Leadership and Levels of Analysis: A State-Of-The-Science Review

The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 879 – 919
Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review

Francis J. Yammarino a,*, Shelley D. Dionne a, Jae Uk Chun a, Fred Dansereau b
a
Center for Leadership Studies and School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton, P.O. Box 6000, Binghamton,
NY 13902-6000, United States
b
School of Management and Jacobs Management Center, State University of New York at Buffalo, United States
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive, qualitative, narrative review of the leadership literature with an
explicit focus on levels-of-analysis issues. Focusing on conceptual and empirical publications (books, book chapters, and journal
articles) over the last 10 years in 17 areas of leadership research, we reviewed and coded 348 journal articles and book chapters for
the degree of appropriate inclusion and use of levels of analysis in theory formulation, construct/variable measurement, data
analytic techniques, and inference drawing. In general, while the literature on leadership is vast and growing, relatively few studies
in any of the areas of leadership research have addressed levels-of-analysis issues appropriately in theory, measurement, data
analysis, and inference drawing. Nevertheless, the findings reported are encouraging, as levels issues are still relatively new to the
leadership field and some progress clearly has been made in the last decade. The implications of the current state-of-the-science for
future research and the advancement of study in leadership are discussed.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Levels of analysis; Theory building; Theory testing; Literature review; Multi-level theories
1. Introduction
Levels-of-analysis issues and multiple-level approaches are becoming increasingly important in many areas of
organizational research and, in particular, in the literature of leadership. Various scholars (Dansereau, Alutto, &
Yammarino, 1984; Dansereau, Yammarino, & Kohles, 1999; House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein,
Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Rousseau, 1985) have noted the importance of clearly specifying the level(s) of analysis
at which phenomena are expected to exist theoretically, and have stated that it is critical to ensure the measurement of
constructs and data analytic techniques correspond to the asserted level(s) of analysis, so that inference drawing is not
misleading or artifactual.
In the leadership literature, these notions were brought to the forefront of research about two decades ago in the
work of Dansereau et al. (1984). Subsequently, when F. Yammarino was Senior Editor of The Leadership Quarterly,
he commissioned a two-part special issue (published about one decade ago in 1995), guest edited by F. Dansereau, on
13 multiple-level approaches to leadership. Ultimately, this work culminated in a two-volume research monograph
edited by Dansereau & Yammarino (1998a,b) on the multiple-level approaches to leadership.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 607 777 6066; fax: +1 607 777 4422.
E-mail address: fjyammo@binghamton.edu (F.J. Yammarino).
1048-9843/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.09.002
880 F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 879–919
In this two-volume set, the editors reprinted the 13 original special issue articles, added the key measurement
instruments for each leadership approach, commissioned and published two commentaries on each original article,
and published a reply by the original article authors to the commentaries on their work. As this two-volume anthology
was, at that time, the state-of-the-science on multiple levels-of-analysis issues and leadership, we use this past work as
the starting point for our current effort. In particular, as 10 years have passed since the publication in The Leadership
Quarterly of this original multi-level leadership work, we thought it appropriate to consider the current state-of-the-
science on leadership and levels-of-analysis issues.
Specifically, our purpose here is to provide a comprehensive, qualitative, narrative review of the literature on
leadership with an explicit focus on levels-of-analysis issues. Levels of analysis are the entities or objects of study
about which we theorize, and are integral parts of the definitions of constructs, operationalizations of measures, and
empirical tests of theoretical associations (Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000, 2003, 2005; Yammarino & Dansereau,
2002, 2004). In the various areas of leadership research, key levels of analysis are individuals or persons (independent
human beings), dyads (two-person groups and interpersonal relationships), groups (work groups and teams), and
organizations (collectives larger than groups and groups of groups) (see Dansereau et al., 1984; Yammarino, 1996;
Yammarino & Bass, 1991).
In the current state-of-the-science review, 348 conceptual and empirical publications (i.e., book chapters and
journal articles) in 17 primary areas of leadership research were reviewed and coded in terms of (1) the degree of
appropriate inclusion of levels of analysis in theory and hypothesis formulation; (2) the extent to which levels of
analysis are represented appropriately in the measurement of constructs and variables; (3) the degree to which levels
of analysis are addressed in data analytic techniques; and (4) the extent to which theory and data are aligned from a
levels-of-analysis perspective in drawing inferences.
The 17 primary approaches to leadership here include the 13 approaches presented in detail in the 1995 two-part
special issue in The Leadership Quarterly and in the Dansereau & Yammarino (1998a,b) volumes — Ohio State,
contingency, participative, charismatic, transformational, leader–member exchange, information processing/implicit,
substitutes, romance, self-leadership, multiple linkage, multilevel/leaderplex, and individualized; two additional
classical approaches discussed briefly by Dansereau & Yammarino (1998c,d) – path-goal and vertical dyad linkage;
and two other established approaches – situational and influence tactics.
Clearly, several models of leadership worthy of consideration were not involved in the current review. For
example, the pragmatic or functional leadership approach (e.g., Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman,
2000), strategic leadership/upper echelon theory (e.g., Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996), and shared leadership (e.g.,
Pearce & Conger, 2003) among others were not included. We chose not to include certain models because of space
and time considerations (i.e., the length of manuscript and additional coding time required), but more importantly we
tried to align our review with the 1995 special issue in The Leadership Quarterly, the Dansereau & Yammarino
(1998a,b) volumes, and other bclassicalQ approaches and/or work associated with the authors in the 1995 and 1998
efforts. Ultimately, we have made some choices with which some readers may disagree, but with which we believe
most researchers would be comfortable.
Conducting a state-of-the-science review and analysis of the 17 selected approaches in the leadership literature
seemed important for at least three reasons (beyond merely marking a decade of time since many of the approaches
were critically examined in detail). First, given the vast and growing literature on theories and models of leadership, it
appears to be an appropriate time to btake stockQ of this work. This is especially critical since relatively little of the
research to date in these areas of research, as noted below, explicitly focuses on multiple levels-of-analysis issues.
Understanding how and if levels are specified permits an examination of the potential or degree of prevalence of
theoretical misspecification. Moreover, identification of relevant levels-of-analysis issues may help account for
mixed, inconsistent, and contradictory findings in prior research.
Second, such a levels-of-analysis examination is critical prior to conducting any comprehensive meta-analysis
of theories and models of leadership, which must, at a minimum, account for specific individual-level, within-
organization, and organizational-level population parameter estimates (see Ostroff & Harrison, 1999). Without
such levels-based efforts, comprehensive meta-analyses cannot be conducted accurately and theoretical advance-
ment is inhibited. Third, only by fully incorporating levels of analysis in theory, measurement, data analysis, and
inference drawing can a more comprehensive, integrative, and testable theory of leadership, regardless of
approach or realm, result (see Dansereau et al., 1984; Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a,b,c,d; Yammarino,
1996). Without explicit incorporation of levels-of-analysis issues, incomplete understanding of a construct or
F.J. Yammarino et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 879–919 881
phenomena may lead to faulty measures, inappropriate data analytic techniques, and the drawing of erroneous
conclusions.
As pointed out in the literature on multiple levels of analysis, it is absolutely critical to explicitly specify levels in
theory formulation, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing. Without such a complete and explicit
specification of and test for levels of analysis, theory building and theory testing are incomplete and faulty and
can lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, Yammarino (1996) demonstrated how theory formulation can be
enhanced by incorporating levels of analysis. Moreover, Schriesheim, Castro, & Yammarino (2000) have shown that
incorrect conclusions are drawn when researchers rely solely on raw-score-based analyses that ignore levels-of-
analysis tests. However, when traditional and multivariate multi-level techniques are employed, inferences become
clarified and explicated.
Theoretical revolutions in science often occur when other levels of analysis are considered. For example, a
revolution in biology occurred when some theorists suggested, and subsequently demonstrated, that evolution can
occur at a level of analysis higher than the organism level. Likewise, a well-known revolution in physics occurred
when some theorists asserted, and subsequently demonstrated, that quantum mechanics operate at a level of analysis
lower than the atomic level. In this same way, leadership theory building can advance when we include lower and
higher levels of analysis in theory development and hypothesis generation.
In the measurement arena, without explicit consideration of levels of analysis, we do not know to what entities
measurements refer. The most reliable measurements we produce are of little or no value if they are not also construct-
valid measurements. To be so, such measurements must include the referent (entities or levels of analysis) explicitly.
If they do not, a situation develops like some have described for IQ tests: we don’t know what they measure, or for
whom, but they measure well!
In data analysis, lack of the use of appropriate multi-level techniques can lead to statistical artifacts and aberrations.
Findings from non-multi-level techniques can indicate beffectsQ when none actually exist or can bproduce effectsQ at
one level when those actually reside at another level of analysis.
If theory development, measurement, and/or data analysis fails to address levels-of-analysis issues, there is no way
to draw accurate levels-based inferences. The mixing, mismatching, or non-use of levels in any of these three realms
limits one’s ability to employ a strong inference approach that incorporates multiple levels of analysis.
All these issues have been discussed in detail with extensive examples provided in the work of Dansereau et al.
(1984), Dansereau & Yammarino (2000), Dansereau et al. (1999), Schriesheim et al. (2000), Schriesheim, Castro,
Zhou, & Yammarino (2001), Yammarino (1996), Yammarino & Bass (1991) among others.
In fact, Dansereau & Yammarino (1998c,d), the various theorists and researchers in their two-part monograph (see
Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998a,b), and others (e.g., Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Bass, 1990; Dansereau et al., 1999;
Yammarino, 1996; Yammarino & Bass, 1991) have indicated that several alternative levels of analysis are theoretically
plausible and empirically viable for numerous approaches to leadership. Consistent with this view, we found (as noted
below) multiple levels of analysis were plausible in theory, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing about
the 17 theories and models of leadership investigated here. As such, we sought to complete a comprehensive analysis
and coding of these issues for the leadership approaches.
In our review, however, we have purposely avoided an assessment of many unpublished papers, unpublished
dissertations, and some published articles in what the field might perceive as bhard to locateQ or blesser qualityQ
journals. We have focused our review on major books, significant compendia, and mainstream journal article
publications. The search for these publications was facilitated by some major review articles and databases.
Moreover, our review begins in the year 1995, the date of the The Leadership Quarterly two-part special issue on
multiple-level approaches to leadership. Though selective, we believe our review is quite comprehensive, including
348 publications.
In this work, and especially the coding of the articles and book chapters, we were guided by major works on
multiple levels-of-analysis issues, following the approach of Dansereau, Yammarino, and colleagues (e.g., Dansereau
et al., 1984; Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000, 2003, 2005; Dansereau et al., 1999; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2002,
2004) and Rousseau (1985). In the remainder of this article, we first highlight levels-of-analysis issues, especially as
they apply to the literature on leadership. Then the coding scheme employed, which has been used in at least two prior
studies (Dionne, Randel, Jaussi, & Chun, 2004; Yammarino, Dionne, & Chun, 2002), is described. Next, for each of
the 17 approaches to leadership, we present a brief description of the theory or model involved and then summarize
some of the key findings from the conceptual and empirical literature on these leadership approaches from a levels-of-
analysis perspective. Finally, we draw out key implications for future theory building and theory testing in the realms
of leadership addressed by these 17 approaches.
2. Levels of analysis (Entities)
Levels of analysis are the entities or objects of study. In the current work on leadership, we are interested in human
beings in work organizations. Entities are typically arranged in hierarchical order such that higher levels (e.g., groups)
include lower levels (e.g., individuals), and lower levels are embedded in higher levels (see Dansereau et al., 1984;
Yammarino, 1996; Yammarino & Bass, 1991). For the purposes of this article, four levels of analysis of human beings
are relevant for the literature on the approaches to leadership that were examined.
First, human beings in organizations can be viewed as individuals or persons, independent of one another. In this
case, we can focus on a leader or a follower/subordinate, or how leaders or followers differ from one another.
Individual differences are of interest here. Second, human beings in organizations can be viewed as dyads, or two
individuals who are interdependent on a one-to-one basis. Dyads are a special case of groups, a two-person group. In
this case, we can focus on superior-subordinate dyads, leader–follower dyads, or interpersonal relationships,
independent of the formal work group.
Third, human beings in organizations can be viewed as groups or teams. While there are some potential differences
between groups and teams, we view them similarly here, as a collection of individuals who are interdependent and
interact on a face-to-face or virtual basis with one another. Formal work groups or teams generally consist of a leader
and his/her immediate direct reports. Fourth, human beings in organizations can be viewed as collectives. In this case,
the focus is on clusterings of individuals that are larger than groups and who are interdependent based on a
hierarchical structuring or a set of common/shared expectations. Collectives include groups of groups, departments,
functional areas, strategic business units, and organizations. Collectives often do not involve direct interaction among
people (as in groups), but are held together by echelons or hierarchies.
Beyond these single levels of analysis (i.e., individuals, dyads, groups, or collectives viewed separately), a key
issue is that of multiple levels of analysis. In other words, levels can be viewed in combination or simultaneously. In
these cases, we are concerned with multi-level or cross-level effects, as well as mixed determinants and mixed-level
effects (for details and a review, see Dansereau et al., 1984; Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000; Klein et al., 1994;
Rousseau, 1985). Briefly, for our purposes here, multi-level models depict relationships between independent and
dependent variables that operate at different levels of analyses; others have called these cross-level models. In
contrast, for us, cross-level models are those where patterns of relationships are replicated across multiple levels of
analysis. Mixed effects models are those in which a single variable of interest may have effects at multiple levels with
multiple criteria of interest. Mixed determinants models are those where multiple predictor variables at various levels
of analysis affect a single criterion at a single level of analysis.
As noted above, levels-of-analysis issues in the literature on numerous approaches to leadership are relatively new,
introduced about two decades ago and considered more seriously for only the last decade. The lack of explicit
attention to levels issues, however, still seems to be the norm rather than the exception. In 1990, and again over a
decade later, Bass (1990, 2002) called for the field of leadership to focus on these issues. Avolio & Yammarino
(2002), Dansereau & Yammarino (1998a,b), Hunt & Conger (1999a), Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser (1999), and
Yukl (1998) among others, have echoed this call. Despite these efforts, and although some progress has been made,
we believe the field of leadership falls short of explicitly dealing with multiple levels of analysis in the literature. As
such, we have undertaken a comprehensive review of the leadership literature focusing on 17 primary approaches to
take stock of levels-of-analysis issues in theory formation, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing. What
follows is a result of that state-of-the-science review.
3. Coding scheme and procedures
Building from the previous comprehensive review of the state of levels-of-analysis issues in the leadership
literature published in The Leadership Quarterly in 1995, we identified several major leadership approaches that
have been examined in both conceptual and empirical publications over the past 10 years. Using search engines and
databases such as PsychINFO and ProQuest, we identified and collected hundreds of articles that were published on
any of the identified major theories, models, and approaches to leadership. We limited our search to bmajorQ
leadership, management, and psychological periodicals (e.g., Academy of Management Journal, Academy of
Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, The Leadership Quarterly), as well as edited books on leadership theory that
have been published since 1995.
Because the field of leadership is immense, and may top the management field as receiving the most interest and
inquiry (Neider & Schriesheim, 2002), our review of the entire field would be far too large an undertaking for
publication within the limited space of this journal. Therefore, given this limitation, a review of publications in what
may be considered bhigher impactQ outlets seemed more suitable than a review of unpublished papers and articles
from lesser-known publications. Generally, we used ISI Journal Citation Reports (JCRWeb, www.JCRWeb.com) and
Harzing’s (2003) Journal Quality List (which includes journal impact factors for several journals for the past several
years: 1992, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002) to determine which journals may be considered bhigher
impactQ. The journal citation impact factor is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal
has been cited in a particular year. The citation impact factor is generally regarded as a relatively objective assessment
of journal impact, which may best represent perceived quality of the journal.
There were some exceptions to this bhigh impactQ consideration of articles included in the review. For example,
if a leadership scholar associated with a particular leadership theory published in a journal that we had not
considered bhigh impactQ, we did make every attempt to include these articles in the review as well (cf., Bass,
1999b, in the Transformational Leadership category). Additionally, we included some book chapters in our review
when the publications had a principal contributor to the theoretical domain as an author. Again, our objective was
to review articles and chapters that would most likely be considered and possibly cited by future leadership
research.
In total, the entire search process produced 348 publications (journal articles and book chapters), of which 137
were conceptual in nature and the remaining 211 were empirical studies. We obtained 100% of the articles discovered
in our search. Two trained coders independently reviewed each article for the following levels-based criteria: 1) did
the article explicitly state the level of analysis within theoretical and/or hypothesis development; 2) was measurement
at the appropriate level of analysis given the theoretical development (empirical articles only); 3) was a multi-level
data analytic technique employed in the study (empirical articles only); and 4) was there appropriate levels-based
alignment between theory and data (empirical articles only). Initial agreement between coders reflected an overall rate
of 84%; and after meeting to discuss discrepancies, coders were able to agree on 100% of the ratings/codes on levels-
of-analysis issues.
As a preliminary classification, all publications were first coded/analyzed based on whether they were conceptual
or empirical in nature; and, all hypotheses/propositions related to the leadership approaches of interest were noted. If
the publications were empirical, key variables and relationships were noted and the hypothesized level(s) were
assessed. Additionally, we noted how each variable was measured, paying particular attention to the specific level of
measurement of each variable of interest. We then recorded the analysis method for the hypotheses and noted the
findings. Based on the aforementioned information obtained from each publication, we were able to derive the
assessments reflected in the tables (i.e., were levels appropriately represented in theory/hypothesis formulation, were
levels represented appropriately in measurement, were levels addressed appropriately in data analysis techniques, and
was there an appropriate levels-based alignment between theory and data).
After the publications were classified according to leadership approach and conceptual or empirical content, we
assessed the incorporation of levels of analysis into the theory and data treatment for all the publications. This
assessment followed the guidelines for inclusion of levels of analysis into theoretical formulation and empirical
testing put forth by Dansereau & Yammarino (2000), Dansereau et al. (1984), Klein et al. (1994), Yammarino (1996).
This set of procedures focused on three key issues regarding levels of analysis.
The first issue concerned the conceptualization of multiple levels to allow their inclusion into theoretical
formulations (notated as blevels represented in theory/hypothesis formulationQ in the tables). For our purposes, we
evaluated all conceptual and empirical publications on this dimension and noted whether conceptualizations were
explicit, implicit, or indeterminable with regard to levels of analysis.
An example of an explicit incorporation of levels of analysis in the transformational leadership approach can be
found in Yammarino, Spangler, & Dubinsky (1998). The authors conceptualized a relationship between transforma-
tional leadership and subordinate performance, satisfaction, and commitment at a particular level of analysis (dyads
within group), and, moreover, clearly stated the level of analysis within the hypotheses. As such, this type of explicit
conceptualization and testable propositions lead to a rating of bexplicitQ within the category of blevel(s) represented in
theory/hypothesis formulation.Q
On the other hand, a rating of bimplicitQ within the category of blevel(s) represented in theory/hypothesis
formulationQ was achieved if there was no explicit statement regarding levels of analysis in either conceptualization
or hypotheses. If a publication had no clear levels delineation, yet we were able to determine what level was
implied by the authors, we rated that publication as having an bimplicitQ representation of levels of analysis. For
example, in the charismatic leadership approach, in Sosik & Dworakivsky (1998), although no explicit mention
was made regarding the individual level of analysis, the authors do state their study contributes to House’s (1977)
ideas regarding the critical role leader dispositional attributes play in the charismatic phenomenon. As such, we can
infer (and verify with closer examination of hypotheses and measures) that the level of interest is the leader; and
because we inferred this information, the authors received an bimplicitQ rating regarding theory/hypothesis
formulation.
Finally, if we were unable to clearly infer what theoretical level was represented in the publication, we gave a
rating of bindeterminableQ regarding the category blevel(s) represented in theory/hypothesis formulation.Q This was
especially the case for the multi-level conceptualizations where there was little or no theoretical support to assist us
in clarification and classification. For example, Beyer (1999a,b) received an bindeterminableQ rating because her
article was more of a commentary piece on charisma, and although she discussed charisma as a sociological
phenomena emerging from an interaction of various elements, no clear theoretical link was made to a particular
level of analysis.
A second key issue regarding levels-based theoretical formulation and empirical testing concerned the empirical
specification of multiple levels as to allow for their testing in data analysis. For our purposes, we evaluated all
empirical publications on this dimension using two classifications. The first classification evaluated whether levels of
analysis were represented appropriately in measurement (noted as blevel(s) represented appropriately in measurementQ
in the tables). In particular, concepts and measures were at the same level or at least aggregated appropriately, using
some aggregation assessment technique such as rWG (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) or WABA (Dansereau &
Yammarino, 2000); measures were not aggregated appropriately; concepts and measures were at different levels; or
finally, the level of measure was indeterminable with regard to levels of analysis.
The second classification for the empirical aspects of the publications addressed levels of analysis in data
analysis techniques (notated as baddressed level(s) in data analysis techniquesQ in the tables). We evaluated whether
WABA (Within and Between Analysis; Dansereau et al., 1984; Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000) or some other
multi-level technique (e.g., HLM, Hierarchical Linear Modeling; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) was employed/
reported correctly; WABA or some other multi-level (e.g., HLM) technique was used incorrectly; there was no use
of a multi-level technique; or finally, the focus of data analytic techniques was indeterminable with regard to levels
of analysis.
Finally, a third key issue regarding levels of analysis for empirical publications related to drawing inferences,
which concerned the existence of a one-to-one alignment of conceptual (theory) and empirical (data) specifications
(notated as balignment of theory and dataQ in the tables). We evaluated whether the alignment of theory and data was
at the appropriate level; the theory was at some level other than the data level; or whether the level of theory and data
represented was indeterminable with regard to levels of analysis.
To facilitate the presentation of information here, conserve space, and reduce the number of tables, we ultimately
simplified our classification/coding scheme in two ways. First, we do not present all the detail codes and coding (e.g.,
nature of the sample, other variables in the network, specific analytical tool) of all the publications we reviewed.
Second, we present our levels-of-analysis issues information in tables of articles and book chapters that have a
primary focus on conceptual or empirical work on the leadership approaches.
In particular, as noted above, we were able to identify 17 primary approaches to leadership for coding and analysis.
Of these 17 approaches, 11 approaches included both conceptual and empirical publications for coding, five
approaches included only conceptual publications for coding, and one approach included only empirical publications
for coding. A levels-of-analysis review of all conceptual publications is presented in Table 1. In Table 2, a levels-of-
analysis review of all empirical publications is presented. To summarize our findings further, Table 3, bIncorporation
of Levels-of-analysis Issues into Major Leadership Approaches,Q is presented later and shows the overall results. It is
important to note that all the evaluations of levels-of-analysis issues in theory, measurement, data analysis, and
inference drawing were classified in a bliberal/generousQ way. In other words, we gave authors bthe benefit of the
Table 1
Conceptual publications and levels-of-analysis issues
Author name (s) Date 1a
Ohio State model
Fleishman 1998a ?
Fleishman 1998b individual; group: 1
James 1998 ?
Kim, Dansereau, Kim, and Kim 2004 multilevel: 1
Schriesheim, Cogliser, and Neider 1998b ?
Contingency model
Ayman 2002 individual; group; multilevel: 1
Ayman 2004 individual; multilevel: X
Ayman, Chemers, and Fiedler 1995, 1998 multilevel: 1
Chemers, Ayman, and Fiedler 1998 multilevel: XX
Vecchio 1998 individual; dyad; group; contextual: 1
Zaccaro 1998 multilevel: 1
Participative leadership
Eden 1998 individual: 1
Vroom and Jago 1995, 1998a individual; situation; multilevel: 1
Vroom and Jago 1998b ?
Yetton and Craig 1998 ?
Path-goal theory
Evans 1996 multilevel: X
Evans 2002 individual; multilevel: X
House 1996 dyadic; multilevel: X
Schriesheim and Neider 1996 multilevel: X
Vertical dyad linkage

