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


The leadership of pragmatism

Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma

Michael D. Mumford*, Judy R. Van Doorn

Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, 455 West Lindsey Street, Room 470, Normal, OK 73019, USA

Abstract

In recent years, our quest to understand outstanding leadership has focused on the characteristics of

charismatic or transformational leaders. In this article, however, we will argue that outstanding

leadership need not always involve charisma but may instead be based on a functional, problem-

centered approach we refer to as a pragmatic leadership strategy. Initially, certain key propositions

pertaining to the nature of pragmatic leadership are described. Subsequently, these propositions are

evaluated with respect to 10 cases of noteworthy leadership evidenced by Benjamin Franklin. It is

argued that pragmatic leaders, such as Franklin, exercise influence by identifying and communicating

solutions to significant social problems, working through elites in solution generation, creating

structures to support solution implementation, and demonstrating the feasibility of these solutions. The

conditions under which this pragmatic approach can effectively be applied are discussed and

contrasted with current views of the conditions calling for charismatic, transformational, and

transactional leadership. D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Scholars have long debated exactly what makes exceptional, outstanding leadership

possible. What allowed Julius Caesar, George Washington, and Joan of Arc to exercise such

profound influence on their contemporaries? Beginning with Weber’s (1947) examination of

notable historic leaders, students of leadership have examined the merits of using the concept of

charisma (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1987, 1994; House, 1995; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993),

or the closely related, albeit broader, concept of transformational leadership (e.g., Avolio,

1048-9843/01/$ – see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

PII: S1048-9843(01)00080-7

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-405-325-5583; fax: +1-405-325-4737.

E-mail address: mmumford@ou.edu (M.D. Mumford).

The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 279–309



Howell, & Sosik, 1999; Bass, 1997; Burns, 1978) to account for these incidents of outstanding

leadership. In fact, the evidence compiled by Howell and Avolio (1993), Lowe, Koreck, and

Sivasubramaniam (1996), and Yorges, Weiss, and Strickland (1999) among others indicate that

charismatic and transformational leadership can indeed account for many incidents of

exceptional leadership.

Charismatic and transformational leaders provide followers with a motivating sense of

identity by presenting and articulating a vision (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). In

contrast to this rather romantic view of leadership (Abra, 1994), one might propose a more

rationalistic, or functional, view. In other words, one might ask whether exceptional

leadership can be based on an appeal to ‘‘interest’’ in the common good rather than an

appeal to identity. To explore the nature of this functional approach to leadership, we will, in

the present article, examine 10 cases drawn from a noted historic leader. More specifically, we

will examine the leadership strategies used by Benjamin Franklin whose apparent disdain for

charisma is aptly summarized by his comment in the 1754 Poor Richard’s Almanac: ‘‘In the

affairs of this world men are saved not by faith but by want of it’’ (Franklin, 1754).

2. Charismatic and transformational leadership

Before proceeding to our propositions with regard to this alternative style of outstanding

leadership, it might be useful to briefly review some of the central tenets of the charismatic and

transformational models currently being used to account for outstanding leadership. Tra-

ditional models of leadership were, as Bass (1997) points out, based on transactional

principals: an exchange of support for rewards. While useful in accounting for routine

institutional leadership, these transactional models could not account for the profound impact

characteristic of truly exceptional leaders. In contrast, charismatic and transformational models

focus on outstanding leadership, emphasizing the need for followers to find meaning through

leadership. Leaders provide followers with meaning by constructing and communicating a

vision, or image, that articulates followers’ values while allowing them to express their identity

through a shared collective vision. This appeal to values and identity not only motivates people

to work towards an envisioned future but also serves as well to build feelings of competence

and self-worth (House & Shamir, 1993; Mumford, Yammarino, & Dansereau, 2000).

Although virtually all models of outstanding leadership stress the importance of vision,

different investigators make different assumptions about other kinds of actions likely to play a

role in exceptional leadership (Hunt, 1991; Yukl, 1994). House (1977), in his description of

charismatic leaders, emphasizes the importance of passion and self-sacrifice, displaying

confidence in followers, and role modeling among other dimensions. House and Podsakoff

(1994) argue that charismatic leadership involves inspirational communication, external

representation, and exhibition of high expectations. Conger and Kanungo (1998) hold that

charismatic leaders assess the external environment to find weaknesses in the status quo,

attracting followers by presenting an appealing vision that seems radically different from the

current status quo (Conger, 1999; Conger & Kanungo, 1998). In this regard, however, it is

important to bear in mind a point made by Hunt, Boal, and Dodge (1999) who note that

M.D. Mumford, J.R. Van Doorn / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 279–309280



https://isiarticles.com/article/38232