Page Title

A Historiometric Examination of Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership

June 28, 2008

"Due to the substantial impact outstanding leaders have on the development and maintenance of high performing organizations, researchers have continued to examine the behaviors, skills, and characteristics outstanding leaders exhibit. Weber (1924) first outlined the theory of charismatic leadership to account for the remarkable impact outstanding leaders have on followers. According to Weber (1947), charisma is characterized by five components: (a) the leader has extraordinary gifts, (b) there is a social crisis, (c) the leader provides a vision with a solution to the crisis, (d)the leader attracts followers with their vision, and (e) the leader confirms his giftedness with repeated success (Yukl, 2001). Weber (1924) also outlined two other pathways to outstanding leadership, the ideological and pragmatic paths. Strange and Mumford (2002) conclude, that ideological leadership represents as alternative form of vision-based leadership. Unlike charismatic leaders, ideological leaders do not articulate a future-oriented vision. Instead, ideological leaders articulate an emotionally evocative vision that appeals to traditional virtues. According to Mumford and Van Doorn (2001), pragmatic leaders exert their influence through an in depth understanding and sensitivity to the social system and the casual variables operating.

Although outstanding leaders are masters of influence, their influence is not necessarily positive. Potentially, outstanding leaders can be a force for evil (witness Adolf Hitler) as well as a force for good (witness Jane Addams) (Beyer, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Given the evidence available, it seems reasonable to argue that there is a distinction between personalized and socialized leaders that can be applied to the different types of outstanding leaders. The pursuit and skillful use of power has been considered fundamental to effective leadership by a number of observers (Bass, 1990). Machiavelli (1513/1966) advocates a number of behaviors necessary for acquiring and maintaining power in socially competitive situations, specifically, mistrust in human nature, lack of conventional morality, opportunism, and lack of affect in interpersonal relationships.

Hypothesis 1: Charismatic and pragmatic leaders will differently express Machiavellian behavior.

Hypothesis 2: Personalized leaders will exhibit a higher number of Machiavellian behaviors than socialized leaders.

Hypothesis 3: High levels of Machiavellianism in outstanding leaders will be positively related to performance.

The present study utilizes the historiometric approach for assessing outstanding leadership. The historiometric approach is a unique combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches that enables the quantitative analysis of multiple cases. Specifically, qualitative historic records are selected and coded using rating scales to enable quantitative analysis.

The 120 historically notable leaders assessed in this study are identical to those selected in the initial comparison studies of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership (Mumford, in press). The sample was selected for both type (charismatic, ideological, pragmatic) and orientation (socialized, personalized) resulting in 20 leaders per cell. Leaders were included in the study only if they had achieved positions of power in the 20^th century and at least one factually based academic biography was available describing the leaders career.

The 20-item Machiavellianism IV Scale (Mach IV; Christie, 1970) was used to assess Machiavellianism of the 120 outstanding leaders. The Mach IV measures respondents' agreement with Machiavellian beliefs on a 7-point scale in Likert format. Assessment of Machiavellianism using the academic biographies began with the identification of two or three 'pinnacle of power' chapters. In evaluating the leader communications presented in the 'pinnacle of power' chapter, four judges were asked to evaluate the material using the Mach IV scale.

The Machiavellianism scores of outstanding leaders were calculated by averaging the 20 items of the Mach IV with higher scores indicating higher levels of Machiavellianism and scores ranging, theoretically, from 1 to 7.

This study targeted an empirically unexplored and important domain of research (namely, the differential relationship between leader type, leader orientation, Machiavellianism, and performance. First, the data clarifies the relationship between Machiavellianism and charismatic leadership, especially with respect to ideological and pragmatic leadership. Second, the findings clearly outline the relationship between Machiavellianism and personalized and socialized leader orientations. Third, the results indicate that leader type and orientation aide substantially in the understanding of Machiavellianism. Fourth, the results extend prior research by Deluga (2001) in a number of ways. Although these findings evidence progress, more work needs to be done (Bedell, Hunter, Anger & Vert, 2006, p. 50-72)."

Reference: Bedell, K., Hunter, S., Angie, A., & Vert, A., (2006). A historiometric examination of machiavellianism and a new taxonomy of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4.

The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies is available on loan from the Ohio State University Leadership Center. To borrow this resource or any other resource please go to the resource search page http://164.107.48.88/winnebago/index.asp?lib=???

If this is the first time you have borrowed resources from the OSU Leadership Center, please contact us at 614-292-3114 and we will register you in our library system. Once you have been added to the system, you may request resources via the website.

Learn how the Ohio State University Leadership Center is strengthening tomorrow's leaders today at <http://leadershipcenter.osu.edu/>

Back to Top >

Created: 2007-08-28, Updated: 2008-12-28