1. Research Implications
Lethal Leaders: Assessing the Intersection Between Leadership, Organization Structure, and Violence
College of Public Affairs
and Community Service
School of Criminology
and Criminal Justice
Michael Logan, M.A., Gina Ligon, Ph.D., & Clara Braun
The Leadership of the Extreme and Dangerous for Innovative Results (LEADIR) database uses a longitudinal, industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology approach to assess the leadership and organization features (e.g., structure, leadership) of terrorist groups in relation to their performance goals (e.g., recruitment, fundraising, violence). The current study uses the LEADIR dataset to gain insight into the interaction between the leadership and organization structure of terrorist organizations compared to their propensity to engage in violence. We also highlight how attack-level characteristics, outside of lethality, act as markers of the resilience of terrorist groups. The results indicate that charismatic leaders excel at directing foots soldiers to commit terrorist acts compared to other leadership types. In addition, preliminary findings suggest that the coordination and/or expertise of a terrorist organization’s attacks is related to their risk/threat level over time. Together, these organizational and leadership profiling activities offer a robust framework for examining indicators and warning signs of which emergent groups pose the most threat to the Homeland.
Results
1. Leadership style matters when assessing and comparing the lethality of terrorist organizations.
2. Charismatic leaders are the most violent on average, and they go after soft targets more than Ideological or Pragmatic leaders.
3. Organizational complexity is directly related to the resilience of a group, especially after a leadership decapitation event.
Matrix organizations (such as Da’esh) are less rigid and more resilient to exogenous shocks than hierarchical (e.g., Lashkar-e-Taiba, Afghan Taliban) or decentralized (e.g., Abu Sayaaf, Jemaah Islamiyah).
4. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (I/O) offers a novel approach to gather, quantify, and compare the capabilities of terror networks. In particular, this approach is useful for the intelligence community in identifying high versus low risk threats, and allocating resources to combat those threats.
Policy Implications
Abstract
1. The coordination, expertise, and/or uniqueness of terror attacks can be examined over time to predict the effectiveness of interventions or other outside influence that might enhance (e.g., funding through state sponsor) or degrade a particular terrorist organizations.
2. Multi-level modeling offers a rich analytical technique for assessing the relative influence of organizational features and/or leadership characteristics on terrorist organizations propensity for violence.
Research Implications
Research Questions
1. What organizational-, leadership-, and attack-level factors influence the lethality of terrorist group?
2. To what degree can attack-level metrics, outside of lethality, be used to assess the performance and sustainability of terrorist organizations?
Methodology
Key References
Ligon, G.S., Harris, D.J., & Hunter, S.T. (2012). Quantifying leader lives: What historiometric approaches can tell us. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6),
Ligon, G. S., Simi, P., Harms, M., & Harris, D. J. (2013). Putting the “O” in VEOs: What makes an organization?. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 6(1-3),
Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. New York: Psychology Press.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), the U.S Department of Homeland Security (DHS), The Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment Group, and the University of Nebraska Omaha. We would also like to thank the Center for Collaboration Science, MISL lab, and Dr. Ben Steiner for their help with various aspects of this ongoing research project.