رهبران کاریزماتیک، ایدئولوژیکی و عملگرا : بررسی تداخلات رهبر ـ رهبر

Although a number of researchers have examined and demonstrated the unique relationships different types of leaders develop with their followers (Dansereau, F., Graen, G.B., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.; Dienesh & Liden, 1986; Mumford, 2006), relatively little is known regarding how outstanding leaders interact or work together (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, Mumford, 2009-this issue). Given the particular importance of such questions, especially when considering leaders who have the potential to influence national and worldwide developments, the intent of the present study was to examine the leader–leader exchange relationships of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Due to the difficulty associated with examining high-level leader–leader exchanges, a hybrid qualitative–quantitative approach was taken to assess the interactions of Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, and Booker T. Washington – three high-level leaders who responded to the same crisis, in the same time period, in the same region of the world. The results provide preliminary evidence regarding the interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders; in fact, they indicate that leaders interact in a manner consistent with their mental model.

Outstanding leaders, the masters of influence who play a pivotal role in the success or failure of large organizations, also have a substantial impact on the broader social system and world in which we live (Bass, 1990). Given their impact on our lives, the study of outstanding leaders seems to be of considerable importance. In fact, an examination of the literature indicates that leadership researchers are devoting increased attention to the study of outstanding leaders and, more specifically, the alternative forms of outstanding leadership (Hunt et al., 1999 and Mumford, 2006). Although traditional theories of outstanding leadership have focused on charismatic or transformational leaders (e.g., Conger and Kanungo, 1998 and Shamir et al., 1993), the more recent literature suggests the existence of at least two alternative forms of outstanding, historically notable leaders, ideologues (e.g., Mumford, 2006, Mumford et al., 2007, Strange and Mumford, 2002 and Strange and Mumford, 2005) and pragmatics (e.g., Mumford and Van Doorn, 2001 and Tsui et al., 2004). In fact, substantial effort has been committed to theory development and validation of these alternative pathways to leadership (i.e., establishing the cognitive and behavioral differences of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders) (Mumford, 2006). Integral to the distinctions drawn between these alternative forms of outstanding leaders is the notion that underlying these three forms – charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic – are differences in how leaders construe, or make sense of, crises that give rise to the opportunity for outstanding leadership (Bligh et al., 2004, Drazin et al., 1999, Halverson et al., 2004, Hunt et al., 1999 and Mumford, 2006). Accordingly, substantial evidence indicates that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders are, indeed, characterized by differential cognitive orientations and use different methods of influence (Bedell-Avers et al., 2006, Ligon et al., in press, Mumford, 2006, Mumford et al., 2007, Bedell-Avers et al., 2008, Mumford et al., 2006 and Strange and Mumford, 2002). Despite the clear observable distinctions witnessed among these three leader types, it should be noted that instances of mixed type leadership do occur (e.g., leaders evidencing both charismatic and ideological behavior) (Strange & Mumford, 2002). That said, to obtain a clear understanding of these three pathways, most studies have only considered leaders that could unambiguously be classified as charismatic, ideological, or pragmatic (e.g., Bedell-Avers et al., 2006, Bedell-Avers et al., 2008, Ligon et al., in press, Mumford, 2006, Mumford et al., 2007 and Mumford et al., 2006;). Accordingly, Mumford (2006) and colleagues (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008) summarize the underlying cognitive differences in terms of five key mental-model features that seem to dictate the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leader's response to crises: (1) crisis condition, (2) sensemaking, (3) type of experience, (4) targets of influence, and (5) locus of causation. A summary of these differences may be seen in Table 1. 1.1. Charismatic leaders To understand the differences that exist between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders, one must consider the cognitive framework that appears to shape each leader's method of influence. Charismatic leaders, for example, are defined by their focus on a future-oriented timeframe – a focus that is most often evidenced by their use of an emotionally evocative, future oriented vision. In fact, charismatics appear to use their vision to provide a sense of shared experience and shared future as they appeal to the masses (e.g., Conger and Kanungo, 1998 and Fiol et al., 1999). President John F. Kennedy provides an excellent communication sample that reveals his cognitive orientation in his unforgettable challenge to every citizen to “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”(Kennedy, 1961). In this instance, Kennedy demonstrates his (1) future-orientation, (2) influence over the masses (American citizens), and (3) identification of people's actions as critical change agents. In fact, an examination of the empirical literature provides additional evidence bearing on the charismatic leader's method of influence. For example, charismatic leaders tend to be unusually skilled at engaging others in the vision they are advocating and most often use emotional persuasion, eloquence, a focus on followers' personal needs, or a focus on followers’ social needs to appeal to followers (e.g., Deluga, 2001 and Mumford, 2006). 