شرایط حل مساله و عملکرد رهبران کاریزماتیک ایدئولوژیک و عمل گرا : یک مطالعه مقایسه ای تجربی

Theories contrasting charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders hold that these three leader types display differences in how they construe and attempt to solve the problems encountered in leading others. To test this hypothesis, a measure examining differences among people in their preferred leadership style, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic, was developed. Subsequently, people were asked to solve leadership problems in two domains. Solution quality and originality were evaluated. It was found that different types of leaders solved different types of problems successfully. However, these relationships varied as a function of domain and designation of the individual as a leader. The implications of these findings for understanding leadership types, and leader performance, are discussed.

Outstanding leaders, historically notable figures, such as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, have an enormous impact on our world. Accordingly, students of leadership have spent some twenty years moving beyond normative leadership theories in an attempt to account for the behavior, and success, of outstanding leaders (Bass, in press and Yukl, 2002). Typically, studies of outstanding leadership have focused on one style of noteworthy leadership — charismatic leadership or the closely aligned theory of transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 1999, Bass and Avolio, 1990, Conger, 1999, Conger and Kanungo, 1988 and House and Howell, 1992). Broadly speaking, the available evidence indicates that the future-oriented vision being articulated by charismatic leaders has a significant influence on leader performance (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996 and Lowe et al., 1996). Nonetheless, the question remains as to whether the charismatic, or transformational, pathway represents the only way to become an outstanding leader. Recently, Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford, 2006, Mumford and Van Doorn, 2001, Strange and Mumford, 2002 and Strange and Mumford, 2005), drawing from Weber (1926), have argued that at least two other pathways, or developmental roads, exist that would allow someone to emerge as an outstanding leader — the ideological and pragmatic pathways. Integral to Mumford's (2006) conception of these three distinct pathways to outstanding leadership, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic, is the notion that underlying these three paths are differences in how leaders construe, or think about, the situations that give rise to the opportunity for outstanding leadership (Drazin et al., 1999 and Hunt et al., 1999). Accordingly, our intent in the present study was to provide direct evidence bearing on the existence of these differential cognitive orientations among leaders who appear to be pursuing one of these three distinct pathways. 1.1. Model The emergence of outstanding leaders, regardless of the pathway being pursued, appears linked to crises or ambiguous events that imply change in the existing social order (Bligh et al., 2004, Halverson et al., 2004 and Hunt et al., 1999). For example, Hunt, Boal, & Dodge (1999) had students work on a task involving actions to be taken to improve a university's ranking, crises were created as groups worked on this task where confederate leaders executed scripts involving the expression of charismatic, visionary, exchange, and expressive leadership behavior. It was found that visionary and charismatic leaders were perceived more favorably in the crisis as opposed to the non-crisis condition. Other work using historiometric methods (Strange & Mumford, 2002) and naturalistic methods (Drazin et al., 1999), also indicates that outstanding leaders emerge under conditions of crisis. Crises are unique events, relative to other conditions, in that goals and paths to goal attainment are unclear (House, 1977). Thus, crises may be viewed as a novel, ill-defined problem. As a result, crises allow the environment to be construed, or understood, in different ways. Leaders, of course, provide a framework that allows others to understand and respond to the crisis. Therefore, the key to understanding the basis for outstanding leadership is to understand the processes that leaders use to formulate an understanding of the crisis situation. Accordingly, Mumford (2006) argued that ultimately leaders must help followers make sense of the crisis situation by clarifying goals and pathways to goal attainment (Fiol et al., 1999 and Gioia and Thomas, 1996). Thus, the key to understanding outstanding leadership will lie in sensemaking. Mumford & Strange (2002) have proposed a set of mechanisms describing how leaders go about sensemaking. They argued that leader sensemaking is based on a mental model of the social system at hand. These mental models represent abstract, schematic, knowledge structures describing key causes of system behavior relative to select goals and outcomes (Goldstone and Sakamoto, 2003, Hmelo-Silver and Pfeffer, 2004 and Johnson-Laird, 1999). With analysis of causes, and reconfiguration of causes in relation to emergent goals or outcomes leaders can create a prescriptive mental model describing