CIP와 LTA 모델을 활용한 미국 트럼프 대통령의 리더십 특성에 관한 연구 = A Study on the Leadership Characteristics of U.S. President Donald Trump Using the CIP and LTA Models

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

ABSTRACT*

A Study on the Leadership Characteristics of U.S. President Donald
Trump Using the CIP and LTA Models

1. Introduction and Research Purpose

In the twenty-first century, political leadership has become an increasingly important factor in shaping international security environments. While traditional approaches in international relations and security studies have primarily emphasized structural factors such as the balance of power, alliance systems, military capabilities, and regional competition, growing attention has been directed toward the role of individual leaders in influencing foreign and security policy outcomes. Political leaders do not simply respond to external conditions; rather, they interpret international events, define threats, establish policy priorities, and formulate strategic responses through their own perceptions and leadership characteristics.

Among contemporary political leaders, Donald J. Trump presents a particularly significant case for leadership analysis. During his presidency, Trump adopted unconventional approaches to foreign policy and security affairs, challenging many established diplomatic norms and institutional practices. His administration pursued distinctive policies toward North Korea, alliance burden-sharing, strategic competition with China, and direct leader-to-leader diplomacy. These policies generated considerable uncertainty regarding the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and significantly influenced the security environment surrounding the Korean Peninsula.

Most existing studies of Korean Peninsula security have focused primarily on structural variables, including military capabilities, alliance dynamics, regional power competition, and international institutions. Although these approaches provide valuable insights into the broader strategic environment, they often fail to explain why leaders facing similar structural conditions may pursue different policy choices. Consequently, leadership characteristics should be considered an important explanatory variable in foreign and security policy analysis.

This study examines the leadership characteristics of Donald Trump through the parallel application of the Charismatic–Ideological–Pragmatic （CIP） leadership model and Leadership Trait Analysis （LTA）. The study seeks to identify Trump's Mental Models, Sensemaking Actions, and Leadership Traits as reflected in his political discourse. Furthermore, it aims to examine how these leadership characteristics influenced his approach toward Korean Peninsula security and alliance management, thereby providing implications for South Korea's security policy and strategic planning.

The study addresses three research questions. First, what leadership type is most prominently reflected in Trump's discourse when analyzed through the CIP framework? Second, what Leadership Traits are revealed through LTA? Third, how did these leadership characteristics influence Trump's approach toward Korean Peninsula security and alliance management?

2. Theoretical Framework and Methodology

The CIP leadership model, developed by Mumford and his colleagues, classifies leadership into three ideal types: Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic leadership. Rather than focusing solely on policy outcomes, the CIP framework examines leadership through Prescriptive Mental Models and Sensemaking Actions. Through discourse analysis, it enables researchers to identify how leaders define political problems, assign responsibility, formulate policy solutions, and communicate with followers.

Charismatic leadership emphasizes vision, emotional appeal, and collective mobilization. Ideological leadership is grounded in values, identity, and normative interpretations of political reality. Pragmatic leadership focuses on practical problem-solving, negotiation, and adaptation to changing circumstances. By examining these elements within political discourse, CIP provides insights into the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of leadership.

While CIP focuses on Mental Models and Sensemaking Actions, Leadership Trait Analysis （LTA）, developed by Margaret Hermann, examines the Leadership Traits underlying political leadership. LTA evaluates seven traits: Belief in Ability to Control Events （BACE）, Need for Power （PWR）, Self-Confidence （SC）, Conceptual Complexity （CC）, Task Orientation （TASK）, In-Group Bias （IGB）, and Distrust of Others （DIS）. These traits provide insights into how leaders perceive their environment, process information, respond to uncertainty, and interact with other political actors.

The two approaches are complementary. CIP explains how leaders think and act through their Mental Models and Sensemaking Actions, whereas LTA helps explain the Leadership Traits that underlie and sustain those patterns. Through the parallel application of both frameworks, this study provides a multidimensional understanding of Trump's leadership.

The analysis was based on both official and unofficial political discourse produced by Donald Trump. Official discourse included highly structured speeches such as the 2017 Inaugural Address, State of the Union speeches, campaign speeches, and major international addresses. Unofficial discourse included interviews, press conferences, impromptu remarks, and question-and-answer sessions, including interactions following the Singapore and Hanoi summits and exchanges with reporters aboard Air Force One.

