The Radical Group in Context: 1. An Integrated Framework for the Analysis of Group Risk for Terrorism

The sources of leader violence: A comparison of ideological and non-ideological leaders

“…Ideological leaders were found to differ from charismatic leaders with respect to just-world commitments, ideological extremism, oppositional bonding, imposition of interpretive structures, value-based control, and social disruption. Social disruption is, of course, commonly held to give rise to the emergence of ideological leaders and ideological movements (Moghaddam, 2005;Post et al, 2002). What is noteworthy here, however, is that even when other attributes linked to leader violence were taken into account, dimensions discriminating ideological leaders from other forms of prominent leadership were found to be related to violence.…”

“…These conditions, moreover, may give rise to the emergence of destructive leadership and promote destructive behavior on the part of group leaders through the leader's attempts to appeal to followers. Along similar lines, organizational characteristics such as centralization, use of violence as a control, and denigration of other institutions may all act both to promote the emergence of destructive leaders and to facilitate destructive behaviors by these leaders, as leaders use extant organizational structure as a means to exercise influence (Post, Ruby, & Shaw, 2002).…”

“…These dimensions were identified based on a review of prior studies of ideological leadership and the nature of ideologically-based organizations (e.g., Mills, 1967;Rejai, 1991;Strange & Mumford, 2002) as well as from prior studies examining violent behavior on the part of ideological leaders, groups, and organizations (e.g., Fromm, 1973;Post et al, 2002;Staub, 1999). Table 2 presents a list of individual, group, organizational, and environmental dimensions identified in this literature review.…”

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

“…Instead, they emphasize goals that have proven viable in the past based on the leader's personal experiences. Causation, in the logic of ideological leaders, is not under people's control but rather is controlled by situational forces that are operating to undermine current attempts to attain known, valued goals (Moghaddam, 2005;Mumford et al, in press-a,b;Post, Ruby, & Shaw, 2002). This negative framing of causation means that ideological leaders attempt to induce changes that will remove blockages to attainment of goals that will naturally come about under appropriate conditions.…”

“…As one might suspect, the existence of a strong, traditionoriented culture appears to promote the emergence and acceptance of ideological leadership (Post et al, 2002). Culture, however, is a multifaceted phenomenon.…”