washington counseled African Americans toobtain a useful education, save money, work hard, and purchase property – a strategy he believed would “earn” African Americansfull citizenship in American society. In exchange for black compliance, Washington called on white America to provide jobs andindustrial education for African Americans. Although Washington's strategy was considered traitorous by some, his willingness tocollaborate with White Americans undoubtedly improved the availability of educational institutions for African Americans – anecessary first step for academic development and civil rights attainment. That being said, Washington's conciliatory gesturesshould not be mistaken as forfeiture; rather his actions were strategically planned to achieve his ultimate goal, “full equality in allrespects” (p. 91, Cox).


As evidenced in the preceding paragraph, Booker T. Washington exhibits a number of behaviors that are markedly differentfrom both charismatic and ideological leaders. Most noteworthy, is the lack of an emotionally evocative vision. In fact, he frames hisresponse to the crisis in terms of problem-centered objectives for goal attainment. Although this evidence could be consideredsufficient for classifying a leader as pragmatic, other behaviors confirm this classification. For example, Washington appeals tofollowers' logic and basic needs as he points out the functional benefits of his solution (e.g., education, monetary gain) to bothWhite Americans and African Americans. Moreover, Washington responded to the crisis by examining both situational factors andpeople characteristics (i.e., the South was economically unstable and untrusting of African Americans and African Americans wereunable to advance economically without a basic education) – an indicator of the pragmatic leader's causal focus on situations andpeople. See Table 2 for a more complete list of behavioral differences observed among charismatic, ideological, and pragmaticleaders.

1.5. Interactions

Although increasing effort has been devoted to the study of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership, little is knownregarding the interactions that occur among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Simply put, we do not knowwhat formof interaction should be expectedwhen charismatic, ideological, andpragmatic leaders respond to the same crisis. That being said, itseems reasonable to assume that different leader typeswill react and respond to each other in amanner that is consistentwith theirsensemaking strategy. Thus, depending on the type of leader–leader exchange (e.g., ideologue-pragmatic), differences in sense-making may lead to exchanges characterized by miscommunication and increased levels of conflict. Conversely, it is also possiblethat differences in sensemakingmay lead to an enhanced collaboration inwhich each leader capitalizes on and/or compensates forthe other leader's strengths and weaknesses. For instance, one may expect ideologues to have the greatest difficulty engaging incollaborative exchanges with other leaders, especially pragmatics. In fact, the ideologue's tight group boundaries, oppositionalcharacter, and rigid commitment to a set of beliefs and values often results in an unwillingness to consider alternative strategies forvision achievement (Mumford, Scott, & Hunter, 2006). Thus, the ideologue may experience a particularly volatile exchange with apragmatic that advocates an adaptive problem-solving strategy and is willing to sacrifice ideological principles to achieve anobjective (Bedell et al., 2006). That being said, conflict may be avoided and collaboration established with leaders who share theideologue'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 ofcharacteristics that make them open to collaboration on projects. Given these cognitive and behavioral differences, it seemsreasonable to assume that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will have different types of exchange relationships. Infact, 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 variouslevels 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 tounderstand how leaders respond to an approach introduced by other leaders. For instance, a leader may use another leader'sapproach as a building block for his own approach. Alternatively, a leader may denigrate another leader's approach and demandradical change. Pragmatic leaders, in particular, will analyze the approaches of other leaders using a functional problem-solvingapproach – an approach thatwill 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 andweaknesses. An ideologue, in contrast, will note minimal acceptance of existing strategies and espouse the wrongness of existingviews (Mumford et al., 2007). He will react particularly strongly to strategies that oppose his ideological beliefs. In contrast, acharismatic will identify areas in need of change and seek to develop a degree of mutual influence. In fact, a charismatic will mostoften 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 relationshipwith other leaders – an exchange that candifferentially involve support or denigration.

Hypothesis 2: The interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will be characterized by different responses tothe 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, andpragmatic leaders will have different reasons for supporting or denigrating the approach of another leader. For example, anideologue may denigrate the approach of either a pragmatic or charismatic leader if their strategy is morally inconsistent withhis/her principles (Mumford et al., 2007). A pragmatic, in contrast, will support or denigrate another leader's approach if it isuseful for achieving his/her functional objectives (Bedell et al., 2006). A charismatic will most likely be supportive of anotherleader'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 consistentwith their mental models.