1.2. Ideological leaders Although similar in some ways (i.e., use vision-based leadership), ideologues make sense of situations using a very different cognitive framework (Strange & Mumford, 2002). In fact, an examination of ideological leaders indicates the ideologue's vision is based or founded on the past rather than the future. For example, ideological leaders develop emotionally evocative, 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 and Mumford, 2002 and Strange and Mumford, 2005;). Characteristically, ideologues rally follower support by actively rejecting situational causes of injustices. Accordingly, the ideologue's visionary appeal is often focused toward developing a base cadre of followers willing to make strong commitments to the cause. In fact, the ideologue's vision is often framed in terms of a mission that emphasizes the importance of shared values and is particularly dependent on groups that share and reinforce the vision he articulates. Thus, it is not surprising to find that ideologues are rigidly committed to beliefs, maintain tight group boundaries, and exhibit an oppositional character that makes it truly difficult to develop a relationship unless trust, loyalty, and attitudinal similarity have been demonstrated (Mumford, 2006). 1.3. Pragmatic leaders Pragmatic leaders, on the other hand, do not articulate a vision for their followers. Rather, pragmatic leaders focus on current issues and exert their influence through an in-depth understanding and sensitivity to the social system and the causal variables operating (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). Pragmatics are often considered to be functional problem solvers that consider both situations and people when examining a problem and need for solution (Mumford and Van Doorn, 2001 and Mumford, 2006). In addition, the pragmatic's method of influence is most often targeted toward elite individuals invested in the problem and the solution. In such situations, the pragmatic places a premium on performance and appeals to followers' functional needs through negotiation, an emphasis on shared outcomes, and respect for followers' unique concerns (Mumford, 2006). In fact, pragmatic leaders are notoriously skilled at using their expertise to devise actions that allow them to manipulate the current situation in a manner that brings about efficient practical solutions to the crisis at hand (Bedell-Avers et al., 2006). Despite the recent advances in understanding leadership and how leaders influence their followers, relatively little is known regarding how outstanding leaders influence each other (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2009-this issue). Specifically, we do not know 1) if charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can work together and 2) how charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders work together. Given the particular importance of such questions, especially when considering leaders who have the potential to influence national and worldwide developments, the intent of the present study was to examine the leader–leader exchange relationships of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. The above being stated, there exist a number of difficulties that hinder the study of outstanding leader–leader exchanges. First and foremost, the rarity of outstanding leadership and problems associated with gaining access to outstanding leaders makes it difficult to examine one leader, much less examine the interactions of multiple outstanding leaders (Simonton, 1994 and Simonton, 2003). Second, outstanding leaders do not necessarily arise at the same time. In fact, preliminary evidence indicates that leaders arise at different times depending on the degree of structure or chaos in the situation (Mumford, 2006). Third, different leader types arise in response to different issues. Specifically, outstanding leaders have a tendency to self-select into certain types of organizational environments (e.g., political, military, business) (Mumford, 2006). Accordingly, it is difficult to find different types of outstanding leaders that address the same types of issues. Thus, it seems, in order to circumvent the obstacles that hamper traditional studies of outstanding leadership and answer the questions of if and how charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders work together and interact, a non-normative strategy must be used. Accordingly, one such strategy was utilized in the present effort. Specifically, since outstanding leaders arise in times of crisis (Hunt et al., 1999), crises or significant issues in history were examined to identify leaders responding to the same issue at roughly the same time – an approach that enables the investigation of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders under similar environmental conditions and constraints. Using this strategy, a number of potential crises were identified (e.g., the Great Depression, World War II) and associated leaders were assessed for leader type and orientation using the criteria suggested by Mumford & colleagues (2006). For example, a leader was classified as charismatic if he/she, among other criteria, articulated a vision based on perceived social needs and the requirements for effective, future-oriented change. An ideologue was identified if he/she articulated a vision emphasizing commitment to strongly held personal beliefs. A pragmatic was identified if he/she focused on the solution to immediate social problems. In addition, the orientation of leaders was assessed to ensure the selection of leaders with a socialized orientation. Although leaders with a personalized orientation do exist and exert substantial influence, the personalized orientation appears to influences relationship development and communication strategies in charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders (Mumford, 2006). Thus, in the present effort, it seemed necessary to control for influences of leader orientation by only examining socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatics leaders. Accordingly, leaders classified as personalized (i.e., they framed action in terms of their own self-aggrandizement and sought to enhance their power regardless of the cost to followers, organizations, and societies) were not considered in the present study. Conversely, leaders classified as having a socialized orientation (i.e., they sought to enhance others and effect change to serve society) were chosen (House & Howell, 1992). Using these criteria for selection, the issue of African American civil rights was identified as one instance, a rare instance, in which a collection of socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders co-occur and respond to the same issue. See Table 2 for example behaviors used to classify the socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leader. 1.4. Leaders of the U.S. civil rights movement During this period of history in the United States of America, the era following emancipation in 1865 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there existed a substantial amount of racial conflict. For example, the newly emancipated African Americans were struggling for literacy, political empowerment, and civil equality in a society that was recovering from civil war. During this period of strife and chaos, three key leaders rose to power through their efforts to establish racial equality, Frederick Douglas – a charismatic leader, W.E.B. DuBois – an ideological leader, and Booker T. Washington – a pragmatic leader. Although each leader worked toward the same goal, equal rights for African Americans, they each approached the issue in a distinct manner indicative of their typology. Frederick Douglas, a charismatic leader, is considered to be one of the most powerful voices of the U.S. antislavery movement. Despite his humble beginnings as a slave in the early 19th century, Douglas became a self-made intellectual who led African Americans through both the civil war and reconstruction. His road to fame and influence began as an escaped slave who recognized slavery as a crisis, a crisis that was destroying his people and his nation and required action. Although many recognized the problems associated with slavery, Frederick Douglas was willing to suffer beatings and the risk of recapture for the chance to rally Americans to the “blood chilling horrors [of the] hellish work of negro persecution” (p. 36, Douglas, 1894). This courage in the face of adversity, coupled with powerful oratory skills and an ability to share his vision for a better future made Frederick Douglas a primary leader in the fight for liberation and equal rights. During the civil war, Douglas recruited African American slaves to fight for the Union, in the face of prejudicial treatment, with the promise of a better future – a future of freedom and equality (Martin, 1984). In the chaotic post war era, Douglas actively advocated literacy, political empowerment, and racial equality for all Americans. Throughout his life, Douglas worked toward achieving his vision of a better future – a nation founded upon “human brotherhood and the self-evident truths of liberty and equality”(p. 36, Martin, 1984). Although the preceding paragraph provides only a glimpse of Frederick Douglas, a number of noteworthy features indicate he is a charismatic leader. First, Douglas presents an emotionally evocative and passionate vision – an indicator that he is either a charismatic or an ideological leader. Second, further examination of the vision content reveals a focus on the future of the United States of America rather than the reinstatement of past glory – indicating that Frederick Douglas is best categorized as a charismatic leader. Third, Douglas focuses on the needs he shares with other slaves, namely freedom, equality, and respect. Fourth, his communications evidence an eloquent appeal to followers' emotions rather than on, for example, pragmatic problem-solving. Fifth, Douglas makes every effort to appeal to the masses (i.e., slaves and non-slaves