Dansereau 1995 dyad: 1
Charismatic leadership
Aaltio-Marjosola and Takala 2000 ?
Bass 1999 commentary: 1
Beyer 1999a ?
Beyer 1999b ?
Choi and Mai-Dalton 1998 ?
Connelly, Gaddis, and Helton-Fauth 2002 individual: X
Couto 2002 individual: 1
DeCelles and Pfarrer 2004 multilevel: X
Evans 1998 meso: X
Gardner and Avolio 1998 ?
House 1999 commentary: 1
Howell and Shamir 1998 group: 1
dyad: 1
Howell and Shamir 2005 multilevel: 1
Jones 2001 ?
Kim, Dansereau, & Kim 2002 individual: X
organizational: X
Klein and House 1995, 1998a individual: 1
dyad: 1
group: 1
organization: 1
Klein and House 1998b dyad: 1
group: 1
Romm and Pliskin 1999 ?
Sankar 2003 individual: X
Shamir 1999 ?
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued)
Shamir and Howell 1999 ?
Steyrer 2002 individual: 1
Waldman and Yammarino 1999 mixed effects: 1
mixed determinants: 1
Weierter 1997 ?
Weierter 2001 ?
Wofford 1999 ?
Transformational leadership
Antonakis and House 2002 individual: 1
Ashkanasy and Tse 2000 leader: 1
Avolio and Bass 1995 individual: 1
team: 1
organization: 1
Avolio and Bass 1998 individual: 1
group: 1
organizational: 1
Barbuto 1997 leader: X
Bass 1995 leader: X
Bass 1997a ?
Bass 1997b individual: X
Bass 1998 leader: X
Bass 1999 leader: X
organization: X
Bass and Steidlmeier 1999 leader: X
Beu and Buckley 2004 multilevel: X
Brown and Lord 1999 ?
Bryant 2003 multilevel: 1
Conger 1998 individual: 1
organizational: 1
Conger 1999 ?
Conger and Hunt 1999 ?
Dasborough and Ashkanasy 2002 multilevel: X
Hawkins and Tolzin 2002 group: X
Hunt 1999 ?
Hunt and Conger 1999 commentary: 1
Kanungo 1998 ?
Kark and Shamir 2002 individual: X
dyad: 1
group: 1
Locke 1998 individual: 1
Muczyk and Adler 2002 multilevel: X
Parent and Gallupe 2001 leader: X
Pawar and Eastman 1997 ?
Popper and Mayseless 2002 individual: X
Popper and Mayseless 2003 individual: X
Porter and Bigley 2001 multi-level: 1
Price 2003 individual: X
Sashkin 2004 individual: X
Shivers-Blackwell 2004 multilevel: X
Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko 2004 multilevel: X
Sosik and Dionne 1997 multilevel: X
Tourish and Pinnington 2002 multilevel: X
Tucker and Russell 2004 multilevel: X
Vera and Crossan 2004 multilevel: 1
Warrick 1995 ?
Yukl 1999 commentary: 1
Table 1 (continued)
Leader–member exchange
Boyd and Taylor 1998 dyad: 1
Brower, Schoorman, and Tan 2000 ?
Coleman 1998 ?
Elkins and Keller 2003 multilevel: X
Erdogan and Liden 2002 multilevel: X
Erdogan, Sparrowe, Liden, and Dunegan 2004 multilevel: X
Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995, 1998a multilevel: 1
Hui and Graen 1997 ?
Rousseau 1998 multilevel: 1
Scandura 1999 multilevel: X
Scandura and Lankau 1996 multilevel: X
Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser 1999 multilevel: 1
Varma, Farias, and Stroh 1999 multilevel: X
Information processing and implicit leadership

