Resources

Summary of 24 Propositions of Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership

Proposition 1. At the individual level, the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders will be more strongly influenced by expertise and cognitive skills than charismatic and ideological leaders, and will, vis-à-vis expertise requirements, evidence greater domain specificity.

Proposition 2. At the individual level, social skills will exert a stronger influence on the emergence and performance of charismatic and ideological leaders than pragmatic leaders.

Proposition 3. At the individual level, the emergence and performance of charismatic and ideological leaders will require low psychological distance and high contact between leaders and followers, whereas the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders will require high psychological distance and more limited contact with followers.

Proposition 4. At the individual level, charismatic and ideological leaders will emerge in vulnerable populations, whereas pragmatic leaders will emerge in autonomous, high-achieving populations.

Proposition 5. At the individual level, the performance of charismatic and ideological leaders will depend on the quality of the prescriptive mental model underlying the vision being articulated, whereas the performance of pragmatic leaders will depend on the skills and capabilities of the followers they recruit as much as the prescriptive mental model of the leader.

Proposition 6. At the individual level, charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge and perform effectively when the pursuit of opportunities is crucial, whereas ideological leaders are more likely to emerge and perform effectively when the removal of threats is crucial.

Proposition 7. At the individual level, self-sacrifice and sustained personal commitment to a vision will be more important to the emergence and performance of ideological leaders than charismatic and pragmatic leaders.

Proposition 8. At the group level, ideological leaders will emerge under conditions where trust is low; however, the performance of ideological leaders will require high levels of interpersonal trust in the leader.

Proposition 9. At the group level, the emergence and performance of charismatic leaders will depend on high levels of trust.

Proposition 10. At the group level, perceptions of process, procedural, and distributive justice will prove more important to the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders than interpersonal trust.

Proposition 11. At the group level, the emergence and performance of ideological leaders will depend on high levels of group cohesion.

Proposition 12. At the group level, the emergence of charismatic leaders will be linked to low levels of cohesion, whereas the performance of charismatic leaders will depend on the leader creating high levels of cohesion.

Proposition 13. At the group level, the emergence of pragmatic leaders will depend on some minimal level of cohesion, whereas the performance of pragmatic leaders will not depend on high levels of cohesion.

Proposition 14. At the group level, high levels of interdependence will contribute to the emergence and performance of charismatic and ideological leaders, whereas low levels of interdependence will contribute to the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders.

Proposition 15. At the group level, the emergence and performance of ideological but not charismatic leaders will be influenced by shared leadership.

Proposition 16. At the organizational level, emergence and performance will vary as a function of the amount of chaos in organizational operations, with pragmatic leaders emerging and performing well in stable settings, charismatic leaders emerging and performing well in ordered settings, and ideological leaders emerging and performing well in highly chaotic settings.

Proposition 17. At the organizational level, organizational complexity will facilitate the emergence and performance of pragmatic and charismatic leaders but not ideological leaders.

Proposition 18. At the organizational level, professionalism will facilitate the emergence and performance of pragmatic leaders and inhibit the emergence and performance of charismatic and ideological leaders.

Proposition 19. At the organizational level, charismatic and ideological leaders will emerge and prove more effective in organizations evidencing high levels of political conflict, whereas pragmatic leaders will emerge and prove more effective in organizations evidencing low levels of political conflict.

Proposition 20. At the organizational level, a strong organizational culture will promote the emergence and performance of ideological leaders and inhibit the emergence and performance of charismatic leaders advocating culturally inconsistent visions.

Proposition 21. At the environmental level, the emergence of ideological leaders will be facilitated by collectivist cultures, whereas the emergence of charismatic and pragmatic leaders will be facilitated by individualistic cultures.

Proposition 22. At the environmental level, social disruption and the failure of extant institutions will promote the emergence of ideological leaders.

Proposition 23. At the environmental level, conditions of social and technological change will contribute to the emergence and performance of charismatic leaders.

Proposition 24. At the environmental level, when institutions are subject to viable elite control, pragmatic leaders will emerge and perform effectively under conditions of goal consensus, whereas charismatic leaders will emerge and perform effectively under conditions of goal conflict.

Reference

Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., & Friedrich, T. L. (2008). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 144-160.