Hermann, Margaret et al. "Who Leads Matters: The Effects of Powerful Individuals". International Studies Review, Vol.3, No.2 (2001): 83-131.

Hermann, Margaret et al. "Who Leads Matters: The Effects of Powerful Individuals". International Studies Review, Vol.3, No.2 (2001): 83-131.

• The individual or group of individuals exercising ultimate executive power over foreign policy decisions are an 'authoritative decision unit'. This authoritative unit could be a monarch, a dictator, or a president, and when their final view is expressed, other members of the government are expected to conform to the viewpoint or suffer political sanctions (84).
• Even if a political systems allows for an individual to become the sole authoritative decision unit, that will only occur under a certain set of circumstances: the leader is actively interested in foreign policy, has to respond to a perceived crisis, a situation requires a high-level response, or the issue is of special concern to the leader (85).
• "Franco of Spain is an example. Although qualified as a predominant leader given the structure of power in Spain during his tenure, Franco is reported to have had little interest in foreign affairs and to have left much of the foreign policymaking to his foreign and economics ministers. Only when an issue became critical to his regime, such as renegotiation of agreements concerning the American bases in Spain, did he assume the role of predominant leader in the foreign policymaking process" (85).
• A source mine of research on leadership styles and leader personality types is available from page 86 to page 88.
• From these different theories and terminologies of leadership types, the authors develop two types for use in analysis: a goal-driven leadership whose decisions are based on ideals, and a contextually-responsive leaderships whose decisions are pragmatic and based on governmental consensus (86-89).
• Assessing how sensitive leaders are to governmental consensus, their position on the spectrum between goal-driven and contextually-responsive leadership, three factors need to be analyzed: how do leaders react to constraints in their political environment?, how open is leadership to new information?, and what motivates leaders to take action (89-90).
• The combination of these leadership traits results in 8 distinct leadership styles: Expansionist, Evangelical, Incremental, Charismatic, Directive, Consultive, Reactive, and Accommodating (95).
• The Crusader archetype is closed to new information and resists constrains. They are expansionist and evangelical, meaning they want to expand their influence and impose their values on others (95-96).
• The Strategic archetype is open to new information and resists constraints. They are incremental and charismatic, meaning they try to increase their power while avoiding obstacles and that they advance their agenda by persuading others to act in accordance with their goals (95, 97).
• The Pragmatic archetype is closed to new information, but accepts constraints. They are directive and consultive, meaning that they try to direct policy in accordance with values within the constraints of their office and monitor others for their opinions as to better predict future reactions (95, 97).
• The Opportunistic archetype is open to new information and accepts constraints. They are reactive and accommodating, meaning that they make decisions based on the constraints of the political climate and try to build consensus and shared accountability within government (95-96).
• One of the biggest divides is between the Crusader archetype and other forms of leadership, as more pragmatic leaders will change their behavior based on the political environment, whereas the Crusader will not change plans or beliefs regardless of the political context. Different leadership archetypes will care about the opinions of different constituencies, from no-one for the Crusader to everyone for the Pragmatist (98).
• These archetypes are ideal, and leaders who fall in the middling range for the variables measured will likely behave in different ways depending on scenarios (100).
• The leadership styles outlined above apply to both foreign and domestic policy, however the styles active in each field can change for leaders. A leader may display one archetype in domestic policy and other archetype in foreign policy interactions (100).
• The author provide four examples of the different leadership archetypes at moments when one individual was the authoritative unit: Nigerian General Murtala Mohammed's decision to recognize the Angolan revolutionary government, Anwar Sadat's decision to declare war on Israel, President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to escalate the Vietnam conflict, and President George H.W. Bush's decision to respond to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
• The recognition of the revolutionary Angolan government of the MPLA in 1975 is an example of a Crusader archetypal leadership (101-105).
• The decision by the Sadat government to begin the 1973 Yom Kippur war against Israel is an example of the Strategist archetypal leadership (106-109).
• The decision of the Johnson administration to escalate the conflict in Vietnam in 1965 was an example of the Pragmatic archetypal leadership by President Johnson (110-115).
• The H.W. Bush government's choice to respond to Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait with military force was an example of the Opportunistic archetypal leadership (115-118).
• Political timing appears most important to Strategic leaders, who strike at an opportune moment. The Crusader leader will act regardless of timing, whereas the Pragmatic and Opportunistic leaders will seek to build consensus or assess the situation and thus have their timeframe restricted by factors beyond opportunity (119).