Brown, Scott, and Lewis 2004 individual: X
Day 1998 multilevel; crosslevel: 1
Foti 1998 dyad: 1
Hall and Lord 1995, 1998a multilevel: 1
Hall and Lord 1998b dyad: 1
Keller 2003 individual: X
Lord and Brown 2001 multilevel: X
Lord, Brown, and Freiberg 1999 multilevel: 1
Lord, Brown, Harvey, and Hall 2001 individual; dyad; group; organization;
multilevel: 1
Lord and Emrich 2001 individual; dyad; group; organization;
multilevel: 1
Substitutes for leadership

Howell 1997 multilevel: X
Murry 1998 multilevel: 1
Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1997 multilevel: X
Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1998b ?
Schriesheim 1997 multilevel: X
Tosi and Banning 1998 multilevel: 1
Tosi and Kiker 1997 multilevel: X
Romance of leadership
Ehrlich 1998 individual; dyad; group: 1
Meindl 1995, 1998a individual; group: 1
Meindl 1998b ?
Schneider 1998 ?
Influence tactics
Fu, Peng, Kennedy, and Yukl 2004 individual: X
Yukl and Chavez 2002 individual: 1
Self leadership
Guzzo 1998 individual; group: 1
Markham and Markham 1995, 1998a individual; dyad; group; organization: 1
Markham and Markham 1998b individual; dyad; whole/parts; group;
organization; culture: 1
Neck 1998 individual; group: 1
Multiple linkage
Howard 1998 ?
Liden 1998 ?
Table 1 (continued)
Multiple linkage
Yukl and Kim 1998 ?
Multilevel/Leaderplex
Cummings 1998 ?
Hooijberg, Hunt, and Dodge 1997 multilevel: X
Hunt and Ropo 1995, 1998a cross-level; mixed-level: 1
Hunt and Ropo 1998b ?
Slocum 1998 ?
Individualized leadership
Dansereau, Yammarino, Markham, Alutto, Newman, 1998b multilevel: 1
Dumas, Nachman, Naughton, Kim, Al-Kelabi, Lee,
and Keller
Ferris and Harrell-Cook 1998 ?
Mumford 1998 ?
1a : Level(s) represented in theory/hypothesis formulation. KEY: 1=explicit; X=implicit; ?=indeterminable.
doubt,Q often trying to interpret what they meant regarding levels issues even when they were less than explicit or
forthcoming.
4. Leadership approaches and levels of analysis
For each of the 17 approaches to leadership, we first provide a brief description of the theory, model, or assertions
in the literature. Then, the results of the levels-of-analysis review for each leadership approach are summarized in
terms of the appropriate reflection of levels of analysis in theory development, measurement, data analysis, and
theory-data alignment (inference drawing). When relevant, results for both conceptual (see Table 1) and empirical (see
Table 2) publications are then summarized (see Table 3).
The 17 approaches to leadership investigated in terms of levels of analyses issues were categorized according to
the Dansereau & Yammarino (1998a,b) scheme and are presented in the following order: Within the bclassicalQ
approaches, we included the Ohio State Model, the Contingency Model, Participative Leadership, Situational
Leadership, Path-Goal Theory, and Vertical Dyad Linkage. In the bcontemporaryQ approaches, we examined
Charismatic Leadership, Transformational Leadership, and Leader–Member Exchange. For the balternativeQ
approaches, we investigated Information Processing and Implicit Theories, Substitutes for Leadership, Romance of
Leadership, and Influence Tactics. For the bnew waveQ approaches, we included Self-Leadership, the Multiple
Linkage Model, Multi-Level and Leaderplex models, and Individualized Leadership. While this labeling of categories
of approaches is somewhat arbitrary, the choice of approaches to include was not, as these reflect the literature on
leadership in major publication outlets since 1995, the start of our review and the date of the two-part special issue on
multiple-level approaches to leadership in The Leadership Quarterly.
4.1. Ohio State Model
4.1.1. Description
The Ohio State approach to leadership (see Stogdill & Coors, 1957) has experienced a bit of resurgence
recently due to work by Schriesheim, Cogliser, & Neider (1995, 1998a) and Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies (2004).
Essentially, two leadership styles, initiating structure (task-oriented and directive supervisory behavior) and
consideration (friendly and interpersonally supportive supervisory behavior), are predicted to differentially impact
subordinate satisfaction and performance, given various situational moderators (e.g., unit size, job anxiety, role
clarity, supervisory control).
Initiating structure and consideration, as typically measured by the LBDQ (leader behavior description question-
naire; Stogdill & Coors, 1957), are relatively independent leadership styles, such that leaders can be placed on a
continuum from low to high on each dimension. The effectiveness of low–low, low–high, high–low, and high–high
Table 2
Empirical publications and levels-of-analysis issues
Author name (s) Date 1a 2b 3c 4d
Ohio State model
Becker, Ayman, and Korabik 2002 ? ? XX ?
Bryant and Gurman 1996 individual: X 11 XX 11
Fok, Hartman, Crow, and Moore 1995 individual: X 11 XX 11
Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies 2004 multilevel: X ?? XX ??
Korsgaard, Schweiger, and Sapienza 1995 individual: 1 11 XX 11
Schriesheim, Cogliser, and Neider 1995, 1998a within and between group: 1 1 11 1
van Engen, van der Leeden, and Willemsen 2001 multilevel; cross-level: X ? 1 ?
Contingency model
Larson, Foster-Fishman, and Franz 1998 individual; group: ? ? XX ?
Situational Leadership
Fernandez and Vecchio 1997 individual; dyad; group; multilevel: X X XX XX
Atwater, Cambrecco,
Dionne, Avolio and Lau 1997 individual: X 1 XX 11
Awamleh and Gardner 1999 ? 11 XX ?
Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl 2004 multilevel: X ? XX ?
Conger, Kanungo and Menon 2000 ? X XX XX
Crant and Bateman 2000 leader: X 11 XX 11
Deluga 1995 individual: X 11 XX 11
Deluga 1997 ? ? XX ?
Deluga 1998a leader: X ? XX ?
Deluga 2001 leader: X 11 XX 11
Den Hartog and Verburg 1997 leader: X ? XX ?
Ehrhart and Klein 2001 individual: X 11 XX 11
Fiol, Harris and House 1999 ? ? XX ?
Fuller, Patterson, Hester and Stringer 1996 ? 11 XX 11
Halverson, Holladay, Kazama, and Quiñones 2004 individual: X 11 XX 11
Haslam, Platow, Turner,
Reynolds, McGarty, Oakes, Johnson, Ryan and Veenstra 2001 leader: X ? XX ?
Hunt, Boal and Dodge 1999 ? ? XX ?
Jacobsen and House 2001 leader: X 11 ? 11
Jaussi and Dionne 2003 individual; group: 1 1 XX 11
Jaussi and Dionne 2004 individual: X 11 XX 11
Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996 individual: X 11 XX 11
Kirkpatrick, Wofford, and Baum 2002 multilevel: 1 ? XX XX
Koene, Vogelaar, and Soeters 2002 organization: X 1 XX XX
Lester, Meglino, and Korsgaard 2002 group: 1 1 XX XX
Mayo, Pastor and Meindl 1996 ? 11 XX ?
McCann 1997 ? ? XX ?
Mumford and Strange 2002 individual: X 11 XX 11
OTConnor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner and Connelly 1995 leader: X ? XX ?
Pastor and Mayo 1995 relationship: X ? 1 ?
Paul, Costley, Howell,
Dorfman and Tratimow 2001 ? XX XX XX
Pillai 1996 Group: X X XX ?
Pillai and Meindl 1998 individual: 1 ? 1 ?
group: 1
cross-level: 1
Pillai, Stites-Doe, Grewal and Meindl 1997 leader: X X XX ?
Shamir 1995 ? ? XX ?
Shamir, Zakay, Breinin and Popper 1998 unit/group: 1 1 1 11
multi-level: 1
Table 2 (continued)
Shea and Howell 1999 individual: X 11 XX 11
Sosik 2001 leader: X 1 XX 11
Sosik, Avolio, and Jung 2002 multilevel: X 1 XX XX
Sosik and Dworakivsky 1998 leader: X 11 1 11
Strange and Mumford 2002 individual X 11 XX 11
Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, and Yammarino 2004 multilevel: 1 1 1 11
Towler 2003 individual X 11 XX 11
Waldman and Javidan 2002 meso: 1 1 XX ?
Waldman, Javidan, and Varella 2004 cross-level: 1 X XX XX
Weierter 1999 individual: X X XX XX
Yagil 1998 ? 11 XX ?
Yorges, Weiss and Strickland 1999 leader: X 11 XX 11
Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe 2000 leader: X 11 XX 11
Alimo-Metalfe and Alban-Metcalfe 2001 leader: X 11 XX 11
Avolio, Bass and Jung 1999 leader: X 11 XX 11
Avolio, Howell and Sosik 1999 individual: X X 1 ?
group: X
Barbuto, Fritz and Marx 2000 leader: X 11 XX 11
Barling, Loughlin, and Kelloway 2002 individual: X 11 XX 11
Barling, Weber and Kelloway 1996 leader: X X XX ?
organization: X
Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson 2003 group level: 1 1 XX XX
Basu and Green 1997 dyad: 1 X XX XX
Behling and McFillen 1996 leader: X 11 XX 11
Berson and Avolio 2004 multilevel: 1 1 1 11
Berson, Shamir, Avolio and Popper 2001 leader: 1 ? 1 ?
organizational moderator: X
Bommer, Rubin, and Baldwin 2004 individual: X 1 XX XX
Bono and Judge 2003 multilevel: 1 1 XX XX
Bono and Judge 2004 ? ? XX ?
Brown and Dodd 1999 individual: 1 X XX ?
group: 1
Butler, Cantrell and Flick 1999 ? XX XX XX
Bycio, Hackett and Allen 1995 individual: X 11 XX 11
Cable and Judge 2003 individual: X 11 XX 11
Carless 1998a leader: X 11 XX 11
Carless 1998b leader: X X XX ?
Carless 2001 leader: X 11 XX 11
Carless, Wearing and Mann 2000 individual: X X XX ?
Church and Waclawski 1998 leader: X X XX ?
Church and Waclawski 1999 leader: X 11 XX 11
Comer, Jolson, Dubinsky and Yammarino 1995 leader: X 11 XX 11
Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, et al. 1999 Culture/country: 1 XX X XX
Den Hartog, Van-Muijen and Koopman 1997 leader: X 11 XX 11
Dionne, Yammarino, Comer, Dubinsky and Jolson 1996 individual: X 11 XX 11
Dubinsky, Yammarino and Jolson 1995 leader: 1 1 XX 11
Dubinsky, Yammarino, Jolson and Spangler 1995 leader: X 11 XX 11
Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio 2002 leader: X 11 XX ?
Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir 2002 group: 1 X XX XX
Dvir and Shamir 2003 group: 1 X XX XX
Egri and Herman 2000 leader: X 1 XX ?
organization: X
Felfe and Schyns 2004 multilevel: X X XX XX
Fields and Herold 1997 leader: X 11 XX 11
Fuller, Morrison, Jones, Bridger and Brown 1999 leader: X 11 XX 11
Garman, Davis-Lenane, Corrigan 2003 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Table 2 (continued)
Geyer and Steyrer 1998 leader: X ? XX ?
organization: X
Godshalk and Sosik 2000 individual: X 11 XX 11
Goodwin, Wofford, and Boyd 2000 leader: X 11 XX 11
Goodwin, Wofford and Whittington 2001 leader: X 11 11 11
Howell and Hall-Merenda 1999 individual: 1 11 1 11
Judge and Bono 2000 leader: X 11 XX 11
Judge and Piccolo 2004 ? ? XX ?
Jung 2001 group: 1 1 XX 11
Jung and Avolio 1998 group: 1 1 XX ?
Jung and Avolio 1999 ? ? XX ?
Jung and Avolio 2000 individual: X 11 1 11
Jung, Chow, and Wu 2003 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Kahai, Sosik, and Avolio 2003 group: 1 1 XX XX
Kan and Parry 2004 multilevel: X ? ? ?
Kane and Tremble 2000 leader: X X XX ?
Kark, Shamir, and Chen 2003 multilevel: 1 1 1 11
Koh, Steers and Terborg 1995 school: 1 X XX ?
Kuchinke 1999 country: 1 XX X XX
Lim and Polyhart 2004 multilevel: 1 1 XX XX
Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramanian 1996 ? ? XX ?
MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich 2001 individual: X ? XX ?
Madzar 2001 individual: X 11 XX 11
Maher 1997 leader: X 11 XX 11
Martin and Epitropaki 2001 individual: X 11 XX 11
Masi and Cooke 2000 leader: X X XX ?
organization: X
McColl-Kenedy and Anderson 2002 individual: X 11 XX 11
Morales and Molero 1995 individual: X ? ? ?
Parry 2002 group: 1 ? XX ?
Pillai, Schriesheim and Williams 1999 individual: X 11 1 11
Pillai and Williams 1998 individual: X 11 XX 11
Pillai, Williams, Lowe, and Jung 2003 individual: X 1 XX 11
Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Bommer 1996b leader: X 11 XX ?
organization: X
Popper, Mayseless and Castelnovo 2000 leader: X 11 XX 11
Rafferty and Griffin 2004 individual: X 11 XX 11
Rai and Sinha 2000 leader: X 11 XX 11
Ross and Offermann 1997 leader: X X XX ?
group: X
Russ, McNeilly and Comer 1996 leader: 1 X XX ?
Schyns 2001 individual: X 11 XX 11
Shin and Zhou 2003 individual: X 1 XX XX
Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, and Jung 2002 group: 1 11 1 11
Sosik 1997 group: X 11 XX 11
Sosik, Avolio and Kahai 1997 group: X X 1 ?
Sosik, Avolio and Kahai 1998 group: 1 1 1 11
Sosik and Godshalk 2000 individual: X 11 1 11
Sosik, Godshalk, and Yammarino 2004 multilevel: 1 11 11 11
Sosik, Kahai and Avolio 1998 group: 1 1 1 11
Sosik, Kahai and Avolio 1999 person - group X X XX XX
Sosik and Megerian 1999 leader: X 11 1 11
Sosik, Potosky, and Jung 2002 individual: X 11 XX 11
Tejeda, Scandura and Pillai 2001 leader: X 11 XX 11
Tracey and Hinkin 1998 leader: X 11 XX 11
Tucker, McCarthy and Jones 1999 leader: X 11 XX 11
Turner, Barling, Epitropaki, Butcher, and Milner 2002 individual: X 1 XX 11
Table 2 (continued)
Waldman, Ramirez, House and Puranam 2001 organization: 1 1 XX 11
Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, and Shi 2004 multilevel: X 1 XX XX
Whittington, Goodwin and Murray 2004 dyad: 1 XX XX XX
Wofford, Goodwin and Whittington 1998 leader: X XX 1 ?
group: X
Wofford, Whittington and
Goodwin 2001 individual: 1 multi-level: 1 ? X ?
Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer and Jolson 1997 individual: 1 dyad-within-group: 1 11 11 11
between-dyads: 1
Yammarino, Spangler and Dubinsky 1998 dyad: 1 11 11 11
group: 1
Zacharatos, Barling and Kelloway 2000 individual: X X 1 ?
Zohar 2002 group: 1 1 XX 11
Zohar and Luria 2004 group: 1 1 XX 11
Ashkanasy and OTConnor 1997 dyad: X XX XX XX
Bauer and Green 1996 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 individual; within and between group: 1 11 11 11
Deluga 1998b multilevel: X XX XX XX
Dose 1999 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Dunegan, Uhl-Bien, and Duchon 2002 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Engle and Lord 1997 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Epitropaki and Martin 1999 dyad: X XX XX XX
Erdogan, Kraimer, and Liden 2004 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Gerstner and Day 1997 multilevel: X ? XX ?
Green, Anderson, and Shivers 1996 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Hofmann and Morgeson 1999 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Hofmann, Morgeson, and Gerras 2003 multilevel: 1 1 1 11
Hui, Law, and Chen 1999 ? ? XX ?
Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, and Gully 2003 multilevel: X XX X XX
Keller and Dansereau 2001 dyad: 1 11 XX ?
Klein and Kim 1998 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski 2001 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Liden and Maslyn 1998 dyad: X XX XX XX
Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe 2000 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Major, Kozlowski, Chao and Gardner 1995 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Maslyn and Uhl-Bien 2001 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Murphy, Wayne, Liden, and Erdogan 2003 multilevel X XX XX XX
Schriesheim, Castro, and Yammarino 2002 multilevel: 1 11 11 11
Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, and Yammarino 2001 individual within dyads and groups; 11 11 11
individuals between dyads and groups;
dyads within and between groups: 1
Schriesheim, Neider, and Scandura 1998 within groups: 1 11 11 11
Sherman 2002 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Sherony and Green 2002 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Somech 2003 individual; whole group: 1 X X ?
Tekleab and Taylor 2003 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Tierney, Bauer, and Potter 2002 mixed determinants: X XX XX XX
Tierney, Farmer, and Graen 1999 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Townsend, Phillips, and Elkins 2000 dyad; multilevel: X XX XX XX
Wayne, Shore, Bommer, and Tetrick 2002 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Wayne, Shore, and Liden 1997 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Informational processing and implicit leadership