Hypothesis 3: Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will respond to other leaders for varying reasons that are consistentwith their mental models.

See Table 3 for more explicit predictions regarding expected differences among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaderson 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 andinterpretation of their exchange relationships remains a challenge with traditional experimental designs. Thus, in the presentstudy, the historiometric method, a hybrid quantitative–qualitative approach, was utilized to assess the exchange relationships ofcharismatic, 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 forwhom there are numerous, detailed historical records. In fact, an examination of the recent leadership literature demonstrates theviability of such an approach with a variety of samples and research questions (e.g., Bedell et al., 2006; Bligh & Hess, 2007; Ligon etal., 2008; Mumford, 2006; Mumford et al., 2007; Warner, 2007). Through these successful efforts, leadership researchers haveidentified four key issues that must be considered in the development of a meaningful historiometric study: 1) the accuracy ofbehavioral 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 thataddresses each of the aforementioned issues.

2.1. Sample and data sources

2.1.1. Leader sampleTo circumvent the challenges associated with studies of outstanding leadership, researchers have recently begun to apply non-

normative strategies (e.g., Bedell et al., 2006; Bligh & Hess, 2007; Ligon et al., 2008; Mumford, 2006;Warner, 2007). In the presentstudy, a non-normative sampling strategy was employed. Specifically, to examine high-level leader–leader interactions, historicalrecords were reviewed to identify a crisis or significant issue in history inwhich different types of outstanding leaders co-occurredand responded to the same issue. Although this strategy limits the study to a sample of three leaders, it enables the investigation ofinteractions among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders under similar environmental conditions and constraints. Usingthis 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 classifiedas 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 ashaving 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 “inpower” overlapped with each of the other leader's time “in power”, and 5) the leader was actively involved in African Americancivil 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 3Specific 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 differentiallycharacterized by various levels of liking, hostility, andperceived contribution to the cause

High liking High liking Low liking High liking Moderate liking Low likingLow hostility Low hostility Mod/high

hostilityLow hostility Moderate

hostilityMod/highhostility

Highcontribution

Highcontribution

Low/modcontribution

Highcontribution

Moderatecontribution

Lowcontribution

Hypothesis 2: The interactions of charismatic, ideological,and pragmatic leaders will be characterized by differentresponses to the approach of another leader(e.g., support/denigrate, request radical change)

Support Support Denigrate Support Support/denigrate

Denigrate

Moderatechange

Moderatechange

Radical change Moderatechange

Moderatechange

Radical change

Hypothesis 3: Charismatic, ideological, and pragmaticleaders will respond to other leaders for varying reasonsthat are consistent with their mental model (considerapproach to be based on right or wrong principles)

Lowwrongness

Lowwrongness

Mod/highwrongness

Lowwrongness

Low/modwrongness

Mod/highwrongness

Moderaterightness

Moderaterightness

Low rightness Moderaterightness

Low rightness Low rightness


2.1.2. Data sourcesTo 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 topreliminarily assess the quality of the data and ensure that all available evidencewas collected. Upon examination of thematerials,it became evident that usage of all available evidence introduced a substantial variation in the quality of documentation, as well asauthor bias. Moreover, the academic biographies and academic texts (e.g., published letters) seemed to ensure both the quality ofmaterial and sufficient coverage of the interactional information available regarding Douglas, Dubois, and Washington. Thus, toensure quality, breadth, andminimized bias, fifteen to twenty academic volumes were selected for each leader. Specifically, a bookwas selected if: 1) it was considered to be an academic publication that stressed accurate and detailed reporting of the leader'sinteractions over the course of his/her career, 2) there was evidence of adequate scholarly work, as indicated by the citationsprovided and types of sources examined, and 3) the text included multiple incidents of leader–leader interactions with the otherleaders of interest. See Appendix A for the complete listing of books used.