throughout the North and South) despite the potential for personal harm. Sixth, Douglas's efforts to change the hearts and minds of Americans are indicative of his belief that people are fundamental to problem solution. In fact, his strategy indicates that Americans (as a people group) are the focal point for initiating change. W.E.B. Dubois, an ideological leader who rose to power as a free man in the early 1900s, is also considered to be one of the most influential leaders in the U.S. civil rights movement. Dubois is renowned as both a scholar and an activist. In fact, Dubois was the first African American man to graduate with a Ph.D. from Harvard University and is considered by many to be a father of the social sciences. Despite the developmental differences experienced by Dubois and Douglas, they both were committed to achieving the same objective – equal rights for African Americans. It is noteworthy, however, that they each interpreted and approached the problem in a distinctive manner consistent with their typology. Specifically, Dubois believed that racial prejudice and discrimination were rooted in African American ignorance. Thus, to overcome ignorance and instigate social change, Dubois proposed the higher education of a “Talented Tenth” (the most intelligent ten percent of the black race) who through their knowledge of modern culture could guide the African American into a higher civilization. He described the “Talented Tenth” as “men and women of knowledge and culture and technical skill who understand modern civilization … and have the training and aptitude to impart it to [those] under them” (p. 228, Dubois, The Talented Tenth). To achieve this vision, Dubois founded the “Niagara Movement” and later, the NAACP. As the spokesman for both organizations, Dubois critiqued all aspects of discrimination and demanded that white America accept black people on equal terms. At the same time, he challenged African Americans to take pride in their African heritage – a heritage of great spirituality and genius. Throughout his life, Dubois worked toward achieving his vision of a better future – a future in which the identity and integrity of the African race was restored and civil rights were assured. A cursory review of W.E.B. Dubois and his behaviors provides noteworthy evidence of his ideological leadership. First and foremost, Dubois presents a vision for the future. Although presentation of a vision is insufficient for conclusively classifying Dubois as an ideologue, careful examination of the vision content reveals that the vision is rooted in the past. Specifically, Dubois presents a vision based on the reinstatement or restoration of the African race to its past glory. Of course, this evidence serves as a particularly strong indication that Dubois is an ideologue. A number of other behaviors also indicate he is an ideological leader. For example, Dubois appeals to his followers by reminding them of their shared values and evoking emotions of pride and discontent. Moreover, Dubois primarily directs his appeals to a base cadre of individuals – individuals he refers to as the Talented Tenth. Booker T. Washington, a pragmatic leader, also played a critical role in the civil rights movement. Although Washington was born into slavery in the Deep South, he was emancipated in 1865. Following emancipation, Washington worked to pay his way through school and was ultimately recognized as the nation's foremost African American educator. Consistent with the objectives of both Douglas and Dubois, Washington was also committed to achieving equal rights for African Americans. That being said, he analyzed and approached the problem with a pragmatic strategy that is substantially different from that of Douglas and Dubois. Washington proposed a solution that would accommodate the needs of African Americans, as well as the North and the South. Specifically, Washington urged African Americans to accept social segregation and discrimination for the present and concentrate instead on elevating themselves through hard work and economic prosperity. In fact, Washington counseled African Americans to obtain a useful education, save money, work hard, and purchase property – a strategy he believed would “earn” African Americans full citizenship in American society. In exchange for black compliance, Washington called on white America to provide jobs and industrial education for African Americans. Although Washington's strategy was considered traitorous by some, his willingness to collaborate with White Americans undoubtedly improved the availability of educational institutions for African Americans – a necessary first step for academic development and civil rights attainment. That being said, Washington's conciliatory gestures should not be mistaken as forfeiture; rather his actions were strategically planned to achieve his ultimate goal, “full equality in all respects” (p. 91, Cox). As evidenced in the preceding paragraph, Booker T. Washington exhibits a number of behaviors that are markedly different from both charismatic and ideological leaders. Most noteworthy, is the lack of an emotionally evocative vision. In fact, he frames his response to the crisis in terms of problem-centered objectives for goal attainment. Although this evidence could be considered sufficient for classifying a leader as pragmatic, other behaviors confirm this classification. For example, Washington appeals to followers' logic and basic needs as he points out the functional benefits of his solution (e.g., education, monetary gain) to both White Americans and African Americans. Moreover, Washington responded to the crisis by examining both situational factors and people characteristics (i.e., the South was economically unstable and untrusting of African Americans and African Americans were unable to advance economically without a basic education) – an indicator of the pragmatic leader's causal focus on situations and people. See Table 2 for a more complete list of behavioral differences observed among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. 