an ideal social system (Mumford and Strange, 2002 and Strange and Mumford, 2002). This prescriptive mental model allows sensemaking, and, under certain conditions, formation of viable visions as the prescriptive mental model is transmitted to followers. Some support for this model has been provided by Strange & Mumford (2005). They asked 212 undergraduates to assume the role of principal of a new experimental school and to write a speech to be delivered to students, teachers, and parents describing their vision for the school. Prior to preparing their speeches, they were 1) asked to review either good or poor case models provided by a consultants report, 2) analyze either goals and/or causes of student performance, and 3) list seven positive and seven negative experiences they had experienced in high school or not reflect on the past. Students, teachers, and parents then rated the vision statements on speeches written after participants worked through these exercises. It was found that analysis of causes when strong base models were presented and the analysis of goals when weak case models were presented resulted in the production of stronger vision statements as evaluated by students, teachers, and parents. Within this sensemaking framework, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership are held to arise from the strategies leaders apply in constructing prescriptive mental models (Mumford, Antes, Caughron, & Friedrich, in press). Fig. 1 provides a summary description of the differences observed among the prescriptive mental models formulated by charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. This figure considers key attributes of these descriptive mental models with respect to crisis conditions, sensemaking, the type of experience used in sensemaking, targets of influence, and assumptions made about causation. Charismatic leader's prescriptive mental models reflect a future-oriented vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). Thus, charismatic leaders articulate a change in the goals to be pursued. Although charismatic leaders stress future goals, the causes of goal attainment are held to be stable and under the control of followers who might act in these causes. Charismatic leaders, as a result, view as critical the mobilization of mass support as critical to executing their agenda (Fiol et al., 1999). Typically, charismatic leaders emerge and perform well in ordered environments where changes in goals but not fundamental causes are operating. Notably, however, it is their vision that is to be pursued by others. As a result, charismatics, especially when they are in positions of power, will evidence a certain influencability seeking to change followers' actions rather than their basic understanding of the situation. Ideological leaders, in contrast to charismatic leaders, construct mental models around cases of failure. These past failures make it difficult for leaders to specify causes. However, ideological leaders can construct a prescriptive mental model based on shared, extant, goals (Strange & Mumford, 2005). The appeal of ideological leaders is to a cadre of followers who share these goals — close trusted followers. These followers are expected to act to change underlying causes operating in the situation (Moghaddam, 2005). Ideological leaders, as a result of their prescriptive mental models, tend to arise and perform well in chaotic environments where basic causes are in flux. Pragmatic leaders stress neither goals nor causes in the formation of their prescriptive mental models. Pragmatic leaders instead see causes and goals as entangled within a complex system (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). The complex nature of the prescriptive mental models formulated by pragmatics, results in a tendency on the part of leaders to appeal to elites who understand the complexity of the issue at hand. Pragmatic leaders seek to craft solutions to problems posed rather than creating a broader vision (Mumford, 2006). As a result, pragmatic leaders tend to emerge, and perform effectively, in relatively stable environments characterized by local descriptions or opportunities. Recently, Mumford (2006) completed a series of studies examining whether differences expected as a result of those prescriptive mental models were observed in leader behavior. He content analyzed biographical material obtained for 120 historically notable leaders held to evidence a charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic style with respect to problem-solving behavior, leader-follower exchange, political tactics, and communication strategies. In keeping with this model, he found that pragmatic leaders relied on expertise and rational arguments. Although both charismatic and ideological leaders relied on affective appeals, ideological leaders were more likely than charismatic leaders to share group direction with a cadre of close followers. Although these findings provided some support for this model of outstanding leadership, it is also true that cognitive performance was not examined directly. Accordingly, the intent of the present study was to provide evidence indicating the operation of differential cognitive processes among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders.