2.1.3. Material selectionOnce 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 theirkey lieutenants, was employed. Specifically, to identify instances of leader–leader interactions, the index of each text wasexamined. Subsequently, the sections in each chapter that described the leader's interactions with a leader of interest wereidentified and selected for further examination. Although some studies of outstanding leadership specify a time of interest in theleader's career (e.g., “rise to power”), no such limitation was placed on this study. Given the characteristics of this sample, inparticular 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, onlymeaningful interactions were selected for content coding. An interaction was defined as meaningful if there was an exchangebetween two leaders of interest, the context of the interaction was described in some detail and included leader responses to theinteraction. To ensure reliable identification of meaningful interactions, three judges were asked to identify and select meaningfulinteractions in 6 academic volumes. A comparison of the judges' selections resulted in 94% agreement in their assessment ofmeaningful 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 pagein 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 proceduresOnce 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 toassess 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, andBooker T. Washington to assess potential biases. Responses to questions indicated, that each judge was sufficiently unaware of theactivities of each leader, in fact, prior knowledge of each leader indicated existence of name recognition only. Subsequently, eachjudge was exposed to a 20 h training program. In this training program, the judges were familiarized with the questions used toassess 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 theseprocedures resulted in an adequate interrater agreement coefficient (ICC=.85).

2.2.2. ControlsConsistent 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 engagein, the four judges made a number of assessments regarding the type and nature of the interaction. Specifically, judges were askedto assess nine characteristics of the interaction thatmight 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 interactionwas public, 6) the formality of the interaction, 7) the number of people involved in the interaction, 8) the education level of peopleinvolved in interaction, and 9) the basis of the interaction (e.g., working together/against). In addition, the judges madeassessments regarding characteristics of the academic text: 1) total number of interactions identified in text, 2) amount of bias inthe text, 3) the amount of material quoted in the text, and 4) year text was published.

2.2.3. Exchange characteristicsOnce judges completed theirassessments regarding the typeandnature of the interaction, theywere asked to analyze theexchange

characteristics. Specifically, the judgeswere asked to evaluate the interactions in termsof 1)what leaders thinkof eachother (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

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 forthe leader's reaction to others (e.g., principles, agreement, usefulness). To evaluate these five exchange characteristics, judges wereasked to answer a series of 6 to 8 present/absent or 5-point Likert scale ratings. In total, 43 ratings were made to assess theaforementioned 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 wereconducted to examine the frequency of leader–leader exchanges, as well as the type and nature of the exchanges that wereidentified for each leader interaction. Given the large number of observed interactions between Douglas, Dubois, and Washingtonit seems that a necessary precursor to examining the more central aspects of the present effort, was met. Stated another way, it isapparent that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do interact to varying degrees. However, to understand how thethree leader types interact, a series of multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) were conducted. Specifically, MANCOVAswere run to 1) determine the extent to which leader–leader exchanges vary with regard to liking, hostility, and perceivedcontribution, 2) assess how leaders differentially support or denigrate the approaches of other leaders, and 3) assess the

Table 4Frequency of exchange type by leader–leader interaction.

Speech Letter Interpersonal communication Biographical observation

Washington–Dubois (n=488)Frequency 53 91 34 310Percent a 10.8% 18.6% 7.0% 63.5%

Washington–Douglas (n=127)Frequency 8 6 10 103Percent a 6.3% 4.7% 7.9% 81.1%

Dubois–Douglas (n=57)Frequency 4 2 0 51Percent a 7.0% 3.5% 0% 89.5%

a Percent within each leader–leader interaction.


differential reasoning for leader responses to other leaders. In all analyses, respective covariates were retained if they weresignificant beyond the pb .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 theresults indicate that Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois interacted more frequently with each other (n=488 Washington–Dubois interactions) thanwith Frederick Douglas (n=127Washington–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 significantcontrasts among leader–leader exchanges with regard to the different types of interactions (χ2

(6)=36.12, p≤ .001). Specifically, theinteractions of Booker T.Washington andW.E.B. Dubois are characterized bymore direct interpersonal engagements, namely speeches(n=53), letters (n=91), and interpersonal communications (n=33) while the Washington–Douglas and Dubois–Douglasinteractions seem to be characterized more by the indirect engagements evidenced in biographical observations (n=103, n=51respectively). 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. Thechi-square analysis revealed significant contrasts among leader–leader exchangeswith 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 themost commonfocal points for each leader–leader exchange. That said, the most common issue in the Washington–Dubois exchange wasinterpersonal issues (30.1%) – a finding that to some extent accounts for the high number of direct exchanges observed betweenWashington and Dubois. Although interpersonal issues also account for a substantial percentage of Washington–Douglas (29.1%)andDubois–Douglas (22.8%) interactions it is apparent that the nature of the interpersonal issues does not require the direct contactnecessitated in Washington–Dubois interactions. In fact, a qualitative examination of the interpersonal issues reveals that theWashington–Douglas and Dubois–Douglas interactions most often involved an exchange of respect or deference while theWashington–Dubois interactions weremost often characterized by hostility or volatility. In general, the evidence seems to indicatethat charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do interact. In fact, they appear to have different types of interactions thatrevolve around a varied group of issues and are dependent on their mental models.