1.5. Interactions Although increasing effort has been devoted to the study of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership, little is known regarding the interactions that occur among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Simply put, we do not know what form of interaction should be expected when charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders respond to the same crisis. That being said, it seems reasonable to assume that different leader types will react and respond to each other in a manner that is consistent with their sensemaking strategy. Thus, depending on the type of leader–leader exchange (e.g., ideologue-pragmatic), differences in sensemaking may lead to exchanges characterized by miscommunication and increased levels of conflict. Conversely, it is also possible that differences in sensemaking may lead to an enhanced collaboration in which each leader capitalizes on and/or compensates for the other leader's strengths and weaknesses. For instance, one may expect ideologues to have the greatest difficulty engaging in collaborative exchanges with other leaders, especially pragmatics. In fact, the ideologue's tight group boundaries, oppositional character, and rigid commitment to a set of beliefs and values often results in an unwillingness to consider alternative strategies for vision achievement (Mumford, Scott, & Hunter, 2006). Thus, the ideologue may experience a particularly volatile exchange with a pragmatic that advocates an adaptive problem-solving strategy and is willing to sacrifice ideological principles to achieve an objective (Bedell et al., 2006). That being said, conflict may be avoided and collaboration established with leaders who share the ideologue's trust, loyalty, and values (Mumford et al., 2006). Alternatively, a charismatic should respond to both ideologues and pragmatics in a manner that facilitates collaboration. Specifically, a charismatic does not maintain the same rigidity characterizing ideologues and is willing to have mutual influence, high levels of contact and participation (Dansereau et al., 1975 and Graen and Cashman, 1975) – a combination of characteristics that make them open to collaboration on projects. Given these cognitive and behavioral differences, it seems reasonable to assume that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will have different types of exchange relationships. In fact, at the most basic level, the three leader types will differentially perceive each other. Hypothesis 1: The interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will be differentially characterized by various levels of liking, hostility, and perceived contribution to the cause. Although leader perceptions of other leaders are a fundamental characteristic of leader–leader exchanges, it is also important to understand how leaders respond to an approach introduced by other leaders. For instance, a leader may use another leader's approach as a building block for his own approach. Alternatively, a leader may denigrate another leader's approach and demand radical change. Pragmatic leaders, in particular, will analyze the approaches of other leaders using a functional problem-solving approach – an approach that will look for the best solution to accommodate current needs (Hunter et al., 2009-this issue and Mumford and Van Doorn, 2001). The pragmatic will determine points on which they agree/disagree, areas that need to be changed, issues he is willing to negotiate, etc. (Mumford, 2006). In addition, a pragmatic will defend his strategy in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. An ideologue, in contrast, will note minimal acceptance of existing strategies and espouse the wrongness of existing views (Mumford et al., 2007). He will react particularly strongly to strategies that oppose his ideological beliefs. In contrast, a charismatic will identify areas in need of change and seek to develop a degree of mutual influence. In fact, a charismatic will most often utilize coalition tactics to develop alliances and further his vision for a better future. Thus, the approach used by charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders seems to be influenced by their exchange relationship with other leaders – an exchange that can differentially involve support or denigration. Hypothesis 2: The interactions of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will be characterized by different responses to the approach of another leader. Specifically, leaders will differentially support or denigrate the approaches of other leaders. Additionally, given the differences in sensemaking, it seems reasonable to assume