Epitropaki and Martin 2004 individual; group: X XX XX XX
Forsyth, Heiney, and Wright 1997 multilevel: X ? XX ?
Keller 1999 individual: X 11 XX 11
Table 2 (continued)
Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, and James 2002 group: 1 1 XX 11
Gronn 1999 dyad: 1 ? ? ?
Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1995, 1998a individual; group: 1 ? XX XX
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer 1996a multilevel: X ? XX ?
Pool 1997 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Influence tactics
Farmer, Maslyn, Fedor, and Goodman 1997 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Fu and Yukl 2000 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Seifert, Yukl, and McDonald 2003 multilevel: 1 XX XX XX
Yukl and Fu 1999 individual; dyad; multilevel: X XX XX XX
Yukl, Guinan, and Sottolano 1995 individual: X 11 XX 11
Yukl, Kim, and Chavez 1999 individual: X 11 XX 11
Yukl, Kim, and Falbe 1996 multilevel: X XX XX XX
Self leadership
Prussia, Anderson, and Manz 1998 individual: X 11 XX 11
Stewart, Carson, and Cardy 1996 individual: X 11 XX 11
Multiple linkage
Kim and Yukl 1995, 1998 multilevel: 1 11 11 11
Dansereau, Yammarino, Markham, Alutto, Newman, Dumas, 1995, 1998a individual; dyad: 1 11 11 11
Nachman, Naughton, Kim, Al-Kelabi, Lee, and Keller
1a : Level(s) represented in theory/hypothesis formulation. KEY: 1=explicit; X=implicit; ?=indeterminable.
2b : Level(s) represented appropriately in measurement. KEY: 11=concepts and measure(s) at same level; 1=measure(s) at one level, but
aggregated appropriately to level of concept(s); X=measure(s) not aggregated appropriately to level of concept; XX=concepts and measure(s) at
different levels; ?=indeterminable.
3c : Addressed level(s) in data analysis techniques. KEY: 11=used WABA at correct level; 1=used some multi-level technique correctly at
appropriate level; X=used a multi-level technique or WABA incorrectly; XX=no use of a multi-level technique; ?=indeterminable.
4d : Alignment of theory and data. KEY: 11=yes, at appropriate level; XX=theory at some level other than data level; ?=indeterminable.
consideration and initiating structure styles depends greatly on the type of performance assessed and various
situational or contextual factors.
4.1.2. Levels-of-analysis results