For CIP analysis, discourse was coded according to indicators of Mental Models and Sensemaking Actions, including problem definition, attribution of responsibility, policy solutions, communication strategies, leader–follower relationships, and emotional framing. For LTA analysis, Trump's discourse was examined using Hermann's seven Leadership Traits. The resulting scores were compared with benchmark values reported in previous LTA studies, particularly the average scores for U.S. presidents presented by White （2022）. Through these procedures, the study identified the dominant leadership characteristics reflected in both official and unofficial discourse.

3. Findings
3.1 CIP Findings

The CIP analysis indicates that Donald Trump's leadership was predominantly ideological. Across both official and unofficial discourse, Trump consistently interpreted political and security issues through Mental Models emphasizing national competition, fairness, responsibility, and the restoration of order. Rather than portraying international politics as a matter of technical policy management, he frequently framed political issues in terms of national interests, legitimacy, and justice.

In official discourse, ideological characteristics appeared particularly strong. Trump's Mental Models repeatedly emphasized themes such as national decline, unfair treatment by allies and competitors, threats to American sovereignty, and the necessity of restoring American strength. His “America First” rhetoric functioned not merely as a policy slogan but as a broader framework through which international politics was interpreted. These ideological Mental Models were reflected in his Sensemaking Actions, as foreign policy challenges were frequently presented as evidence of failures by previous political elites and as justification for national renewal.

Although ideological leadership constituted the dominant pattern, pragmatic elements also appeared frequently, particularly in unofficial discourse. Trump's Mental Models often reflected an emphasis on negotiation opportunities, bargaining leverage, measurable outcomes, and practical problem-solving. These tendencies were especially visible in discussions concerning North Korea, alliance burden-sharing, trade agreements, sanctions, and diplomatic negotiations.

Pragmatic characteristics were further expressed through Sensemaking Actions emphasizing transactional bargaining, flexibility, and adaptation to changing circumstances. However, these pragmatic elements rarely operated independently from Trump's broader ideological orientation. Negotiation and bargaining were generally presented as instruments for advancing American interests and restoring what Trump perceived as a fair international order.

Charismatic elements were also observed, although to a lesser extent. In official discourse, Trump frequently appealed to collective identity, national unity, and a shared sense of purpose. References to “the people,” “patriots,” and “the American nation” reinforced themes of collective belonging and national renewal. In unofficial discourse, charismatic tendencies appeared more directly through references to personal leadership ability, negotiation skills, and political influence. Nevertheless, charismatic elements generally functioned as supporting components that reinforced ideological and pragmatic leadership patterns rather than serving as an independent leadership type.

Overall, the coding results demonstrate the predominance of ideological leadership characteristics. Ideological elements accounted for approximately 62 percent of all coded cases, pragmatic elements accounted for approximately 20 percent, charismatic elements represented approximately 6 percent, and mixed leadership characteristics accounted for approximately 11 percent. These findings suggest that Trump's leadership is best understood as a hybrid leadership pattern in which ideological Mental Models remain dominant while pragmatic and charismatic elements perform complementary functions.

3.2 LTA Findings

The Leadership Trait Analysis revealed a distinct pattern of Leadership Traits in Trump's discourse. In official discourse, relatively high levels of Belief in Ability to Control Events （BACE）, Need for Power （PWR）, and Distrust of Others （DIS） were identified. In contrast, Self-Confidence （SC）, Conceptual Complexity （CC）, and Task Orientation （TASK） appeared comparatively lower.

These findings suggest that Trump's official discourse reflected a strong desire to influence political outcomes, a tendency to view political environments through the lens of competition, and a preference for relatively simplified interpretations of complex political issues. The combination of high Distrust of Others and strong Need for Power reinforced narratives emphasizing threats, competition, and decisive leadership.

The profile derived from unofficial discourse revealed somewhat different characteristics. Belief in Ability to Control Events remained close to average levels, while Need for Power and Self-Confidence appeared moderately above average. Conceptual Complexity was also close to average, whereas Distrust of Others remained consistently high.

Compared with official speeches, unofficial discourse contained more frequent references to negotiation conditions, strategic trade-offs, economic costs, and situational adjustments. As a result, Conceptual Complexity appeared higher than that suggested by many previous studies. These findings indicate that Trump considered negotiation conditions, political actors, and policy alternatives more extensively in unofficial settings than was often reflected in his formal speeches.

One of the most consistent findings was the persistence of high Distrust of Others across both official and unofficial discourse. Trump repeatedly portrayed international politics as a competitive environment characterized by conflicting interests, strategic rivalry, and limited trust among actors. This tendency appeared in discussions concerning alliances, trade relations, North Korea, and international institutions, suggesting that distrust constituted one of the most stable Leadership Traits underlying his foreign and security policy behavior.