that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will have different reasons for supporting or denigrating the approach of another leader. For example, an ideologue may denigrate the approach of either a pragmatic or charismatic leader if their strategy is morally inconsistent with his/her principles (Mumford et al., 2007). A pragmatic, in contrast, will support or denigrate another leader's approach if it is useful for achieving his/her functional objectives (Bedell et al., 2006). A charismatic will most likely be supportive of another leader's approach if it is consistent with his/her vision for the future (Conger, 1999). Thus, it appears that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders may respond to other leaders in a similar manner, but for varying reasons that are consistent with their mental models. Hypothesis 3: Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders will respond to other leaders for varying reasons that are consistent with their mental models. See Table 3 for more explicit predictions regarding expected differences among charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders on each of the aforementioned hypotheses.

4.1. Limitations Before turning to the broader implications of the present effort, certain methodological and conceptual limitations should be noted. First and foremost, it should be noted that the present study was not based on the direct observation of leaders as they interacted with followers. Instead, self-reports or academic accounts of the exchange occurrence were used to make assessments regarding leader–leader interactions. Although this historiometric approach is commonly applied in studies of high-level leaders, (e.g., Deluga, 2001, Fiol et al., 1999 and Mumford, 2006) two notable potential biases when examining leader–leader interactions must be noted: 1) the use of self-report and academic texts may result in a bias towards the inclusion of more observable, public exchanges, and 2) the use of biographical material introduces the possibility of author bias. In an effort to control for these transactional biases, publicity and author bias were used as controls in the present study. Second, the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders used in this study were systematically selected according to leader type, orientation, issue, location, and time in history. Specifically, Frederick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, and Booker T. Washington were selected because they represented a rare occurrence in history in which socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders responded to the same crisis situation (i.e., civil inequality for African Americans), were co-located in the same region of the world, and were “in power” at the same time. Although strategically sampling in this manner enables researcher control of leader orientation, the crisis issue, environmental conditions, and timing; the fact remains that it also reduces the generalizability of findings to other conditions. Third, the present study's emphasis on the exchanges of socialized charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders results in findings that do not speak to the exchanges that occur between leaders with 1) differing orientations and types (e.g., personalized-charismatic and socialized-ideologue) (House and Howell, 1992, Mumford, 2006 and O'Connor et al., 1995), 2) alternative forms of leadership (e.g., charismatic–ideologue, charismatic–pragmatic) (Strange & Mumford, 2002), or 3) same type leaders (e.g., pragmatic–pragmatic). Fourth, despite the large sample of leader–leader interactions, the present study should primarily be used as an exploratory and qualitative examination of high-level exchanges between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders – a notably rare event. In other words, the limited sampling strategy utilized in the current study, although necessary, should be noted and generalizations made cautiously (e.g., Bryman et al., 1996, Deluga, 2001, Simonton, 1984, Simonton, 1986, Simonton, 1999, Mumford, 2006 and Mumford and Van Doorn, 2001;). Fifth, and finally, the statistical approaches applied (i.e., MANCOVAs) should be interpreted with care due to certain violations of assumptions, namely independence. Of course, the results are particularly useful for interpreting basic 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 some noteworthy implications for understanding the leader–leader exchanges of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Most generally, the results indicate that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can and do work together, albeit, in notably different ways. In particular, results reveal that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders interact with varying frequency and intensity. Pragmatic and ideological leaders, for example, have more frequent and volatile interactions with each other than with charismatic leaders. In fact, a closer examination of the interactions reveals that the Dubois–Douglas and Washington–Douglas interactions most often involve an exchange of respect or deference while the Washington–Dubois interactions are most often characterized by hostility or volatility. Thus, at the most general level, the results seem to support the expectation that pragmatic and ideological leaders will not only espouse the most