Before turning to the broader conclusions flowing from the present study, certain limitations should be noted. To begin, the present study was based on a classic experimental paradigm. Although application of this paradigm was necessary to draw strong conclusions with regard to cross-type differences in the quality and originality of solutions provided to leadership problems, caution is, of course called for in generalizing our findings to incidents of “real-world” leadership problem-solving due in part to the greater complexity of “real-world” problems. Along related lines, it should be recognized that a number of variables might influence the quality and originality of the solutions leaders produce to consideration, initiating structure, participation, and change management problems. In the present study we examined the effects of only two of these variables, domain structure (school vs social) and adoption of a leadership role through an activation manipulation. Although the findings obtained in the present study indicated that both these experimental manipulations induced meaningful effects on solution quality and originality, other manipulations, of course, might be envisioned. It should be noted that in the present study the effects of leader type, and other experimental manipulations, were assessed with respect to the quality and originality of solutions obtained on consideration, initiating structure, participation, and change management problems. Although these four types of problems appear in most leadership roles (Hunt, 2004 and Yukl, 2002), it is also true that we have not covered all potential leadership problems (Fleishman et al., 1991). Similarly, while the quality and originality of obtained solutions provide an appropriate basis for appraising complex problem-solving performance (Ghiselin, 1963, Mumford and Gustafson, 1988 and Redmond et al., 1993) it is also true that other attributes of problem-solving performance, such as elegance (Besemer & O'Quin, 1999) might have been examined. It should also be recognized that in the present study we have not examined performance in a full leadership role. Instead, we have examined how people execute one critical aspect of this role — the solution of leadership problems (Yukl, 2002). Moreover, our interest in how different types of leaders went about solving these problems led us to contrast people apparently evidencing one of three distinct styles of outstanding leadership — a charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic style. Accordingly, our findings have more to say about the problem-solving performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic people working on leadership role tasks than other styles of leadership. Finally, it should be recognized that we have in the present study focused on a key outcome of leader's problem-solving activities. More specifically, we have examined the quality and originality of the solutions provided to problems. These differences in problem-solving performance, however, might be tied to differential application of various problem-solving strategies. Hopefully, future research will examine these potential strategic differences in relation to the kind of prescriptive mental models applied by charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Even bearing these limitations in mind, we believe that the results obtained in the present study have some important implications for understanding the nature and implications of the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic styles. Earlier work by Ligon et al. (in press) has indicated that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic styles may emerge relatively early as a function of experiences occurring during adolescence and young adulthood. The results obtained in the present study provide some further support for this conclusion by indicating that a reliable, and apparently valid, measure of these stylistic differences can be obtained in a sample of college age students. Of course, the development of a viable measure of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic styles may prove of some value with regard to leader assessment and development. This measure, moreover, might provide a useful starting point for field studies examining the differences between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Not only does the measure of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership have value as a basis for subsequent theoretical and applied work, it also tells us something about the frequency with which these three types of leaders might be encountered. At least among American young adults, the most common style of leadership appears to be a pragmatic orientation. A charismatic leadership style, however, does appear with some frequency while an ideological leadership style appears relatively infrequently. Given the frequency with which people evidencing these styles are observed, it would seem that leadership development programs will, generally speaking, prove most beneficial if tailored to a pragmatic style. However, in this regard, it should be recognized that ideological and charismatic leaders do appear more frequently in non-business organizations (Mumford, 2006) and that noteworthy cross-cultural differences might exist in the prevalence of these styles. Along related lines, is should also be recognized that a particular approach was used to assess these styles. More specifically, styles were not assessed through behavioral self-repots. Instead, assessment of these styles was based on appraisals of the attractiveness of different approaches to leadership problems exhibited by charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. As a result, it is open to question whether individuals are aware of the style they appear to be pursuing and its implications for their performance as a leader. By the same token, however, this measure may be robust to social desirability and self-presentation effects (James et al., 2005). It should also be recognized that the measure developed in the present study was based on “real-world” incidents of leader performance. As a result, domain could not be controlled — although problem type was taken into account. Thus the question remains as to whether domain preferences might have influenced the obtained results. In the present study we examined how these styles were related to the quality and originality of the solutions produced by people to leadership problems involving consideration, initiating structure, participation, and change management (Hunt, 2004 and Yukl, 2002). Perhaps the most compelling validation evidence for this measure of leadership style arises from the relationships observed between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership and peoples' performance in problem-solving. Of course, leaders do more than solve problems — they motivate, represent, and provide followers with a sense of identity (e.g., Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1998 and Shamir et al., 1993). Although we do not wish to dispute the importance of these other aspects of leadership, it is difficult to dispute the importance of the strategies leaders apply in problem-solving, in part, because leaders must grapple with