The findings both support and refine previous studies of Trump's leadership. Consistent with earlier research, the analysis identified high levels of Distrust of Others and Need for Power, as well as a tendency to interpret international politics through competition and strategic rivalry. At the same time, the findings suggest that Trump's Conceptual Complexity was not uniformly low. While it appeared relatively low in official discourse, it approached average levels in unofficial discourse, indicating greater situational flexibility and practical consideration than often assumed.

Taken together, the LTA results suggest that Trump's leadership combined high distrust, strong power motivation, and a relatively strong belief in political influence with varying levels of conceptual complexity depending on communication context. These findings portray Trump's leadership as more nuanced and context-dependent than many previous studies have suggested.

4. Implications

The findings of this study provide several important implications for leadership studies, foreign policy analysis, and Korean Peninsula security research. Most importantly, the study demonstrates that political leadership should be considered an important explanatory variable alongside traditional structural factors. While existing studies of Korean Peninsula security have primarily focused on military capabilities, alliance systems, deterrence mechanisms, and regional power competition, the present findings suggest that leaders' Mental Models, Sensemaking Actions, and Leadership Traits can significantly influence how security challenges are interpreted and how policy responses are formulated.

The study further demonstrates the value of applying the CIP and LTA frameworks in a complementary manner. The CIP model explains leaders' Mental Models and Sensemaking Actions by examining how they define problems, assign responsibility, formulate policy solutions, and communicate with followers. In contrast, LTA identifies the Leadership Traits that underlie and sustain these patterns. Together, the two approaches provide a multidimensional understanding of political leadership and offer a more comprehensive explanation of foreign and security policy behavior.

The findings also contribute to ongoing debates regarding Donald Trump's leadership. While previous studies frequently emphasized Trump's impulsiveness and low conceptual complexity, the present analysis suggests a more nuanced interpretation. Although Conceptual Complexity appeared relatively low in official discourse, it approached average levels in unofficial discourse, indicating that ideological simplification and context-dependent complexity could coexist within the same leadership. Likewise, the CIP findings demonstrate that ideological and pragmatic elements were not mutually exclusive but interacted across both Mental Models and Sensemaking Actions.

Beyond its theoretical contributions, the study offers several policy implications for South Korea. First, the findings highlight the importance of preparing for transactional approaches to alliance management. Trump's leadership frequently emphasized burden-sharing, reciprocity, costs, and measurable outcomes, suggesting that alliances may be viewed not only as strategic commitments but also as relationships subject to negotiation and adjustment. These findings underscore the importance of strengthening institutional coordination and policy continuity within the alliance.

Second, the study emphasizes the importance of institutionalizing diplomatic achievements. Trump's preference for direct leader-to-leader diplomacy demonstrated both the opportunities and limitations of highly personalized diplomatic engagement. The experiences of the Singapore Summit, Hanoi Summit, and Panmunjom meeting suggest that diplomatic achievements may be difficult to sustain without corresponding institutional arrangements. Consequently, South Korean policymakers should seek to strengthen institutional frameworks capable of preserving diplomatic progress beyond individual leaders and political circumstances.

More broadly, the findings suggest that South Korea should incorporate leadership analysis into strategic forecasting and security planning. By considering leaders' Mental Models and Leadership Traits, policymakers may better anticipate how future leaders perceive security challenges, establish policy priorities, and respond to changing international environments.

5. Limitations and Future Research

Despite its contributions, this study contains several limitations. First, the analysis relied primarily on publicly available discourse, including speeches, interviews, press conferences, and impromptu remarks. Although such materials provide valuable insights into leadership characteristics, they cannot fully capture internal decision-making processes, advisory influences, bureaucratic dynamics, or institutional constraints.

Second, the LTA findings should be interpreted within the context of the selected cases. Because the study focused on key leadership episodes rather than a comprehensive corpus of discourse, the results are more appropriately understood as context-specific leadership profiles than as a definitive assessment of Trump's overall personality.

Third, the interpretive nature of CIP analysis inevitably involves a degree of researcher judgment. Although a consistent coding framework based on Mental Models and Sensemaking Actions was applied, the classification of leadership types and hybrid leadership patterns remains subject to interpretation.