divergent approaches, they will experience greater conflict because of the fundamental differences in their approach. In addition, the strategic flexibility of charismatic leaders appears to be quite useful in both their interactions with pragmatic and ideological leaders (Harvey, 2001). The MANCOVA results provide additional support for the aforementioned findings. Specifically, the results indicate that the exchanges of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders have differential characteristics – characteristics largely guided by the leader's mental model and method of influence. In general, charismatic leaders are considered to facilitate collaboration and “get along” with others as they work toward their future oriented vision (Dansereau et al., 1975 and Graen and Cashman, 1975). In the present study, the charismatic leader demonstrates an unusual ability for identifying the needs of others (e.g., Conger and Kanungo, 1998 and Fiol et al., 1999) and effectively using coalition tactics to develop alliances with leaders working toward the same end objective (Mumford, 2006). In fact, the charismatic leader appears to provide support to ideological and pragmatic leaders in a manner that is both consistent with his mental model and sensitive to the other leader's mental model. The results reveal that Frederick Douglas, a charismatic leader, is differentially supportive of both ideological and pragmatic leaders if they are working towards the same goal. For example, in his exchanges with W.E.B. Dubois, Douglas makes every effort to develop a collaborative trust relationship by focusing on the strengths of Dubois' vision and emphasizing the positive aspects of his approach – an intuitive strategy given the ideologue's oppositional character and tight group boundaries. In Douglas' exchanges with Booker T. Washington, however, a very different pattern of support can be observed. In fact, Douglas appears to recognize the pragmatic's receptiveness to feedback and willingness to exchange ideas to solve the problem when he initiates interactions with Washington. In particular, Douglas demonstrates his support for Washington while identifying points of disagreement and providing feedback – an intuitive strategy for dealing with pragmatic leaders that are interested in resolving issue-related problems. In interactions with both leaders, however, it should be noted that Douglas does not use emotionally evocative appeals – a finding that suggests it is an ineffective strategy for developing alliances with ideological and pragmatic leaders. Rather, an emphasis on collaboration and working towards the same goal seems to be most useful for the charismatic. Ideological leaders most often maintain strong group boundaries, demonstrate an oppositional character, and maintain a rigid commitment to their beliefs and values in a manner that precludes their acceptance of alternative leadership strategies (Mumford, 2006, Mumford et al., 2007 and Bedell-Avers et al., 2006). Accordingly, W.E.B. Dubois, the ideological leader, evidences a more consistent and straightforward set of interactions with high-level leaders that seem to be grounded in his extant beliefs and values. In fact, he clearly outlines points of disagreement and either minimally accepts or openly denigrates alternative approaches. In particular, the results reveal a degree of general support for Douglas and his efforts to achieve equal rights for African Americans. However, Dubois remains unwilling to firmly commit support to Douglas – a reserve that evidences the difficulty other leaders face in overcoming the mistrust an ideological leader has for leaders who do not explicitly share his values and the vision he articulates. In Dubois' exchanges with Booker T. Washington, a much more volatile pattern of denigration can be observed. Specifically, Dubois demonstrates his unwillingness to consider a strategy that involves the temporary sacrifice of his beliefs – even if it will result in the faster attainment of end goals. To the ideologue, the end does not justify the means (Bedell et al., 2006) and in his interactions with Washington, Dubois makes it clear that the pragmatic's compromising strategy is the “wrong” approach. That said, the results seem to indicate that Dubois' uses an influence strategy with charismatic and ideological leaders that is very similar to his method of influencing followers. Specifically, Dubois appeals to charismatic and pragmatic leaders using his beliefs and values – an approach that is not conducive to developing alliances or improving collaboration with leaders who fail to share his beliefs. Although this strategy is evidence of the ideologue's strong commitment, it seems to indicate that the development of alliances with other leaders will be much more dependent on the efforts of either charismatic or pragmatic leaders. Pragmatic leaders tend to be functional problem-solvers with a present oriented focus. In addition, pragmatic leaders place an emphasis on performance and appeal to followers' functional needs (Mumford, 2006 and Mumford and Van Doorn, 2001). In the present study, Booker T. Washington, the pragmatic leader, differentially supports and denigrates other leaders' approaches in a manner that is consistent with his functional, problem-solving approach. In other words, he emphasizes the strengths in approaches that