particularly significant problems, and, in part, because resolution of these problems provides a basis for both leader emergence and subsequent attributions about performance (Hunt et al., 1999 and Mumford, 2006). The results obtained in the present study do not indicate that people evidencing a charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic style differ with regard to overall problem-solving performance. Indeed, this finding is consistent with Mumford's (2006) observations indicating that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders seem to evidence similar levels of performance with regard to social outcomes (e.g., institutions established, number of positive contributions). Instead, different conditions seem to prompt the production of high quality and original solutions to leadership problems among people evidencing a charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic style. More specifically, pragmatic leaders produced solutions of typical quality and originality across conditions — although they were especially likely to produce high quality solutions to consideration, initiating structure, and change management problems. Broadly speaking, this pattern of findings is consistent with the observations of Mumford & Van Doorn (2001) indicating that the thoughtful causal analysis of pragmatic leaders may lead to the production of viable problem-solving across a range of conditions although they may not be especially participative. In contrast, the production of high quality, original problem solutions by charismatic and ideological leaders appeared to be more contingent on the situation — the domain in which they were working and activation of a leadership role. Among people evidencing an ideological style, high quality solutions to consideration and initiating structure problems were obtained when they were working in a structured domain (school as opposed to social problems) and when they were designated as the leader. Given the “oppositional” mental models applied by people evidencing an ideological style, these findings are not surprising. Adoption of a leadership role will encourage analysis of a social system, particularly with regard to its difficulties, and the availability of a known, relatively well-structured situation, will promote the development and application of ideologues' mental models in problem-solving. Charismatic leaders, however, displayed a rather different pattern of responses to these situational manipulations. Consistent with their mental model that people, through their own actions, can influence the causes of system behavior, charismatic leaders evidenced good performance on consideration problems. However, bearing in mind that it is their model to be pursued, charismatic leaders did not produce especially high quality solutions to participation problems. More centrally, however, the quality and originality of solutions obtained from people evidencing a charismatic style was highest in the social domain when they were not asked to assume a leadership role. One explanation for these effects, is that charismatics by attempting to build a better future through others may find themselves constrained by the extant social system in generating solutions — a trend acting to undermine solution quality and originality. Alternatively, it is possible that the future-oriented models applied by people applying a charismatic style may prove more effective in highly unstructured situations where role demands are low and the extant social system is not so powerful that it undermines the generation of high quality, original problem solutions. Finally, it is possible that these effects might reflect sensitivity to referent power on the part of charismatic leaders. These observations about the conditions giving rise to effective problem-solving by people evidencing a charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic style have a number of implications. First, the findings obtained in the present study suggest that charismatics, once they have obtained top leadership positions, may not be especially effective problem-solvers. As a result, they may need to rely on others, however difficult this may prove to be under crisis conditions, focusing on other attributes of leader performance such as representation and motivation. Second, in institutional settings when designated as a leader, people following an ideological style may prove especially effective in solving leadership problems. Although this finding is consistent with the observations of Mumford (2006) concerning the problem-solving skills of ideological leaders it does call to question the stereotypes we often apply in the description of ideologues. The differences observed between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders have some noteworthy practical and theoretical implications. At a theoretical level, the findings obtained in this study point to the need to examine the mental models applied by leaders. In fact, these mental models may influence not only how leaders construe and attempt to solve significant organizational problems but also the tactics employed by leaders in the exercise of interpersonal influence. The existence of these differences, moreover, broaches questions about the origins of these alternative systems for understanding crisis, or change, events. One potentially noteworthy influence in this regard may be seminal life events (Ligon et al. in press). However, other variables may also influence these preferred construal systems such as temporal orientation, intrinsic motivation, and cognitive style. The findings obtained in the present study also have some noteworthy practical implications. To begin, we cannot expect that different types of leaders – charismatics, ideologues, and pragmatics – will see the same problems and construe these problems in the same way. As a result, one might expect that debate and political exchange will surround leadership — debate and political exchange that is not simply a matter of goals but how leaders construe the situation. More centrally, however, one cannot expect that all leaders will prove equally effective in solving all organizational problems. This point is of some important because it implies that leaders must be “fitted” to the situations in which they will lead if they are to prove effective in solving organizational problems. Moreover, given the origin of the differences held to give rise to leader performance, it cannot be expected that the coaching and developmental interventions that prove beneficial for one leader style, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic, will necessarily prove beneficial for another. These observations, however, also point to a broader conclusion. Traditionally, theories of leadership have sought the one best way to be a truly outstanding leader. As Foti & Miner (2003) have pointed out, there may not be one way of leading, or one style of leadership, that always proves beneficial. Hopefully, the present study by demonstrating the impact of these stylistic differences with regard to charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will provide an impetus for further research examining the impact of stylistic differences on other relevant aspects of leadership.