The results for the Ohio State Model are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Of five conceptual articles reviewed, only
two (40%) included explicit levels-of-analysis discussions within their theoretical development. Empirical publica-
tions (seven) had even fewer instances of explicit levels of analysis inclusion within their theoretical and hypotheses
developments (only two or 29%). Because several studies were conducted at the individual level of analysis,
measurement and theory-data alignment scores were higher (both 57%, four of seven), and the use of a multi-
level technique is therefore lower (29%, two of seven) for this leadership approach.
4.2. Contingency model
4.2.1. Description
Perhaps the first or oldest multiple-level approach to leadership was the contingency model of leadership
effectiveness (see Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 1995, 1998; Fiedler, 1967). Moreover, it was one of the first models
that was tested with multi-source data. Nevertheless, though numerous studies have supported the basic propositions,
many others have not, and the model also has elicited strong criticism (see Ayman et al., 1995, 1998; Yukl, 1998).
The model predicts that two main factors determine a leader’s effectiveness: a task or relationship style
(motivational orientation), which is a leader attribute, and a leader’s situational favorability (situational control). In
brief, leaders who have a task motivational orientation compared to those who have a relationship orientation are
Table 3
Incorporation of levels-of-analysis issues into major leadership approaches
Leadership theory Levels reflected in Levels reflected in Levels reflected in Levels alignment of
theory development measurement data analysis theory and data
Ohio State
Conceptual 2 / 5 (40%)
Empirical 2 / 7 (29%) 4 / 7 (57%) 2 / 7 (29%) 4 / 7 (57%)
Contingency model
Empirical 0 / 1 (0%) 0 / 1 (0%) 0 / 1 (0%) 0 / 1 (0%)
Participative leadership
Situational leadership
Empirical 0 / 1 (0%) 0 / 1 (0%) 0 / 1 (0%) 0 / 1 (0%)
Path-goal
Vertical dyad linkage
Charismatic
Empirical 7 / 46 (15%) 27 / 46 (59%) 5 / 46 (11%) 20 / 46 (43%)
Transformational
Empirical 31 / 102 (30%) 66 / 102 (65%) 18 / 102 (18%) 54 / 102 (53%)
Empirical 7 / 35 (20%) 6 / 35 (17%) 5 / 35 (14%) 5 / 35 (14%)
Information processing and implicit theories
Empirical 0 / 3 (0%) 1 / 3 (33%) 0 / 3 (0%) 1 / 3 (33%)
Empirical 3 / 5 (60%) 1 / 5 (20%) 0 / 5 (0%) 1 / 5 (20%)
Romance of leadership
Influence Tactics
Empirical 1 / 7 (14%) 2 / 7 (29%) 0 / 7 (0%) 2 / 7 (29%)
Self-leadership
Empirical 0 / 2 (0%) 2 / 2 (100%) 0 / 2 (0%) 2 / 2 (100%)
Multiple linkage
Empirical 1 / 1 (100%) 1 / 1 (100%) 1 / 1 (100%) 1 / 1 (100%)
Multilevel and leaderplex
Empirical 1 / 1 (100%) 1 / 1 (100%) 1 / 1 (100%) 1 / 1 (100%)
All approaches
Empirical 53 / 211 (25%) 111 / 211 (53%) 32 / 211 (15%) 91 / 211 (43%)
predicted to be more successful in high-and low-control situations. In contrast, relationship-oriented leaders, as

compared to task-oriented leaders, are predicted to be more effective in moderate-control situations. Leaders are said
to be bin matchQ in situations where the model predicts high group performance and are referred as bout of matchQ in
situations of low group performance.
In the ideal contingency model approach, a leader’s style or motivational orientation is measured at the individual
(leader) level by the LPC (least preferred coworker) scale. Situational control or favorability is comprised of group
climate, task structure, and authority which are assessed via the group- or individual-level measures of group
atmosphere or leader–member relations, task structure or type of job, and position power, respectively. Typical
measures of leadership effectiveness, at the group, dyad, or individual level, include satisfaction, stress, and
performance. Overall, the situational control variables (three variables with two levels each, 2 2 2) comprised
the classic eight-cell view of moderators of the leader attribute/style-end result/performance relationship.

The results for the contingency model are presented in Tables 1 and 2. A majority of conceptual articles reviewed
for contingency theory (four of six) explicitly expressed the appropriate level of analysis to consider in theoretical
development (67%). However, in the single empirical study reviewed, there was no mention or consideration of levels
of analysis within any rating category (theory, measurement, data analysis, or inference drawing).
4.3. Participative leadership
4.3.1. Description
Vroom & Yetten (1973) and Vroom and Jago (1988, 1995, 1998a,b) have developed a normative model of leader
decision-making to understand a leader’s choice of autocratic versus participative behaviors. In brief, their model
guides the leader’s choice among five decision processes (AI, AII, CI, CII, GII) on the basis of 11 decision heuristics
that are grouped around the notions of improving decision quality, improving decision commitment, reducing
decision costs and time, and increasing subordinate development. Overall, the appropriate decision styles that result
for effective leadership are autocratic, consultative, and collaborative sharing (either joint or delegative), but the
choice of these styles differs from situation-to-situation.

The results for participative leadership are presented in Table 1. Here, 50% (two of four) of the conceptual articles
in this domain review explicitly addressed the level of analysis regarding theoretical development. There were no
empirical articles included in the review for this leadership domain.
4.4. Situational leadership
4.4.1. Description
Articles and publications reviewed for this approach generally were based on the work of Hersey & Blanchard
(1977, 1984). They proposed a contingency theory that prescribed the use of different patterns of leadership behavior
that depends on subordinates’ levels of maturity; both job maturity in terms of task-relevant skills and technical
knowledge and psychological maturity in terms of self-confidence and self-respect.
According to the theory, as subordinate maturity increases from minimum to moderate levels, the leader should use
more relations behavior and less task behavior. As subordinate maturity increases from moderate to maximum levels,
the leader should decrease both task and relations behavior. In general for M1 (immature levels) subordinates, the
leader should be directive; for M2 and M3 (moderate levels) subordinates, the leader should be supportive and consult
with subordinates in making decisions; for M4 (very mature levels) subordinates, the leader should delegate
responsibility to subordinates and allow them autonomy.

The results for situational leadership are presented in Table 2. There were no conceptual articles reviewed within
this leadership domain. The lone empirical publication reviewed did not address levels of analysis within any rating
category (theory, measurement, data analysis, or inference drawing).
4.5. Path-goal theory
4.5.1. Description
House (1971) offered a path-goal motivation theory explanation of the effects of leader behavior on subordinate
satisfaction, motivation, and performance. He analyzed dimensions of leader behavior such as leader initiating
structure, consideration, authoritarianism, hierarchical influence, and closeness of supervision in terms of path-goal
variables such as valence and instrumentality. His theory also specified some of the situational moderators on which the
effects of specific leader behaviors are contingent. Subsequently, House (1996) described two legacies of path-goal
theory – substitutes for leadership theory and charismatic leadership theory – and presented a reformulated theory of
work unit leadership. The reformulated path-goal theory specified eight classes of leader behavior that enhance
subordinate empowerment and satisfaction as well as work unit and subordinate effectiveness, subject to several
contingency moderators. For House (1971, 1996), the essence of path-goal theory is a meta-proposition that leaders, to
be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates’ environments and abilities in a way that compensates
for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work group unit performance.

The results for path-goal theory are presented in Table 1. Four conceptual articles were reviewed for path-goal
theory; however, no articles explicitly stated the appropriate level of analysis within the theoretical development.
There were no published empirical articles since 1995 reviewed for this leadership domain.
4.6. Vertical dyad linkage
4.6.1. Description
The vertical dyad linkage (VDL) approach to leadership was the first one to recognize that leaders treat subordinates
within the same work group differently (Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Dansereau & Yammarino,
1998c,d). This notion was a radical one at that time, as prior approaches to leadership assumed that leaders treated all
followers or subordinates in a group similarly. Using the key variable of negotiating latitude, leaders can create
differentiated dyads within work groups, such that some subordinates are members of the bin-group,Q while others
are members of the bout-group.Q Two legacies of the VDL approach are the leader–member exchange (LMX) and
individualized leadership approaches, both of which involve different variables/constructs and alternative levels of
analysis as compared to the VDL approach (see Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau & Yammarino, 1998c,d).

The results for vertical dyad linkage are presented in Table 1. A single conceptual study regarding VDL included in
this review did explicitly address levels of analysis within theoretical development. There were no empirical articles
included in this review for this leadership approach.
4.7. Charismatic leadership
4.7.1. Description
Like transformational leadership, charismatic leadership is part of the bnew leadership genre.Q Although there
exists earlier work (i.e., Downton, 1973; Weber, 1924/1947), charismatic leadership theory in the management and
psychology literature is primarily based on the initial work of House (1977) and subsequent work by Conger &
Kanungo (1987) and Shamir, House, & Arthur (1993). In these approaches, charismatic leadership is generally
defined in terms of the leader’s influence over followers and the nature of the leader–follower relationship. Key leader
behaviors include articulating an appealing vision, communicating high performance expectations, displaying self-
confidence, role modeling exemplary behavior, expressing confidence in followers’ abilities to achieve goals, and
emphasizing ideological aspects of work and collective identity (House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1993). Other key aspects
of charismatic leader behavior are articulating an innovative strategic vision, displaying unconventional or creative
behaviors, taking personal risks, and showing sensitivity to follower needs and environmental constraints, opportu-
nities, and threats (Conger & Kanungo, 1987).
The effects of these charismatic behaviors are numerous (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Shamir et al.,
1993): followers develop trust in, respect for, devotion to, loyalty to, unquestioned obedience to, commitment to, and
identification with the leader; confidence in their ability to achieve goals and exceed expectations; and radical changes
in their beliefs and values. Socialized charismatic leadership includes the development and empowerment of others, a
basis for egalitarian behavior, and indicates that the leader disregards his/her self-interest in favor of the collective
interest. Socialized charismatic leaders are characterized by a high need for power with high activity inhibition, low
Machiavelianism, nonauthoritarianism, strong internal beliefs, and high self-esteem. In the transformational leader-
ship realm (covered in detail in the next section), such leaders are called authentic transformationals (Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999).
Personalized charismatic leadership, in contrast, includes exploitation of others, personal dominance and author-
itarian behavior, and serving the leader’s self-interest and self-aggrandizement. Personalized charismatic leaders are
characterized by a high need for power with low activity inhibition, high Machiavelianism, high narcissism, external
beliefs, and low self-esteem. In the transformational leadership realm (see section below), such leaders are called
pseudotransformational (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).
Charismatic leaders (socialized charismatics) form a unique emotional and value-based bond with their followers.
They achieve their charismatic effects by engaging and implicating followers’ self-concepts. Through role-modeling
behaviors and frame alignment, charismatic leaders develop followers’ values and beliefs to be congruent and
complementary with the leaders’ ideology, goals, and activities. In particular, charismatic leaders are able to increase
followers’ intrinsic valence of effort and goal accomplishment, effort-accomplishment expectancies, and prospects
and hopes for a better future state.

The results for charismatic leadership are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The conceptually focused charismatic
publications included in this review displayed a levels perspective in theory and hypothesis development approximately
31% (8 of 26) of the time. The empirical charismatic studies included in this review noted the appropriate level of
analysis for theory and hypothesis development approximately 15% (7 of 46) of the time. Because several studies were
conducted at the individual level of analysis, we see significantly higher percentage scores in measurement (59%, 27 of
46) and theory-data alignment (43%, 20 of 46), than in use of a multi-level data analytic technique (11%, 5 of 46).
4.8. Transformational leadership
4.8.1. Description
Along with charismatic leadership, transformational leadership represents the bnew leadership genre.Q While earlier
work exists (i.e., Burns, 1978), transformational leadership theory in management and psychology research is primarily
based on the work of Bass (1985). In this approach, transformational leadership is generally defined in terms of the
leader’s behaviors and effect on followers. Different from transactional leadership (defined as an exchange process to
motivate follower compliance with a leader’s requests and organizational role requirements), transformational leader-
ship involves an underlying influence process that motivates followers by encouraging them to transcend their self-
interests for the sake of the organization and goal accomplishment. Followers, through transformational leadership, are
motivated to do more than originally expected and feel trust, loyalty, respect, and admiration toward the leader.
Transformational leaders raise followers’ levels of awareness and consciousness about the value and importance of
key outcomes and their accomplishments. They alter followers’ portfolios of needs and wants, expanding and raising
these in terms of the need hierarchy. Moreover, transformational leaders encourage and help followers transcend their
self-interests for the enhancement of the group, team, organization, or larger society interests.
Bass (1985, 1990) draws a distinction between transformational and charismatic leadership that is generally,
though not universally, endorsed by others (see Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Conger, 1999; Hunt, 1999; Hunt &
Conger, 1999b; Yukl, 1998, 1999). A leader may be charismatic without being transformational in that little or no
influence to change followers is exerted. As such, charismatic leadership is only one component of transformational
leadership– along with inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration– for most
transformational leadership researchers. While charismatic leadership is a key, perhaps the key, component of
transformational leadership, charisma is a necessary but not sufficient element of transformational leadership
(Bass, 1985, 1990). House (1977), House & Shamir (1993), and other charismatic researchers (e.g., Conger &
Kanungo, 1987) would disagree. They argue that charisma is the unique and distinct element and the only aspect of
leadership that is bextraordinaryQ or boutstanding.Q