Table 5Frequency of issues by leader–leader interaction.

Civil rights Treatment of blacks NAACP Tuskegee Niagara Movement Interpersonal issues Other

Washington–Dubois (n=488)Frequency 91 124 11 60 41 147 14Percent a 18.6% 25.4% 2.3% 12.3% 8.4% 30.1% 2.9%

Washington–Douglas (n=127)Frequency 40 35 0 4 4 37 7Percent a 31.5% 27.5% 0.0% 3.1% 3.1% 29.1% 5.5%

Dubois–Douglas (n=57)Frequency 8 29 1 1 4 13 1Percent a 14.0% 50.8% 1.8% 1.8% 7.0% 22.8% 1.8%

a Percent within each leader–leader interaction.

Table 6MANCOVA results demonstrating varied levels of liking, hostility, and perceived contribution to the cause by leader interaction type.

F df p η2

CovariatesExcerpt length 5.28 3, 652 .001 .024Amount of bias 8.05 3, 652 .001 .036Education level of observers 8.35 3, 652 .001 .037Public interaction 3.64 3, 652 .010 .017

Main effectInteraction type 60.24 5, 654 .001 .32charismatic–ideological, ideological–charismatic,charismatic–pragmatic, pragmatic–charismatic,ideological–pragmatic, pragmatic–ideological

Note. F=F Ratio, df=Degrees of freedom, p=Significance level (Determined by using Roy's Largest Root), η2=Effect size.


3.2. Hypotheses

Hypothesis one predicted that the interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders would be differentiallycharacterized by liking, hostility, and perceived contribution. To assess if differences exist between the different leader–leaderexchanges, 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 CivilRights Movement. Table 6 presents the results obtained in the multivariate analysis of covariance for liking, hostility, and perceivedcontributionwhile Table 7 presents the estimatedmarginal means and associated standard errors. Asmight be expected based on thefindings 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 ideologicalcharacteristics of W.E.B. Dubois, namely his strong group boundaries, oppositional character, and rigid commitment to visionattainment, play a particularly strong role in guiding his interactions with other high-level leaders. With regard to liking, Duboisconsistently exhibits a somewhat negative opinion of other civil rights leaders (both charismatic and pragmatic), at least in hisexchanges 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 inliking, it is important to note that both Dubois and Douglas share a positive regard for each other – a regard that is most likely dueto the socialized charismatic's willingness to collaborate and “get along”with leaders who share the same vision, in this case, equalrights for African Americans.

The interactions of Dubois andWashington illustrate a very different exchange relationship. Despite working towards the sameend goal, the exchanges of Dubois and Washington evidence a mutual dislike that is rooted in their opposing strategies for goalachievement (M=2.20, SE=.07 and M=2.23, SE=.09). Specifically, Dubois' rigid commitment to attaining immediate respect

Table 7Estimated 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 4.49 .26Dubois–Douglas 3.75 .23Douglas–Washington 4.32 .22Washington–Douglas 4.12 .14Washington–Dubois 2.23 .09Dubois–Washington 2.20 .08

To what extent is the leader hostile to the other leader? Douglas–Dubois 1.45 .26Dubois–Douglas 1.30 .23Douglas–Washington 1.50 .21Washington–Douglas 1.44 .13Washington–Dubois 2.92 .09Dubois–Washington 2.96 .07

To what extent is the other leader considered to be contributing to the cause? Douglas–Dubois 4.31 .24Dubois–Douglas 3.67 .22Douglas–Washington 3.98 .20Washington–Douglas 3.99 .13Washington–Dubois 2.32 .08Dubois–Washington 2.28 .07

Note:⁎the first leader listed is the actor, the second leader is the actant.

Table 8MANCOVA results demonstrating varied responses to other leader's approach.

