Elsevier

The Leadership Quarterly

Volume 22, Issue 1, February 2011, Pages 70-91
The Leadership Quarterly

First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership model

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008Get rights and content

Abstract

Emerging from the early work of Weber (1924), the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership (Mumford, 2006) has enjoyed a recent surge in research attention. According to the model, the three leader types differ in a number of fundamental ways — differences largely tied to how the leaders provide sensemaking to followers. Although these differences are central to the model, these components have yet to be examined directly. As such, the aim of this study was to explicitly test the core tenants of the CIP model. Using a historiometric sample of college and NFL football coaches we found general support for specific predictions made by the model and in the aggregate, the model as a whole. We also examined the unique patterns and features that were used to distinguish among the leader types providing useful insight into how leaders may be categorized. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Section snippets

History of the CIP model

Max Weber is well known for his impact on modern day perspectives of management, shaping many of our current views on bureaucracy and organizational functioning (Adair-Toteff, 2005, Miller, 1963, Weiss, 1983). One of his more notable contributions included propositions about differing styles or approaches to leadership which he referred to as the three types of management authority (Weber, 1924). The first was termed “traditional” and included leaders who emphasized a strong focus on the past.

Charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leadership: defining the CIP model

As a result of observations such as those noted above, Mumford (2006) and colleagues (e.g., Bedell-Avers, Hunter, & Mumford, 2009) returned to, and expanded on, Weber's (1924) original classification by conducting a series of studies extensively examining this tri-style leadership perspective comprised of charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders or more simply termed the CIP model of leadership. We will now explore this model, its core tenets, the results of the studies examining it, and

Early studies

To date, there has been a reasonably strong collection of studies investigating the CIP model — a number approaching 15 empirical efforts. We should note that in this review of previous research we will focus only on those studies that have expressly examined the CIP model and not on those studies that are congruent with the model (e.g., Collins, 2001, Pasternack and O'Toole, 2002, Pasternack et al., 2001, Tsui et al., 2006, Weber, 1924). As mentioned earlier, one of the earliest studies

The CIP model and domain

Careful consideration of the previous studies examining the CIP model also reveals a trend that is both valuable and in some ways, problematic. Specifically, historical leaders were chosen from a wide variety of domains including political, business, military, and social justice. The use of domain breadth in sample selection is beneficial in that it allows for some degree of external validity — that is, the results can be reasonably generalized to multiple domains due to the broad sampling of

Sample

The historiometric sample used in the study was comprised of championship winning NFL and college head football coaches. Although the subordinates may differ somewhat from college to professional ranks, the general leadership tasks associated with coaching at the two levels are roughly equivalent — albeit with some notable differences (e.g., slight rule changes, increases in pay). This relative comparability is evidenced by several coaches who have made the transition from college to

Results

Descriptive results including means, standard deviations and correlations are presented in Table 3. The results of the MANCOVA are presented in Table 4. With regard to control variables, all covariates were entered simultaneously and assessed for their applicability to the analyses. To maximize degrees of freedom (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), only those covariates significant at p < .20 were retained in final multivariate and univariate analyses, resulting in three retained control variables:

Discussion

Before turning to the broader implications of the study, it is important to bear in mind a few limitations. The first is the somewhat small sample size of football coaches used in the study, which may be viewed as limiting the capacity to observe predicted effects affiliated with the model. Although we concede that the sample size is not overwhelming, we do feel justified with the sample size given that the hypothesized differences examined in this study were the fundamental tenants of the CIP

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Brandon Vessey, Pamela Batson, Natalia Ayub, and Zachary Slaybaugh for their efforts on the project. We would also like to thank Dr. Michael Mumford along with the three anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and help in improving the manuscript.

References (71)

  • J.G. Hunt et al.

    Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors

    Leadership Quarterly

    (1995)
  • J.G. Hunt et al.

    The effects of visionary and crisis responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership

    Leadership Quarterly

    (1999)
  • S.T. Hunter et al.

    The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (2007)
  • S.T. Hunter et al.

    Impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leaders: Investigation using a computer simulation

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (2009)
  • T. Keller

    Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories

    Leadership Quarterly

    (2003)
  • G.S. Ligon et al.

    Development of outstanding leadership: A life narrative approach

    Leadership Quarterly

    (2008)
  • K.B. Lowe et al.

    Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future

    Leadership Quarterly

    (2000)
  • K.B. Lowe et al.

    Effectiveness correlates of transformation and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (1996)
  • J.R. McColl-Kennedy et al.

    Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (2002)
  • M.D. Mumford et al.

    Charismatic, ideological and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (2008)
  • M.D. Mumford et al.

    The leadership of pragmatism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (2001)
  • R. Pillai et al.

    Context and charisma: A “meso” level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership

    Journal of Management

    (1998)
  • J.M. Strange et al.

    The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership

    The Leadership Quarterly

    (2002)
  • A.S. Tsui et al.

    Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behavior and organizational culture

    Leadership Quarterly

    (2006)
  • G. Yukl

    An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories

    Leadership Quarterly

    (1999)
  • C. Adair-Toteff

    Max Weber's charisma

    Journal of Classical Sociology

    (2005)
  • B.J. Avolio

    Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations

    (1999)
  • S.D. Baker

    Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct

    Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

    (2007)
  • B.M. Bass et al.

    Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership

    (1994)
  • K.E. Bedell et al.

    A historiometric examination of Machiavellianism and a new taxonomy of leadership

    Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies

    (2006)
  • J.M. Burns

    Leadership

    (1978)
  • W. Chan

    Analyzing ipsative data in psychological research

    Behaviormetrika

    (2003)
  • D. Charbonneau et al.

    Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation

    Journal of Applied Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • P. Chellandurai et al.

    Leadership

  • J.H. Clarke

    Malcolm X: The man and his times

    (1990)
  • Cited by (47)

    • CIP leadership theory and creativity: The benefits of aligning leader cognition with context

      2023, Handbook of Organizational Creativity: Leadership, Interventions, and Macro Level Issues, Second Edition
    • Inclusion is not a slam dunk: A study of differential leadership outcomes in the absence of a glass cliff

      2019, Leadership Quarterly
      Citation Excerpt :

      The parallel growth of professional athletics, sports media and the internet has created an environment where accurate unique individual performance data are readily available for analysis. Prior leadership research (e.g. Giambatista, 2004; Goodall & Pogrebna, 2015; Hunter, Cushenbery, Thoroughgood, Johnson, & Ligon, 2011) has utilized data from athletic organizations because of the important role that leaders play within such contexts. Additionally, this context is appropriate for studying factors that influence employment separations as there is a relatively high employment separation rate for head coaches in the NBA, providing the variability necessary in our dependent variable in order to detect an effect.

    • Charismatic, ideological, &amp; pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership: A critical review and agenda for future research

      2019, Leadership Quarterly
      Citation Excerpt :

      The CIP model embraces a complex approach to understanding effective leadership that is conceptually sound, clear in its causal processes, and supported by a growing body of empirical research. However, the model's broader influence remains limited (Hunter et al., 2011; Lovelace et al., 2017). As such, we turn our attention to critically analyzing the strengths and limitations of the CIP model to identify 1) how the use of a CIP perspective addresses many of the prominent concerns in the leadership domain 2) what factors may be hampering the wider proliferation of the CIP model and 3) how the model may continue to evolve in the future.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text