The results for transformational leadership are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Examination of tables reveals that,
although one of the most widely researched theories of modern leadership, several articles do not address levels-of-
analysis issues. Conceptual transformational leadership articles in this review explicitly addressed levels of analysis in
theory and hypothesis development approximately 30% (12 of 40) of the time. Empirical transformational articles in
this review fared about the same, as 30% (31 of 102) of the studies explicitly addressed the levels of analysis within
the theoretical or hypothesis development portion of the article or book chapter. Although the percentage of these
empirical articles that appropriately measured the constructs is fairly substantial (65%, 66 of 102), several of these
studies were conducted at the individual level of analysis. As such, the alignment between theory and data is
approximately 53% (54 of 102), which is a considerable reflection of articles that theorize, measure, and analyze
concepts at a single level of analysis, that of the individual. Because several studies were conducted at the individual
level of analysis, multi-level data analytic techniques generally were not indicated, as reflected by the low percentage
score (18%, 18 of 102).
4.9. Leader–member exchange
4.9.1. Description
Leader–member exchange is a relationship-based approach to leadership (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995, 1998) that
developed from the vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership (see Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau et al., 1975). The
LMX literature is quite extensive (see Schriesheim et al., 1999), perhaps second only in quantity of work to that of
transformational and charismatic leadership. LMX research has evolved through four research stages (Graen and Uhl-
Bien, 1995, 1998). In stage one, research found that leaders developed differentiated relationships with their sub-
ordinates. In stage two, research focused on these differentiated relationships of the leader within the work unit and the
nomological network of LMX-related constructs. In stage three, the focus of research was on how leaders work with each
person/subordinate on a one-to-one basis to develop a partnership with each of them. In stage four, dyadic relationships
are expressed in terms of how they are organized into larger collectives within and beyond the organizational system.
At the core, LMX is an exchange-based relationship between a leader and a follower. More specifically, LMX is a
system of components and their relationship involving both members and interdependent patterns of behavior as well as
sharing mutual outcomes. It differs from VDL (which focuses on negotiating latitude) and individualized leadership
(which focuses on support for self-worth), both of which seem to have a clear level of analysis focus (see Dansereau,
1995; Schriesheim et al., 1999). In LMX, a leader and individual follower develop a relationship as they influence each
other and negotiate the follower’s role. This exchange relationship takes one of two general forms: the bin-groupQ is a
special exchange relationship with a small number of trusted subordinates who serve as assistants or advisors; the bout-
groupQ is the remaining subordinates with whom the exchange relationship is more formalized and based on role
requirements and job descriptions. Over time, LMX relationships can develop from stranger (low), to acquaintance
(medium), to maturity (high) in a life cycle of leadership making (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995, 1998).

The results for leader–member exchange are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Several studies were conducted within
this leadership domain; however, only 31% (4 of 13) of conceptual articles included in this review explicitly indicated
the appropriate level of analysis within the theoretical discussion. Empirical articles had an even lower percentage,
where only 20% (7 of 35) of these LMX studies explicitly stated the appropriate level of analysis within the
theoretical and hypothesis development portion of the publications. The percentage of empirical LMX articles and
book chapters in this review that appropriately incorporated levels of analysis into measurement and data analytic
techniques was exceedingly low, indicated by 17% (6 of 35) and 14% (5 of 35), respectively. As such, the alignment
between theory and data also was low, where only 14% (5 of 35) of these empirical articles were at the appropriate
level of analysis given the theoretical development.
4.10. Information processing and implicit theories
4.10.1. Description
As noted by Lord & Maher (1993) and Hall & Lord (1995, 1998), the information-processing and person
perception literatures imply that leadership perceptions and implicit views of leadership are based on both affective
and cognitive processing strategies. These mechanisms determine followers’ perceptions of leaders and play an
important role in the formation, often rapidly, of liking or disliking of a leader. Follower affect and cognitions result in
leadership perceptions that can be recognition-based or inference-based. Stereotypes and implicit theories of followers
or subordinates about effective leadership determine the perceived relevance of various types of leader behavior (see
Lord & Maher, 1993). Followers and subordinates also use information about the situation and past events to draw
conclusions about effective leadership and judge a leader’s intentions.

The results for information processing and implicit theories are presented in Tables 1 and 2. An impressive 70%
(seven of ten) of conceptual publications included in this leadership domain review explicitly stated the level of
analysis regarding theoretical development. However, none of the three empirical publications specified the level of
analysis explicitly, and because one of the three studies was clearly conducted at the individual level of analysis, 33%
of the empirical publications had appropriate measures and alignment between theory and data. However no empirical
articles included the use of a multi-level technique.
4.11. Substitutes for leadership
4.11.1. Description
For nearly 30 years, Kerr & Jermier’s (1978) substitutes for leadership model has been an integral part of
leadership theory, even recognized as a leadership classic by some researchers (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Bonner,
1996a,b). Kerr & Jermier’s (1978) work differed from previous leadership theory that suggested leadership styles will
be effective regardless of the situation. Rather, they posited that particular individual, task, and organizational
variables could substitute for or neutralize leadership, thereby negating a leader’s ability to positively or negatively
influence subordinate attitudes and effectiveness. Neutralizers create an influence vacuum and reflect characteristics
that make leadership effects impossible. On the other hand, substitutes not only can affect which leader behaviors are
influential, but also will tend to impact the criterion variable.
Kerr & Jermier’s (1978) discussed 14 characteristics and delineated which of those may neutralize either
relationship- or task-oriented leadership. They believed that a subordinate’s need for independence, professional
orientation, and indifference toward organizational rewards would tend to neutralize relationship-oriented leadership.
Similarly, intrinsically satisfying tasks, cohesive work groups, no control over rewards, and spatial distance between
subordinate and superior also would neutralize relationship-oriented leadership.
Moreover, Kerr & Jermier’s (1978) posited that subordinate characteristics such as the need for independence,
professional orientation, indifference toward rewards, and ability and experience would tend to neutralize task-
oriented leadership. Similarly, routine tasks, highly standardized tasks, tasks that provide their own outcome
feedback, cohesive work groups, no control over rewards, spatial distance between subordinate and superior, highly
specified staff functions and organizational formalization and inflexibility also would neutralize task-oriented
leadership. Thus, their model posits that substitutes moderate the leader behavior-outcome relationship for all three
categories of substitutes (individual, task, and organization), and yet, as originally proposed, the weight of the
empirical evidence has not supported the substitute model (Podsakoff et al., 1996a,b).
4.11.2. Level of analysis results

The results for substitutes for leadership are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Several conceptual articles within the
substitutes literature review did not explicitly address levels of analysis within the theoretical development of the
article (only 29%, two of seven, did so). Empirical publications showed some improvement over this score, with 60%
(three of five) of the articles reviewed explicitly stating an appropriate level of analysis for theoretical and hypothesis
development. However, only 20% (one of five) of the articles reviewed appropriately addressed levels of analysis
within measurement, and similarly, only 20% (one of five) resulted in appropriate levels-based alignment between
theory and data. None of the empirical articles reviewed used a multi-level analytic technique.
4.12. Romance of leadership
4.12.1. Description
The romance of leadership approach is a follower-centric perspective on leadership that takes a social construc-
tionist view (Meindl, 1995, 1998; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). This approach refers to the prominence of
leaders and leadership in the way that actors and observers address organizational issues. Meindl and colleagues
believe that there is a potential bias or false assumption made by actors and observers about the relative importance of
leadership factors in the functioning and effectiveness of groups and organizations. Moreover, bromanceQ relies on
social contagion phenomena (Meindl, 1995, 1998). In other words, through observation and attribution processes,
followers come to collectively influence one another and believe that leadership matters or makes a difference when,
in fact, it may not (see Meindl, 1995, 1998). Heroic social identification, articulation of an appealing ideology,
symbols, rituals, and rites of passage all play a role in this process.

The results for the romance of leadership are presented in Table 1. Of the four conceptual articles included in this
review regarding the romance of leadership, only two (50%) included any specific referent to a particular level of
analysis. There were no empirical articles included in this review regarding this domain of leadership.
4.13. Influence tactics
4.13.1. Description
While influence approaches have a long history in leadership research (e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980;
Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990), Yukl and his colleagues have recently developed and extended this line of research
(Yukl, 1998; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). In particular, they examine specific types of behavior used to
exercise influence, rather than focusing solely on power as a potential source of influence.
Influence attempts, based on legitimate power, that are reasonable, relevant to the mission, and the target person
knows how to do, tend to be the most successful. The key categories of influence tactics, or proactive influence
behaviors, are: rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, ingratiation, personal appeals, exchange,
coalition tactics, legitimacy tactics, and pressure. The directional use (up, down, or lateral) and effectiveness of
these tactics varies across situations and targets (subordinates, peers, or supervisor).

The results for influence tactics are presented in Tables 1 and 2. One of the two (50%) conceptual influence publications
included in this review explicitly addressed levels of analysis within theory development. Also, only 14% (one of seven)
of the empirical articles reviewed explicitly addressed levels of analysis within theory development; and for measure-
ment, 29% (two of seven) of the studies reflected levels appropriately; however, none of the articles employed a
complete multi-level data analytic technique. Due to some empirical articles being strictly conceptualized and tested at
the individual level of analysis, 29% (two of seven) had appropriate levels-based alignment between theory and data.
4.14. Self-leadership
4.14.1. Description
Self-management and self-leadership approaches have had an impact and several practical applications in the areas
of self-managed teams and high-performance organizations (see Manz & Sims, 1980). Self-management and self-
leadership are a set of strategies that an individual uses to influence and improve his/her own behavior and actions. To
the extent that self-management and self-leadership can be encouraged and used as an employee empowerment
practice, then supervisors and leaders can be eliminated, reassigned, or engaged in other important organizational
activities (Markham & Markham, 1995, 1998).
This literature implies a tradeoff between increasing self-leadership for individuals versus increasing a group’s
ability to manage itself. Or, how does one maximize self-leadership for individuals while at the same time making
groups, departments, and organizations more coordinated and effective (Markham & Markham, 1995, 1998)? Self-
management and self-leadership are a sub-domain of self-control and self-regulation theory which, in turn, are derived
from social learning theory and cybernetic theory (see Manz & Sims, 1980; Markham & Markham, 1995, 1998).

The results for self-leadership are presented in Tables 1 and 2. An impressive 100% of the four conceptual
publications reviewed within this domain specifically addressed the appropriate level of analysis for theoretical
development. Unfortunately, neither of the two empirical articles explicitly noted the appropriate level of analysis.
Because the two empirical studies were both conducted at the individual level of analysis, the measurement and
alignment ratings were perfect (100%); however, there was no use of a multi-level data analytic technique.
4.15. Multiple linkage
4.15.1. Description
The multiple linkage model proposed and developed by Yukl and colleagues (Kim & Yukl, 1995, 1998; Yukl,
1971, 1998), builds on prior models of leadership and group effectiveness. Using four types of variables– leader
behaviors, intervening variable, situational variables, and criteria– the model proposes interacting effects of leader
behavior and situational variables on intervening variables that determine work unit performance. In this model,
leader behaviors include 14 managerial behaviors identified and researched by Yukl and colleagues. The intervening
variables include subordinate effort, role clarity and task skills, organization of work, cohesiveness and cooperation,
resources and support services, and external coordination. Situational variables include neutralizers, substitutes, and
various other factors. The model proposes that leaders institute short-term actions to deal with deficiencies in the
intervening variables and positively impact group performance in the long term.

The results for the multiple linkage approach are presented in Tables 1 and 2. None of the three conceptual articles
included in this domain review explicitly addressed the appropriate level of analysis regarding theoretical develop-
ment. However, a single empirical study included in this review addressed levels of analysis in theory, measurement,
and data analysis, and as such, a levels-based alignment between theory and data was evident.
4.16. Multilevel and leaderplex
4.16.1. Description
Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge (1997), building on earlier work by Hunt (1991), Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, &
McGrath (2003, competing values framework) and Jaques (Jacobs & Jaques, 1987; Jaques, 1989; Jaques & Cason,
1998), integrate behavioral complexity, cognitive capacity, and social intelligence into a multi-level leaderplex theory
(also see Hunt & Ropo, 1995, 1998a). In this model, behavioral complexity is represented by the eight roles in the
competing values framework. Cognitive complexity or capacity assumes that cognitively complex individuals process
information differently from and perform selected tasks better than cognitively less complex people because they use
more categories to discriminate among stimuli and see more commonalities among these categories. Cognitive
complexity is seen as underlying absorptive capacity. Relatedly, cognitive capacity or cognitive power connotes those
mental processes that tap the scale and complexity of the world one is able to pattern and construe. This is the raw
mental power enabling one to sustain increasingly complex mental processes.
Social intelligence, another leader characteristic, is the ability to notice and make distinctions among other
individuals — in particular, among their moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions. Beyond the ability to
understand is the ability to act on one’s understanding of others. This latter point ties general social intelligence to
managerial wisdom.
Moreover, cognitive capacity/power also is a key component of multi-level leadership. Jacobs & Jaques (1987)
focused on conceptualizing hierarchical organization levels, in terms of the amount of cognitive capacity/power required
at each of these levels, or groupings of levels, into domains–systems leadership, the very highest organizational levels;
organizational leadership, middle to upper middle levels; and production leadership, lower levels. Thus, at increasing
hierarchical levels or domains, the time span of decision-making increases until these time spans can be 10–20 years or
more. As the time span requirements increase, a higher level of cognitive capacity/power is needed. Leadership is
considered more effective the closer the match between time spans required and the leader’s cognitive capacity to deal
with the time span requirements. This general model has been extended by Hunt (1991) and Hunt & Ropo (1995, 1998a).