F df p η2





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 twostrategies, Dubois being rigidly committed to the end goal and Washington being rigidly committed to compromise andadaptation, it was not surprising to find that the exchanges between Dubois and Washington were relatively more negative andhostile (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, Duboisand 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 thecause (M=3.67, SE=.22 and M=3.99, SE=.13) – a perception that was apparently reciprocated by Douglas (M=4.31, SE=.24andM=3.98, SE=.20). Thus, the results seem to indicate that charismatic leaders are more willing to accept and support leadersusing 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 approachesof other leaders. To determine whether differences exist in how leaders respond to each other, a MANCOVA was conducted. Theresults 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 presentsthe 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 thatcharismatic leaders are supportive of both ideological (M=4.53, SE=.27) and pragmatic approaches (M=4.09, SE=.22) whileideologues and pragmatics differentially support or denigrate other leaders’ approaches. In particular, W.E.B. Dubois somewhatsupports 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 denigrateother 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 forpursuing 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 currentapproach. Thus, it is interesting to note that the charismatic leader was capable of being both supportive and dissatisfied with thepragmatic's approach. Moreover, it is even more interesting to observe the ideological and pragmatic leaders' inability to be evenmoderately 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 denigrationof other approaches must be examined. Accordingly, a MANCOVA was conducted to examine how leaders differentially analyze

Table 9Estimated marginal means and standard errors for leader response to other leader's approach.


To what extent does the leader support/denigrate the other leader's approach? Douglas–Dubois 4.53 .27Dubois–Douglas 3.66 .24Douglas–Washington 4.09 .22Washington–Douglas 4.01 .14Washington–Dubois 2.37 .09Dubois–Washington 2.24 .08

To what extent does the leader request radical change to the leader's approach? Douglas–Dubois 1.74 .29Dubois–Douglas 1.97 .25Douglas–Washington 2.45 .24Washington–Douglas 1.74 .15Washington–Dubois 2.87 .10Dubois–Washington 3.12 .08

Note:⁎the first leader listed is the actor, the second leader is the actant.

Table 10MANCOVA results demonstrating varied rational for leader's support of other approaches.

F df p η2





other leaders' approaches. The results reveal a significant multivariate effect indicating that leaders do support or denigrate otherleader approaches using different rationales (F(6,652)=48.53, p≤ .001). Table 10 presents the results obtained in the MANCOVAwhile Table 11 presents the estimated marginal means and associated standard errors.

The between subject effects evidence significant leader–leader exchange differences for eachof thedependent variables– (a) agreeabout cause of problem (F(5,653)=42.27, p≤ .001), (b) agree about solution to problem (F(5,653)=33.82, p≤ .001), (c) identifiesstrengths 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 wrongprinciples (F(5,654)=25.76, p≤ .001). In fact, a closer examination of the cell means reveals that leaders provide support and analyzeother'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 achieveequal rights for African Americans – not surprising given the charismatic leader's focus on the future andwillingness to “get along”

Table 11Estimated marginal means and standard errors for leader rationale.


To what extent do the leaders agree about the cause of the problem? Douglas–Dubois 4.21 .25Dubois–Douglas 3.56 .22Douglas–Washington 4.04 .21Washington–Douglas 3.92 .13Washington–Dubois 2.37 .08Dubois–Washington 2.29 .07

To what extent do the leaders agree about the solution to the problem? Douglas–Dubois 4.04 .25Dubois–Douglas 3.58 .22Douglas–Washington 3.35 .21Washington–Douglas 3.44 .13Washington–Dubois 2.08 .08Dubois–Washington 2.12 .07

To what extent does the leader identify strengths in the other leader's approach? Douglas–Dubois 3.91 .24Dubois–Douglas 2.97 .21Douglas–Washington 3.84 .20Washington–Douglas 3.40 .12Washington–Dubois 1.84 .08Dubois–Washington 1.94 .07

To what extent does the leader identify weaknesses in the other leader's approach? Douglas–Dubois 1.56 .27Dubois–Douglas 1.62 .24Douglas–Washington 1.79 .22Washington–Douglas 1.61 .14Washington–Dubois 2.89 .09Dubois–Washington 2.97 .08

To what extent does the leader believe that the approach is based on wrong principles? Douglas–Dubois 1.56 .27Dubois–Douglas 1.63 .24Douglas–Washington 1.64 .22Washington–Douglas 1.49 .14Washington–Dubois 2.80 .09Dubois–Washington 2.97 .08

