American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance☆
Introduction
American presidential leadership is fundamentally a relational process (Neustadt, 1960) where decisions have considerable consequences for entire societies. Extensive research clearly demonstrates the centrality of leadership ability in assessments of presidential greatness (Kenney & Rice, 1988). In addition, widespread media and public scrutiny of the presidency establish leadership qualities as important determinants for presidential performance (Foti, Fraser, & Lord, 1982). Accordingly, it is not surprising that the presidency is an office where the incumbent's psychological make-up greatly influences choices, discretionary activity (Renshon, 1998), and ultimately leadership effectiveness. In this respect, one research domain illuminating presidential leadership and personality is charismatic leadership. Charismatic leaders possess a magnetic personality and engage in expressive behaviors with the intent of creating an image of competence and effectiveness Gardner & Avolio, 1998, House, 1995. Charismatic leaders are able to evoke strong follower commitment to their vision and performance exceeding expectations Bass, 1985, Yukl, 1998. However, we know very little concerning how these impressive results are achieved Fiol et al., 1999, Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999.
With regard to presidential leadership, Simonton (1988) demonstrated that presidential charisma was positively associated with a wide range of historical measures gauging presidential greatness. Also, Deluga, 1997, Deluga, 1998 reported that narcissism and proactivity were connected with presidential charismatic leadership and performance. Next, House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) concluded that presidential personality and charisma were important factors in performance. Nevertheless, because of the impact of their actions, much more needs to be known regarding charismatic leadership and personality in the American presidency.
Consequently, given the idea presidential personality characteristics strongly influence decision-making (Renshon, 1998) and may predict charismatic leadership House, 1977, House & Howell, 1992, Post, 1993, it seems worthwhile to continue examining presidential personality. Accordingly, the personality trait of interest in this study was presidential Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism is a social influence process embracing the use of politics, power, and expressive behaviors (Christie & Geis, 1970a). Machiavellianism was selected because earlier work argued that Machiavellian behavior may be associated with charismatic leadership (House & Howell, 1992) and success in promoting personal interests (Christie & Geis, 1970a). For instance, charismatic leaders and Machiavellians employ interactional expressive behaviors and emotional regulation targeted toward influencing others Gardner & Avolio, 1995, Gardner & Avolio, 1998. Likewise, both manifest confidence and conviction, even when experiencing inner doubt (House, 1977).
Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to empirically address the following research question. Is American presidential Machiavellianism related to charismatic leadership and rated performance? In 2 Machiavellianism, 3 Charismatic leadership, Machiavellianism and charismatic leadership are reviewed. Then, a historiometric study empirically examining the relationships among presidential Machiavellianism, charismatic leadership, and rated performance is described.
Section snippets
Machiavellianism
The pursuit and skillful use of power and influence have been viewed as fundamental for effective leadership by a wide range of observers Bass, 1990, Yukl, 1998. Here, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) holds a prominent position in modern political thought and theory Fleisher, 1972, Mansfield, 1996. For example, in his classic treatises The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli (1513/1966) provided political advice for leaders. He advocated an extreme prescription for acquiring and maintaining
Charismatic leadership
The sociologist Weber (1924/1947) first described the charismatic leader in terms of five components: the leader had extraordinary gifts, a social crisis situation, radical solutions to the crisis, loyal followers attracted to the leader's transcendent powers, and confirmation of the giftedness through repeated successes (Trice & Beyer, 1986). More recently, charismatic leadership has been the focus of considerable conceptual and empirical research Bass, 1998, Yukl, 1998.1
Summary and hypotheses
The above review has focused on several important and related ideas. First, American presidential leadership is a relational process (Neustadt, 1960) where the officeholder is constantly confronted with voluminous high-pressure situations characterized by ambiguity and inconsistent information. Thus, presidential acumen in decision-making and persuading others can have vast implications for societies.