The results for the multilevel and leaderplex approaches are presented in Table 1. Only 20% (one of five) of the
conceptual publications included in this domain specifically noted the appropriate level of analysis within these
models. There were no empirical articles included in the review of this leadership domain.
4.17. Individualized leadership
4.17.1. Description
The individualized leadership approach (see Dansereau, 1995; Dansereau et al., 1984; Dansereau, Yammarino, et
al., 1995, 1998a,b) focuses on the unique one-to-one relationship between a superior and a specific subordinate. Each
relationship involves the superior’s investments in and returns from the subordinates and the subordinate’s invest-
ments in and returns from the superior. Investments are what one party gives to another party. Returns are what one
party receives from another party. Key variables involved in this dyadic exchange process are providing support for a
subordinate’s feelings of self-worth by a superior and providing satisfying performance to a superior by a subordinate.
The leadership process is bindividualizedQ in the sense that each superior–subordinate dyad can be in agreement
with regard to the degree of giving and receiving of these exchanged commodities. Leadership in this approach is
defined as occurring when a superior is able to secure satisfying performance from a subordinate. One mechanism for
securing leadership is for a superior to provide support for a subordinate’s feelings of self-worth. A likely source of
the initiation of individualized leadership is the leader’s investment in a follower, as perceived by that follower, to
enhance the follower’s self worth.

The results for individualized leadership are presented in Tables 1 and 2. One of three conceptual publications
(33%) included in this domain review explicitly stated the level of analysis regarding theoretical development.
However, a single empirical study included in this review addressed levels of analysis in theory, measurement, and
data analysis, and as such, a levels-based alignment between theory and data was evident.
4.18. All approaches — overall levels results
The overall levels-of-analysis results for each leadership approach described above are summarized in Table 3.
This table represents the state-of-the-science for leadership and levels-of-analysis issues in 2005. The last portion of
the table summarizes the levels-of-analysis results across all 17 leadership approaches included in our review. In
particular, 104 of 348 (slightly less than 30%) conceptual and empirical publications in the various leadership realms
displayed an explicit or bappropriateQ inclusion of levels of analysis in theoretical development and conceptualization.
For the 211 empirical publications in leadership, 111 (about 53%) reflected levels-of-analysis issues appropriately in
measurement, i.e., specified concepts and measures at the same level of analysis or aggregated correctly specified
measures at one level to the level of the concept; 32 (about 15%) appropriately reflected levels-of-analysis issues in
data analysis, i.e., used some multi-level data analytic technique at the correct level(s) of analysis; and 91 (about 43%)
reflected an appropriate alignment of theory and data in terms of levels of analysis, i.e., theory and data aligned at the
correct level(s) of analysis.
5. Implications for leadership and levels issues
Given the above state-of-the-science results, implications for theory, measurement, data analysis, and inference
drawing for future work on the 17 approaches to leadership can be derived. Our ultimate goal here is to build and test
more comprehensive and rigorous multi-level theories of leadership.
5.1. Theory
In terms of theories and hypotheses, the assessments and evaluations of levels-of-analysis issues yielded the
finding that slightly less than 30% of conceptual and empirical publications in the leadership realms explicitly
addressed levels-of-analysis issues. This means that a bit more than 70% of these publications only implicitly
considered levels, ignored levels, or the levels of analysis were indeterminable.
This b3 in 10 hit rateQ indicates to us that theory formulation and integration have been inhibited and incomplete.
Why? Most of the conceptual publications and most of the conceptualizations in the empirical publications specify
(explicitly) or imply that leadership, regardless of the approach, is based on individual differences, the individual level
of analysis, or view the leader (individual) as the level of analysis. These formulations typically focus on only the
leader and his/her actions, characteristics, behaviors, or cognitions; each follower’s individual perceptions of the
leader; and not leader–follower interactions; nor the context or situation — all higher (beyond the individual) levels of
analysis.
For theory in these 17 leadership realms to advance, higher levels of analysis – dyads, groups, organizations
– must be accounted for in theoretical formulations and conceptualizations. One-to-one leader–follower dyadic
(interpersonal) relationships (independent of the work group), leader-group and leader-team dynamics, leader-
ship within different types of organizations and industries, strategic-level leadership, and cross-cultural leader-
ship are all higher levels-of-analysis notions, beyond individual differences, for leadership scholars to address
more fully.
Such higher levels of analysis also can serve as moderators and mediators in the various leadership approaches
theoretical formulations. All too often, the publications reviewed have focused on simplistic associations among
concepts without regard for higher-level complex phenomena that impact the various leadership approaches.
Theory in most (if not all) fields is baheadQ of data. This is clearly the case in the literature on leadership in general.
We have many more ideas than well-tested ideas. Nevertheless, ideas must be fully developed in a testable fashion. In
order to build a more comprehensive and integrative theory of leadership, regardless of the approach, multiple levels
of analysis must be incorporated in theory and hypothesis formulation. To date, this has been accomplished rarely,
although there appears to be some progress in this regard.
5.2. Measurement
In terms of measurement, the assessment and evaluation of levels-of-analysis issues yielded the finding that about
53% of empirical publications in the leadership realms specified concepts and measures at the same level of analysis
or aggregated measures appropriately to the correct level of analysis. This implies that about 47% of these
publications did not appropriately aggregate measures to the level of the concepts, specified concepts and measures
at a different levels of analysis, or dealt with levels issues in measurement in an indeterminable way.
This approximately b1 in 2 hit rate,Q while encouraging and better than the rate for theory and hypothesis
formulation, seems unacceptable given the potential for systematic measurement error and bias. Measures must be
developed with the level of analysis of the concepts, constructs, and theory in mind. Measurement must then be
conducted at that level of analysis. If it is not, at a minimum, justification and tests for aggregation (or
disaggregation) need to be presented. This has not been the norm, to date, in the literature on these various
approaches to leadership.
Relatedly, other measurement issues come into focus when one takes a levels-of-analysis perspective. Although a
detailed discussion is beyond the scope of the current work, several should be mentioned. First, scale-building can be
conducted at different and multiple levels of analysis and the results of these psychometric processes may not
necessarily be the same at all levels of analysis. Second, measurement invariance may occur across multiple levels of
analysis, requiring psychometric badjustmentsQ in measures and scales. Third, when levels of analysis are involved,
the breferentQ in measures – whether for items in surveys or interview questions, for example – changes. Referents are
entities or levels of analysis, and these levels (referents) can change for different aspects of a theory or constructs or
associations in a theory.
Evidence of mixed referent scales can be found in both traditional leadership measures (c.f., LBDQ) and more
modern measures as well (c.f., MLQ). Some of the problems associated with mixed-referent scales may include the
inability to cue the appropriate referent when scales bounce from individual perceptions to group perceptions. Prior
empirical research has examined the implications of mixed-referent scales (Schriesheim, 1979; Yammarino, 1990),
and Schriesheim (1979, p. 354) cautioned researchers to consider that bperfect isomorphism does not exist between
individual and group leadership descriptions.Q The notion that empirical similarity is not the same as theoretical
similarity (Schriesheim, 1979; Yammarino, 1990) remains a pertinent consideration for all future leadership research.
Leadership researchers must be acutely aware of these issues. In an approach to leadership, a leader (individual) as
seen by followers (e.g., group or team) can impact a specific follower uniquely (leader–follower dyad) and can change
from one work situation to another (organization level) and across cultures (cultural level). Each of these concepts
requires specific levels-based measurements that fully account for the differential referents. To date, this degree of
measurement precision is still somewhat lacking in the leadership literature as represented by the 17 approaches
reviewed here.
5.3. Data analysis
In terms of data analysis, the assessments and evaluations of levels-of-analysis issues yielded the finding that about
15% of empirical publications in the leadership realms used some multi-level data analytic technique correctly at the
appropriate level(s) of analysis. This means that about 85% of these publications used some multi-level data analytic
technique incorrectly, did not make use of any multi-level technique, or were indeterminable in terms of levels issues
in data analysis.
This approximately b1 in 6 hit rateQ seems insufficient for the rigorous data analysis necessary to test and advance
theory and research in the 17 realms of leadership investigated here. We do not mean to imply that researchers must
always use WABA or another multi-level technique (e.g., HLM). The choice of data analytic technique should be
driven by theory. But if theories specify different or multiple levels of analysis, as is/should be in the case of these
leadership approaches, then multi-level data analytic techniques are required.
Each multi-level data analytic technique (e.g., WABA, HLM, MLSEM [Multi-Level Structural Equation Model-
ing]) has a unique purpose and use. Although beyond the scope of this article to discuss in detail, it is sufficient to say
here that the specific theory or hypothesis should determine the selection. Moreover, these techniques can be used in
combination. For example, WABA and rWG (with-group agreement coefficient) or WABA and SEM have been used
in past research in combination to more rigorously test complex theoretical ideas (see Dansereau & Yammarino, 2000;
Schriesheim et al., 1995, 1998a,b). To date, such sophisticated use of multi-level data analytic techniques in the
literature on leadership is the exception rather than the norm.
5.4. Inference drawing
In terms of drawing inferences, or the alignment of theory and data, the assessments and evaluations of
levels-of-analysis issues yielded the finding that about 43% of empirical publications in the leadership realms
showed an appropriate alignment of theory and data at the correct level(s) of analysis. This implies that about
57% of these publications either specified theory and hypotheses at some level other than a level supported by
the data, or were indeterminable in terms of the degree of theory-data alignment with regard to levels of
analysis.
This is slightly better than b4 in 10 hit rate,Q while encouraging and better than the rate for data analysis
technique use, seems insufficient to advance theory and research for the 17 leadership approaches reviewed here.
This bhit rateQ is somewhat inflated, given our bliberal/generousQ evaluation of many articles. In particular, we
actually evaluated most empirical publications as bfavorableQ in terms of theory-data alignment because of (1) a
specification (explicit or implicit) of individual differences, the individual level of analysis, or the leader
(individual) as the level of analysis, and (2) measures at the individual level, tapping individual subordinate
perceptions of leadership without regard for higher levels of analysis. So, in many publications, research assumed
the individual level of analysis without an explicit specification or test of that level or alternative levels of analysis.
As such, theory and data separately, as well as theory-data alignment, have not explicitly accounted for higher
levels-of-analysis issues in many publications.
Alignment of theory (that includes explicit levels-of-analysis specification) with data (that explicitly incorporate
levels of analysis in measurement and analysis) must have a levels-of-analysis focus. Theory without levels of
analysis is incomplete; data without levels of analysis is incomprehensible. It must be recognized that alternative
levels of analysis are competing, substantive hypotheses that are tested against the key hypothesis of focus.
Theoretical formulation should identify such levels-of-analysis alternatives, measurement and data analysis should
test these plausible alternatives, and inferences should be drawn with these levels-of-analysis alternatives in mind.
In this way, a strong inference process can be infused into the literature on all approaches to leadership. To date,
current leadership theory building and theory testing rarely seems to employ this strong inference levels-of-analysis
approach.
6. Recommendations and conclusions
In terms of the overall results, when combining the assessments and evaluations of levels-of-analysis issues for all
criteria, the findings indicate that 19 of 211 empirical publications on the 17 approaches to leadership, or 9%,
addressed levels-of-analysis issues appropriately in all four areas of theory and hypothesis formulation, measurement,
data analysis, and inference drawing. Thus, in the last decade, the following 19 empirical publications offer
encouragement to the field that levels issues are in fact baddressableQ and provide a template or bbest practicesQ
approach for researchers to follow in their own work:
! Berson and Avolio (2004)