To what extent does the leader believe that the approach is based on right principles? Douglas–Dubois 1.86 .25Dubois–Douglas 1.92 .22Douglas–Washington 2.82 .21Washington–Douglas 2.13 .13Washington–Dubois 1.91 .08Dubois–Washington 1.92 .07


with other leaders if they areworking toward the same goal (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman 1975;Mumford, 2006). Thatsaid, the charismatic leader differentially provided support to ideological and pragmatic leaders in a manner that is both consistentwith his mental model and intuitively perceptive of the other leader's mental model. In his exchanges withW.E.B. Dubois, Douglasmakes every effort to develop a trust relationship with the somewhat cynical ideologue – a finding that is evidenced by hisagreement on key causes (M=4.21, SE=.25), agreement on solution to problem (M=4.04, SE=.25), emphasis on strengths ofapproach (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 ideologicalleader, Frederick Douglas focuses on the positive aspects of Dubois' approach, emphasizes the strengths of his vision, and identifiespoints of agreement (e.g., same key causes). In his exchanges with Booker T. Washington, however, a very different pattern ofsupport can be observed. In fact, Douglas appears to recognize the pragmatic's receptiveness to feedback and willingness toexchange ideas to solve the problem when he initiates interactions with Washington. Accordingly, Douglas identifies points ofdisagreement and provides feedback to Washington in a manner that is both diplomatic and issue focused – an ode to hischarismatic strengths as he focuses on change issues. This pattern of support is most notably demonstrated by his agreement onkey causes (M=4.04, SE=.21), identification of strengths in approach (M=3.84, SE=.20), and emphasis on the rightness ofprinciples (M=2.82, SE=.21) while voicing moderate disagreement about the solution to the problem (M=3.35, SE=.21) andrecommending 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 begrounded in his commitment to achieving immediate restitution for African Americans. In fact, he clearly outlines points ofdisagreement and either minimally accepts or openly denigrates alternative approaches. Despite Douglas's best efforts to establishrapport, Dubois's acceptance appears to be somewhat reserved. This pattern of reserved acceptance and support of Douglas canbest be understood in terms of his moderate agreement on key causes (M=3.56, SE=.22), moderate agreement about solution toproblem (M=3.58, SE=.22), identification of some strengths (M=2.97, SE=.21) and weaknesses (M=1.62, SE=.24) inDouglas' 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 – anexpected finding given the ideologue's mistrust of others and the different visions they hold for the future. In Dubois's exchangeswith Booker T. Washington, however, a much more volatile pattern of denigration can be observed. Specifically, Duboisdemonstrates his unwillingness to consider a strategy that involves the temporary sacrifice of his beliefs – even if it will result inthe faster attainment of end goals. To the ideologue, the end does not justify the means (Bedell et al., 2006). This finding is clearlyevidenced 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 onweaknesses inWashington's approach (M=2.97, SE=.08) and focus on the wrongness of hisapproach (M=2.97, SE=.08). It is apparent that despiteWashington's good intentions for African Americans, Dubois considers hiscompromising strategy to be the “wrong” approach.

Booker T. Washington, the pragmatic leader, differentially supports and denigrates other leaders' approaches in a manner thatis consistent with his functional, problem-solving approach. In other words, he emphasizes the strengths in approaches that hesupports and emphasizes the weaknesses in approaches that he does not support. Moreover, it appears as if he responds to otherapproaches in a way that most appeals to public opinion. This pattern of selective support or denigration of other's approaches ismost 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 somedegree 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 minimallyfocuses on the rightness (M=2.13, SE=.13) or wrongness of principles (M=1.49, SE=.14) and emphasizes the strengths ofDouglas's approach (M=3.40, SE=.12) more than the weaknesses (M=1.61, SE=.14). Thus, despite their differences instrategies, Washington recognizes the power Douglas wields and demonstrates a remarkably perceptive understanding of followersupport with his deference. However, Washington does not exhibit the same degree of respect or deference when interacting withW.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 toprovide for family). Regardless of the intent,Washingtonmakes 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 hisprinciples (M=2.80, SE=.09). Thus it seems as if Washington selectively supports or denigrates the approaches of charismaticand ideological leaders in a manner that will both enhance his functional appeal and improve follower support – a strategy thatseems 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 benoted. First and foremost, it should be noted that the present study was not based on the direct observation of leaders as theyinteracted with followers. Instead, self-reports or academic accounts of the exchange occurrence were used to make assessmentsregarding leader–leader interactions. Although this historiometric approach is commonly applied in studies of high-level leaders,