he supports and emphasizes the weaknesses in approaches that he does not support. Moreover, it appears as if he responds to other approaches in a way that most appeals to public opinion and shows respect for follower concerns (Mumford, 2006). This pattern of selective support or denigration of other's approaches is most evident in his differential interactions with Frederick Douglas and W.E.B. Dubois. In his exchanges with Frederick Douglas, considered by some to be the founder of the civil rights movement, Washington maintains a high level of respect and to some degree deference. For example, Washington minimally focuses on the rightness or wrongness of principles and emphasizes the strengths of Douglas' approach. Thus, despite their differences in strategies, Washington recognizes the power Douglas wields and demonstrates a remarkably perceptive understanding of follower support with his deference. However, Washington does not exhibit the same degree of respect or deference when interacting with W.E.B. Dubois. In fact, in his exchanges with Dubois, Washington seems to emphasize the differences between their approaches – perhaps to appeal to followers with the immediate functionality of his approach (i.e., jobs and education right now). Regardless of the intent, Washington makes it apparent that he does not support Dubois' approach. Specifically, he disagrees with Dubois over the cause of civil inequality and the solution to the problem. Moreover, he identifies the weaknesses in Dubois' approach and focuses on the wrongness of his principles. Thus it seems as if Washington selectively supports or denigrates the approaches of charismatic and ideological leaders in a manner that will both enhance his functional appeal and improve follower support – a strategy that seems to capitalize on the strengths of Frederick Douglas and the weaknesses of W.E.B. Dubois in the present case. 4.3. Implications In summary, this study targeted an unexplored and important domain of research, namely the interactions and exchanges that occur between charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders responding to the same crisis. As such, the investigation provides a preliminary understanding of how high-level leaders with different mental models interact and provides a foundation on which to develop future research. First, the data demonstrates that charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders can and do work together when responding to the same crisis. That said, it is equally apparent that leaders can work against each other when responding to the same crisis. Second, the pattern of results clarifies the interactional strategies employed by charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. In fact, the findings indicate that each leader type employs an interactional strategy that is consistent with his/her mental model. Moreover, the results appear to indicate that interactions with other high-level leaders involve a hybrid application of Leader–Member Exchange tactics (i.e., methods leaders use to develop relationships with followers) and political tactics ( Basu and Green, 1997 and Deluga, 2001). In other words, charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders do not interact with leaders in exactly the same way they interact with followers. Rather, they appear to utilize their Leader–Member Exchange strengths (e.g., awareness of follower's personal needs) and pair them with their political tactics (e.g., coalition building). Although these findings evidence progress, more work needs to be done. Future research should capitalize on the current findings and further examine the influence tactics high-level leaders use when interacting with each other. For example, despite the large number of interactions used in the present study, there were an insufficient number of direct and indirect interactions to analyze them separately. Thus future examinations of direct and indirect leader–leader interactions would be of interest. In addition, given the present focus on socialized leaders, future research investigating the influence of a personalized leader on leader–leader exchanges (e.g., Marcus Garvey) may provide additional information regarding high-level leader–leader interactions. Although follow-up studies to the present effort appear to be somewhat difficult given the rarity of occurrence issue, another avenue of research could be to examine the high-level exchanges that occur between leaders using the same mental model (i.e., ideological–ideological) and responding to the same crisis. In sum, the results of the present effort have demonstrated unique differences among the three leader types. Although these leaders all responded to the same crisis, during the same time period, and in the same environmental region, it is evident by their exchange relationships that they utilize very different mental models. In fact, how they interact with other high-level leaders seems to be highly dependent on their interpretive mental model. Charismatic and pragmatic leaders, for example, appear to capitalize on the strengths and weaknesses of other leaders in a manner that better serves their goals. Ideological leaders, in contrast, remain loyal to their beliefs and values and appear to be unfaltering in their vision commitment – despite the best efforts of both charismatic and pragmatic leaders.