Similarly, charismatic leadership also is rooted in a relational process featuring the
Method
Archival sources were exploited for four control variables, two measures of close charismatic leadership, two measures of distant charismatic leadership, and two measures of presidential rated performance. The presidential Machiavellianism data were created for this investigation using historiometric methods. Historiometry examines biographical materials of prominent people by employing quantitative assessment without former theoretical commitment. As used in this study, historiometry includes
Machiavellianism scores
Presidential Machiavellianism scores were calculated by summing the 20 relevant items, adding a constant of 20, then averaging the sums across the three raters. Ten items required reverse scoring. Higher scores indicate greater levels of Machiavellianism. The estimated Cronbach's α coefficient was α=.85. The data demonstrated strong convergent validity as they were significantly correlated with Simonton's (1986) Machiavellianism scores (r=.66, P<.0001). Simonton's data were developed using a
Discussion
A review of the findings and possible implications will be addressed first. Then, a consideration of the study's strengths and weaknesses will follow. The discussion will conclude with several suggestions for future research.
First, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed as presidential Machiavellianism emerged as positively connected with close and distant charismatic leadership. As such, the findings sustain the idea that presidential charismatic leadership and Machiavellianism may have several similar
References (115)
- et al.
Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance
The Leadership Quarterly
(1999) On the taming of charisma: a reply to Janice Beyer
The Leadership Quarterly
(1999)- et al.
Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior
The Leadership Quarterly
(1999) Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations
The Leadership Quarterly
(1999)Two approaches to studying charismatic leadership: competing or complementary?
The Leadership Quarterly
(1999)Scale construction
- et al.
The ten dollar game
Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider's perspective on these developing streams of research
The Leadership Quarterly
(1999)American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance
The Leadership Quarterly
(1998)- et al.
Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are the attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?
The Leadership Quarterly
(1999)
Charismatic leadership: strategies for effecting social change
The Leadership Quarterly
In search of the Machiavel
Weber and the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm: a response to Beyer
The Leadership Quarterly
Personality and charismatic leadership
The Leadership Quarterly
Effects of cognitive heuristics and goals on negotiator performance and subsequent goal setting
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
On fire: charismatic leadership and levels of analysis
The Leadership Quarterly
Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: an historiometric study
The Leadership Quarterly
Analyzing the psychology and performance of presidential candidates at a distance: Bob Dole and the 1996 presidential campaign
The Leadership Quarterly
Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study
The Leadership Quarterly
Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness: a response to Beyer
The Leadership Quarterly
Self-concept based aspects of the charismatic leader: more than meets the eye
The Leadership Quarterly
Political creativity
The leaderless group discussion
Psychological Bulletin
Leadership and performance beyond expectations
Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership
Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership
Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?
American Psychologist
Transformational leadership: industrial, military, and educational impact
Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership
Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world-class level
Journal of Management
The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure and correlates
Journal of Organizational Behavior
A computer-assisted analysis of small group process: an investigation of two Machiavellian groups
Small Group Behavior
Charisma and leadership in organizations
Leadership
Studies in Machiavellianism
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences
Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
Academy of Management Review
Behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership
Charismatic leadership in organizations
The complete book of U.S. presidents
Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance
The Leadership Quarterly
Telling lies
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes
Journal of Applied Psychology
Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Organizational Research Methods
The construct of Machiavellianism: twenty years later
Machiavelli and the nature of political thought
Effects of leadership labels and prototypes on perceptions of political leaders
Journal of Applied Psychology
The charismatic leadership relationship: a dramaturgical perspective
Academy of Management Review
Cited by (165)
No access? No problem! Taking stock of unobtrusive measures for executives’ deep-level characteristics
2024, Leadership QuarterlyA study of trickle-down effects of leader Machiavellianism on follower unethical behaviour: A social learning perspective
2023, Personality and Individual DifferencesTransformational and narcissist leaders: Their different behaviors in different contexts
2022, Personality and Individual DifferencesBeautiful victims: How the halo of attractiveness impacts judgments of celebrity and lay victims of online abuse
2022, Computers in Human BehaviorSelf-presentation of the US presidential candidates in 2016 and 2020
2024, Language and DialogueLeadership Effectiveness in Public Administration Remote Workers
2024, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems
- ☆
An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association.