(e.g., Deluga, 2001; Fiol et al., 1999;Mumford, 2006) two notable potential biaseswhen examining leader–leader interactionsmustbe noted: 1) the use of self-report and academic texts may result in a bias towards the inclusion of more observable, publicexchanges, and 2) the use of biographical material introduces the possibility of author bias. In an effort to control for thesetransactional biases, publicity and author bias were used as controls in the present study. Second, the charismatic, ideological, andpragmatic leaders used in this study were systematically selected according to leader type, orientation, issue, location, and time inhistory. Specifically, Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, and Booker T. Washington were selected because they represented a rareoccurrence 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 theworld, andwere “in power” at the same time.Although strategically sampling in this manner enables researcher control of leader orientation, the crisis issue, environmentalconditions, and timing; the fact remains that it also reduces the generalizability of findings to other conditions. Third, the presentstudy's emphasis on the exchanges of socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders results in findings that do notspeak to the exchanges that occur between leaders with 1) differing orientations and types (e.g., personalized-charismatic andsocialized-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 andqualitative examination of high-level exchanges between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders – a notably rare event. Inother words, the limited sampling strategy utilized in the current study, although necessary, should be noted and generalizationsmade 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 tocertain violations of assumptions, namely independence. Of course, the results are particularly useful for interpreting basic cell-mean 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 somenoteworthy implications for understanding the leader–leader exchanges of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Mostgenerally, the results indicate that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can and do work together, albeit, in notablydifferent ways. In particular, results reveal that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders interact with varying frequency andintensity. Pragmatic and ideological leaders, for example, have more frequent and volatile interactions with each other than withcharismatic leaders. In fact, a closer examination of the interactions reveals that the Dubois–Douglas and Washington–Douglasinteractions most often involve an exchange of respect or deference while the Washington–Dubois interactions are most oftencharacterized by hostility or volatility. Thus, at the most general level, the results seem to support the expectation that pragmaticand ideological leaders will not only espouse the most divergent approaches, they will experience greater conflict because of thefundamental differences in their approach. In addition, the strategic flexibility of charismatic leaders appears to be quite useful inboth their interactions with pragmatic and ideological leaders (Harvey, 2001).

The MANCOVA results provide additional support for the aforementioned findings. Specifically, the results indicate that theexchanges of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders have differential characteristics – characteristics largely guided by theleader'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 theirfuture oriented vision (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Cashman,1975). In the present study, the charismatic leader demonstrates anunusual ability for identifying the needs of others (e.g., Conger & Kanungo,1998; Fiol et al.,1999) and effectively using coalition tacticsto develop alliances with leaders working toward the same end objective (Mumford, 2006). In fact, the charismatic leader appears toprovide support to ideological and pragmatic leaders in a manner that is both consistent with his mental model and sensitive to theother leader's mental model. The results reveal that Frederick Douglas, a charismatic leader, is differentially supportive of bothideological and pragmatic leaders if they are working towards the same goal. For example, in his exchanges with W.E.B. Dubois,Douglasmakes everyeffort to develop a collaborative trust relationship by focusingon the strengths ofDubois' vision and emphasizingthe positive aspects of his approach – an intuitive strategy given the ideologue's oppositional character and tight group boundaries. InDouglas' exchanges with Booker T.Washington, however, a very different pattern of support can be observed. In fact, Douglas appearsto recognize the pragmatic's receptiveness to feedback and willingness to exchange ideas to solve the problem when he initiatesinteractions with Washington. In particular, Douglas demonstrates his support for Washington while identifying points ofdisagreement and providing feedback – an intuitive strategy for dealing with pragmatic leaders that are interested in resolving issue-related problems. In interactions with both leaders, however, it should be noted that Douglas does not use emotionally evocativeappeals – a finding that suggests it is an ineffective strategy for developing allianceswith ideological and pragmatic leaders. Rather, anemphasis 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 rigidcommitment 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 amore consistent andstraightforward set of interactions with high-level leaders that seem to be grounded in his extant beliefs and values. In fact, heclearly outlines points of disagreement and either minimally accepts or openly denigrates alternative approaches. In particular, theresults 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