Finally, the study focused exclusively on Donald Trump and therefore did not include systematic comparisons with other political leaders. Future research could extend the analysis to other U.S. presidents, North Korean leaders, or South Korean presidents in order to examine how leadership characteristics interact with similar security environments and policy challenges.

6. Conclusion

This study examined the leadership characteristics of U.S. President Donald Trump through the parallel application of the Charismatic–Ideological–Pragmatic （CIP） leadership model and Leadership Trait Analysis （LTA）.

The findings indicate that Trump's leadership was primarily characterized by ideological Mental Models emphasizing national competition, fairness, responsibility, and the restoration of order. At the same time, pragmatic elements were repeatedly observed in both his Mental Models and Sensemaking Actions, particularly in relation to negotiation, bargaining, alliance management, and diplomatic engagement. Charismatic elements were also identified, although they generally functioned as supporting components rather than as a dominant leadership orientation.

The LTA findings revealed Leadership Traits characterized by high Distrust of Others （DIS）, strong Need for Power （PWR）, and a relatively strong Belief in Ability to Control Events （BACE）. While Conceptual Complexity appeared relatively low in official discourse, it approached average levels in unofficial discourse, indicating greater situational flexibility and practical consideration under certain conditions.

Taken together, the results suggest that Trump's leadership is best understood as a hybrid leadership pattern centered on ideological orientations, complemented by pragmatic approaches and limited charismatic elements. His leadership combined value-based narratives with transactional bargaining strategies, producing a distinctive pattern of foreign and security policy behavior.

Ultimately, this study demonstrates that leadership characteristics constitute an important explanatory variable in understanding foreign and security policy. By applying the CIP and LTA frameworks in parallel and interpreting their findings in a complementary manner, the study provides a multidimensional understanding of political leadership through the analysis of Mental Models, Sensemaking Actions, and Leadership Traits. In doing so, it contributes to a deeper understanding of the relationship between leadership, foreign and security policy, and Korean Peninsula security.

Keywords: Donald Trump; Charismatic–Ideological–Pragmatic （CIP） Leadership Model; Leadership Trait Analysis （LTA）; Mental Models; Sensemaking Actions; Leadership Traits; Korean Peninsula Security; Alliance Management; U.S. Foreign and Security Policy.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구 배경 및 필요성 1
• 제2절 연구 목적 및 연구 문제 4
• 제2장 이론적 배경 및 선행연구 6
• 제1절 CIP（Charismatic–Ideological–Pragmatic）리더십 모델 · 6
• 제2절 리더십 특성 연구（LTA） 26
• 제3절 트럼프 리더십 관련 선행 연구 33
• 제3장 연구 방법 55
• 제1절 CIP 및 LTA 분석의 절차 55
• 제2절 연구 자료 75
• 제4장 트럼프 대통령 리더십 분석 80
• 제1절 공식적 담화 사례 분석 80
• 1. 분석 개요 80
• 2. 사례1 분석 （2017 취임사） 81
• 3. 사례2 분석 （2018 국정 연설） 89
• 4. 사례3 분석 （2018 다보스포럼 연설） 96
• 5. 사례4 분석 （2020 재선 출마 선언 연설） 103
• 6. 사례5 분석 （2021 Ellipse 집회 연설） 111
• 7. 사례6 분석 （2026 국정연설） 118
• 8. 공식적 담화 종합 분석 128
• 제2절 비공식 담화 및 즉흥 발화 사례 분석 144
• 1. 분석 개요 144
• 2. 사례1 분석 （트럼프-크리스 윌리스 인터뷰） 145
• 3. 사례2 분석（싱가포르 회담 기자 문답） 153
• 4. 사례3 분석（하노이 회담 기자 문답） 163
• 5. 사례4 분석（25. 10. 27. AF1 기자 문답） 173
• 6. 사례5 분석（26. 1. 4. AF1 기자 문답） 181
• 7. 사례6 분석（26. 3. 11. 백악관 출발 전 질의응답） ·· 190
• 8. 비공식 담화 종합분석 198
• 제3절 분석 종합 211
• 1. 공식 담화와 비공식 담화 리더십 분석 종합 211
• 2. 선행 연구와의 연계성 및 함의 216
• 제5장 결론 219
• 제1절 연구 요약 219
• 제2절 이론적 함의 223
• 제3절 정책적 함의 227
• 제4절 연구의 한계와 후속 연구의 방향 228
• 참고문헌 231
• 부 록 A: 분석대상 담화 목록 출처 248
• 부 록 B: 대표 사례 원문 및 번역 250
• ABSTRACT 254