Presidential Scandal and Leadership: A Natural Laboratory Test of the Resiliency of President Clinton's Transformational Leadership During the Impeachment Crisis¹

Abstract

This study examined transformational and charismatic leadership assessments of President Clinton over 4 time periods beginning with his second term, continuing through the scandal of the Monica Lewinsky case and impeachment trial, and ending after he was acquitted. Our findings indicate that as the scandal unfolded, in general his leadership ratings declined among Democrats, Republicans, and “Others” (including Independents). However, his ratings did not decline at the same rate among all groups. They appeared to decline much more steeply with Republicans than with the other 2 groups. We discuss the differences in rates of decline among different factors of transformational leadership and the implications of the study for future research.

A Critical Assessment of Charismatic—Transformational Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?

“…Indeed, there are very high intercorrelations between different measures of charismatic -transformational leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1994;Pillai, Stites-Doe, & Brodowsky, 2004;Rowold & Heinitz, 2007), resulting also in their combined use in a single measure (Carless, Wearing, & Mann, 2000;Pastor, Mayo, & Shamir, 2007;Wang & Howell, 2010;Wieseke, Ahearne, Lam, & van Dick, 2009). More to the point, reviewers of the field have referred to charismatic -transformational leadership as essentially one concept (Hunt, 1999;Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996)-rather than as distinct models of transformational or charismatic leadership.…”

Presidents of the United States on Leadership

“…For example, Siegel's (2001) aforementioned definition included vision, persuasion, support systems, and decision making, three of which aligned with discussions by presidents herein. Moreover, Pillai's (1998;Pillai et al, 2004) leadership index, which includes vision, leading by example, goal setting and common purpose, highperformance expectations, connecting with followers, and intellectual stimulation sees much in common with presidential statements on leadership.…”

“…Often, theorists, including presidential scholars, combine aspects of several models into a more comprehensive description of leadership (Barilleaux, 2005). For example, Pillai's (1998;Pillai et al, 2004) leadership index, which the author applies to the presidency, includes: identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model for followers, fostering the acceptance of group goals, highperformance expectations, providing individualized support, and intellectual stimulation. Siegel (2001), likewise, makes recommendations to leaders based on case studies of the presidency.…”

Scandals as a Positive Feature of Liberal Democratic Politics: A Durkheimian perspective

“…Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated with the approval of Clinton's Attorney General (performing the functions of her office rather than being personally influenced), resulting in the House of Representatives voting to impeach Clinton, and the Senate subsequently voting to acquit. While the congressional voting was largely partisan, some Republican Senators did vote to acquit and recognised Clinton's high popular approval ratings (Jamieson and Aday 1998;Pillai, Stites-Doe and Brodowsky 2004). Reference to and consideration of citizens' opinions is quintessentially democratic, while liberal democratic politics, however "dirty", still adheres to certain rules even when politically advantageous to do otherwise.…”