overcoming themistrust an ideological leader has for leaders who do not explicitly share his values and the vision he articulates. InDubois' exchanges with Booker T. Washington, a much more volatile pattern of denigration can be observed. Specifically, Duboisdemonstrates his unwillingness to consider a strategy that involves the temporary sacrifice of his beliefs – even if it will result inthe faster attainment of end goals. To the ideologue, the end does not justify the means (Bedell et al., 2006) and in his interactionswithWashington, Dubois makes it clear that the pragmatic's compromising strategy is the “wrong” approach. That said, the resultsseem to indicate that Dubois' uses an influence strategy with charismatic and ideological leaders that is very similar to his methodof influencing followers. Specifically, Dubois appeals to charismatic and pragmatic leaders using his beliefs and values – anapproach 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 allianceswith 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 anemphasis on performance and appeal to followers' functional needs (Mumford, 2006;Mumford & VanDoorn, 2001). In the presentstudy, Booker T. Washington, the pragmatic leader, differentially supports and denigrates other leaders' approaches in a mannerthat is consistent with his functional, problem-solving approach. In other words, he emphasizes the strengths in approaches thathe supports and emphasizes the weaknesses in approaches that he does not support. Moreover, it appears as if he responds toother approaches in a way that most appeals to public opinion and shows respect for follower concerns (Mumford, 2006). Thispattern of selective support or denigration of other's approaches is most evident in his differential interactions with FrederickDouglas and W.E.B. Dubois. In his exchanges with Frederick Douglas, considered by some to be the founder of the civil rightsmovement, Washington maintains a high level of respect and to some degree deference. For example, Washington minimallyfocuses on the rightness or wrongness of principles and emphasizes the strengths of Douglas' approach. Thus, despite theirdifferences in strategies, Washington recognizes the power Douglas wields and demonstrates a remarkably perceptiveunderstanding of follower support with his deference. However, Washington does not exhibit the same degree of respect ordeference when interacting with W.E.B. Dubois. In fact, in his exchanges with Dubois, Washington seems to emphasize thedifferences between their approaches – perhaps to appeal to followers with the immediate functionality of his approach (i.e., jobsand 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 theweaknesses in Dubois' approach and focuses on the wrongness of his principles. Thus it seems as if Washington selectivelysupports or denigrates the approaches of charismatic and ideological leaders in a manner that will both enhance his functionalappeal and improve follower support – a strategy that seems to capitalize on the strengths of Frederick Douglas and theweaknesses 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 thatoccur between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders responding to the same crisis. As such, the investigation provides apreliminary understanding of how high-level leaders with different mental models interact and provides a foundation onwhich todevelop future research. First, the data demonstrates that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can and dowork togetherwhen responding to the same crisis. That said, it is equally apparent that leaders can work against each other when responding tothe same crisis. Second, the pattern of results clarifies the interactional strategies employed by charismatic, ideological, andpragmatic 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 hybridapplication of Leader–Member Exchange tactics (i.e., methods leaders use to develop relationships with followers) and politicaltactics (Basu, & Green, 1997; Deluga, 2001). In other words, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do not interact withleaders in exactly the same way they interact with followers. Rather, they appear to utilize their Leader–Member Exchangestrengths (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 currentfindings and further examine the influence tactics high-level leaders use when interacting with each other. For example, despitethe large number of interactions used in the present study, there were an insufficient number of direct and indirect interactions toanalyze them separately. Thus future examinations of direct and indirect leader–leader interactions would be of interest. Inaddition, given the present focus on socialized leaders, future research investigating the influence of a personalized leader onleader–leader exchanges (e.g., Marcus Garvey) may provide additional information regarding high-level leader–leaderinteractions. Although follow-up studies to the present effort appear to be somewhat difficult given the rarity of occurrenceissue, another avenue of research could be to examine the high-level exchanges that occur between leaders using the samementalmodel (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 theseleaders all responded to the same crisis, during the same time period, and in the same environmental region, it is evident by theirexchange relationships that they utilize very different mental models. In fact, how they interact with other high-level leadersseems to be highly dependent on their interpretive mental model. Charismatic and pragmatic leaders, for example, appear tocapitalize on the strengths and weaknesses of other leaders in a manner that better serves their goals. Ideological leaders, incontrast, remain loyal to their beliefs and values and appear to be unfaltering in their vision commitment – despite the best effortsof both charismatic and pragmatic leaders.


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.


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 Leadershipand 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: Acomparative 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 leadershipMahwah, 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.

Documents

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: An examination of leader–leader interactions