! Cogliser and Schriesheim (2000)
! Dansereau, Yammarino, Markham, Alutto, Newman, Dumas, et al. (1995, 1998a)
! Hofmann, Morgeson, and Gerras (2003)
! Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999)
! Kark, Shamir, and Chen (2003)
! Kim and Yukl (1995, 1998)
! Schriesheim, Castro, & Yammarino (2000)
! Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, and Yammarino (2001)
! Schriesheim, Cogliser, and Neider (1995, 1998a)
! Schriesheim, Neider, and Scandura (1998)
! Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper (1998)
! Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, and Jung (2002)
! Sosik, Avolio, and Kahai (1998)
! Sosik, Godshalk, and Yammarino (2004)
! Sosik, Kahai, and Avolio (1998)
! Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, and Yammarino (2004)
! Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, and Jolson (1997)
! Yammarino, Spangler, and Dubinsky (1998).
In contrast, the remainder of the field of leadership research, as represented by these 17 leadership approaches,
seems built upon empirical publications (about 91% of those reviewed here) that do not address adequately levels-of-
analysis issues. This assessment is a troubling state-of-the-science, especially given that we have had knowledge of
these issues for two decades (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1984; Rousseau, 1985) and repeated calls to attend to them over
the past decade (e.g., Bass, 1990, 2002). Perhaps, as implied by much of the work reviewed here, leadership
approaches are generally an individual leader-style phenomenon and thus this assessment is less bothersome.
Nevertheless, even in these cases, alternative levels of analysis need to be beliminatedQ theoretically and empirically.
Moreover, other constructs (i.e., precursors, consequences, mediators, moderators) in the various theories and models
of leadership may operate at other levels of analysis. Again, we believe fuller theoretical specification, measurement,
data analysis, and inference drawing, with explicit consideration of levels of analysis for leadership approaches, are
required to advance theory building and theory testing.
Specifically, to help foster these efforts, we offer the following brief recommendations for conducting multi-level
research in all areas of leadership.
n In terms of theoretical recommendations:

1. Define the level of analysis of the unit(s) of interest, i.e., the entity (entities) to which theoretical generalizations
apply.
2. Define the level of analysis of the associated concepts, constructs, variables, and relationships.
3. Provide a theoretical justification for everything included in #1 and #2 above.
4. Specify the boundary conditions, including and based upon levels of analysis, for everything in #1, #2, and #3
above.
n In terms of measurement recommendations:
1. Construct measures at the same level of analysis depicted in the theory, models, and hypotheses.
2. If this is not possible or feasible, employ appropriate aggregation (or disaggregation) techniques and justify the
use of these techniques.
3. Further validate a measure, even an established measure, if it has been modified or adapted to account for
various or different levels of analysis than originally intended.
n In terms of data analytic technique recommendations:

1. Permit theory (variables, relationships, and levels of analysis) to determine the multi-level technique to be
used.
2. Employ appropriate multi-level techniques if the breferent(s)Q (entities of interest) are at a level of analysis
higher than the individual level.
n In terms of inference drawing recommendations:
1. Include levels of analysis in both theory (i.e., as the entities) and data (i.e., as the samples and subjects).
2. State which relationships hold across different levels of analysis in terms of multi-level, cross-level, mixed
effects, and mixed determinants models.
By following these general recommendations and fully and explicitly incorporating multiple levels of analysis
in theoretical formulations, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing, more comprehensive and
integrative theories of leadership can be built and tested. We hope this state-of-the-science review of the
literature has provided readers with hope. Ignorance of levels-of-analysis issues has hurt prior work on leadership
but is providing much needed improvement in current research. Knowledge of levels-of-analysis issues will
advance theory building and theory testing in all areas of leadership research. We encourage readers to bleadQ the
charge in this literature through the use of multiple levels of analysis in theory formulation, measurement, data
analysis, and inference drawing.
References1
Aaltio-Marjosola, I., & Takala, T. (2000). Charismatic leadership, manipulation and the complexity of organizational life. Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12, 146 – 158.
Alban-Metcalfe, R. J., & Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000). An analysis of the convergent and discriminant validity of the transformational leadership
questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 158 – 175.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 74, 1 – 27.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 3 – 33). Oxford, England7 Elsevier Science Ltd.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & O’Connor, C. (1997). Value congruence in leader–member exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 647 – 662.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, Haertel
C. E., et al. (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 221 – 235). Westport, CT7 Quorum Books/Greenwood
Publishing Group Inc.
Atwater, L. E., Camobreco, J. F., Dionne, S. D., Avolio, B. J., & Lau, A. N. (1997). Effects of rewards and punishments on leader charisma, leader
effectiveness, and follower reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 133 – 152.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the
diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199 – 218.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1998). Unlocking the essence of individualized consideration: A view from inside out. In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 93 – 102). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441 – 462.
Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style
effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 219 – 227.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.) (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345 – 373.
Ayman, R. (2002). Contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Challenges and achievements. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.),
Leadership (pp. 197 – 228). Greenwich, CT7 Information Age Publishing.
Ayman, R. (2004). Situational and contingency approaches to leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of
leadership (pp. 148 – 170). Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage Publications Inc.
Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 147 – 167.
Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1998). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 73 – 95). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
1
(Marked [*] references were not coded for levels-of-analysis issues; all other references were coded for levels-of-analysis issues.)
Barbuto Jr., J. E., (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 689–697.
Barbuto Jr., J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. (2000). A field study of two measures of work motivation for predicting leader’s transformational
behaviors. Psychological Reports, 86, 296–300.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and
occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488 – 496.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827 – 832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York7 Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership. New York7 Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 463 – 478.
Bass, B. M. (1997a). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American
Psychologist, 52, 130 – 139.
Bass, B. M. (1997b). Personal selling and transactional/transformational leadership. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17,
19 – 28.
Bass, B. M. (1998). The inspirational processes of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 7, 21 – 31.
Bass, B. M. (1999a). On the taming of charisma: A reply to Janice Beyer. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 541 – 553.
Bass, B. M. (1999b). Current developments in transformational leadership: Research and applications. Psychologist Manager Journal, 3,
5 – 21.
Bass, B. M. (2002). Forecasting organizational leadership: From back (1967) to the future (2034). In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 375 – 384). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207 – 218.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
181 – 217.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in
leader–member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477 – 499.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
1538 – 1567.
Becker, J., Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2002). Discrepancies in self/subordinates’ perceptions of leadership behavior. Group and Organization
Management, 27, 226 – 244.
Behling, O., & McFillen, J. M. (1996). A sycretical model of charismatic/transformational leadership. Group and Organization Management, 21,
163 – 191.
Berson, Y., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: A case study of a telecommunication
firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 625 – 646.
Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 53 – 73.
Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). This war: How the politically astute achieve crimes of obedience through the use of moral disengagement. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 551 – 568.
Beyer, J. M. (1999a). Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 307 – 330.
Beyer, J. M. (1999b). Two approaches to studying charismatic leadership: Competing or complementary? The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
575 – 588.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after
the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211 – 239.
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership
behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 195 – 210.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy
of Management Journal, 46, 54 – 571.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 901 – 910.
Boyd, N. G., & Taylor, R. R. (1998). A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader–follower relationships. The Leadership
Quarterly, 9, 1 – 25.
*Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA7 Sage.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The
Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (1999). Rally the troops or make the trains run on time: The relative importance and interaction of contingent reward
and transformational leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20, 291 – 299.
Brown, D. J., & Lord, R. G. (1999). The utility of experimental research in the study of transformational/charismatic leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 531 – 539.
Brown, D. J., Scott, K. A., & Lewis, H. (2004). Information processing and leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
The nature of leadership (pp. 125 – 147). Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage Publications Inc.
Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal
of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 32 – 44.
Bryant, S. E., & Gurman, E. B. (1996). Contingent supervisory behavior: A practical predictor of performance. Group and Organization
Management, 21, 404 – 413.
*Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York7 Harper and Row.
Butler Jr., J. K., Cantrell, R. S., & Flick, R. J. (1999). Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust, and satisfaction in self-managed work
teams. Organization Development Journal, 17, 13–28.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468 – 478.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers’ upward influence tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 197 – 214.
Carless, S. A. (1998a). Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behavior as measured by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational
Carless, S. A. (1998b). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex
Roles, 39, 887 – 902.
Carless, S. A. (2001). Assessing the discriminant validity of the leadership practices inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74, 233 – 239.
Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 389 – 405.
Chemers, M. M., Ayman, R., & Fiedler, F. E. (1998). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Back to the future. In F. Dansereau Jr., &
F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 135 – 143). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical test. The Leadership Quarterly,
10, 397 – 421.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1998). The relationship between individual personality orientation and executive leadership behavior. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 99 – 125.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1999). The impact of leadership style on global management practices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
1416 – 1443.
Cogliser, C. C., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leader–member exchange: A multi-level perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 487 – 511.
Coleman, D. F. (1998). An alternative blimited domainQ view of leader–member exchange. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership:
The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 137 – 148). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Comer, L. B., Jolson, M. A., Dubinsky, A. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1995). When the sales manager is a woman: An exploration into the relationship
between salespeople’s gender and their responses to leadership styles. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15, 17 – 32.
Conger, J. A. (1998). The folly of knowing an elephant by its tail: Why the leadership field needs multiple levels. In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of
research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145 – 179.
*Conger, J. A., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Overview of charismatic and transformational leadership: Taking stock of the present and future (Part I). The
*Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review, 12, 637 – 647.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
747 – 767.
Connelly, M. S., Gaddis, B., & Helton-Fauth, W. (2002). A closer look at the role of emotions in charismatic and transformational leadership. In B.
J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 255 – 283). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier
Science.
Couto, R. A. (2002). Dear Publius: Reflections on the founding fathers and charismatic leadership. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 255 – 283). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21, 63 – 75.
Cummings, L. L. (1998). Mixing theoretical approaches to understand leadership: Compliments and cautions. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino
(Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 341 – 346). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Dansereau, F. (1995). A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire. The Leadership Quarterly, 6,
479 – 490.
*Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7
Prentice-Hall.
*Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal
investigation of the role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46 – 78.
*Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.) (1998a). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part A: Classical and new wave). Monographs in
Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations, vol. 24. Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
*Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (Eds.) (1998b). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part B: Contemporary and alternative.
Monographs in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations, vol. 24. Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
*Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (1998c). The multiple-level approaches to leadership: Introduction and overview. In F. Dansereau &
F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Part A, pp. xxv–xliii) and (Part B, pp. xxv–xliii). Stamford, CT:
JAI Press.
*Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (1998d). A multiple-level leadership mosaic: One way to put the pieces together. In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
*Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Within and between analysis: The varient paradigm as an underlying approach to theory building and
testing. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and
new directions (pp. 425 – 466). San Francisco, CA7 Jossey-Bass.
*Dansereau, F. S., & Yammarino, F. J. (2003). Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and strategy. Research in Multi-Level Issues, vol. 2.
(pp. 425 – 466) Oxford, UK7 Elsevier.
*Dansereau, F.S, & Yammarino, F. J. (2005). Multi-level issues in strategy and methods. Research in multi-level issues, vol. 4. (pp. 327 – 349)
Oxford, UK7 Elsevier.
*Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. (1999). Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theory
building. Academy of Management Review, 24, 346 – 357.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., et al. (1995). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-
level approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 413 – 450.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., et al. (1998a). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-
level approach. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 363 – 405). Stamford, CT7
JAI Press Inc.
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., et al. (1998b). Extensions to the individualized leadership
approach: Placing the approach in context. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A
(pp. 429 – 441). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader–member relationships. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 615 – 634.
Day, D. V. (1998). Leadership sensemaking—Parts, wholes, and beyond. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level
approaches Part B (pp. 191 – 198). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
DeCelles, K. A., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2004). Heroes or villains? Corruption and the charismatic leader. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 11, 67 – 77.
Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 26, 1652 – 1669.
Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 8, 49 – 65.
Deluga, R. J. (1998a). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9,
265 – 291.
Deluga, R. J. (1998b). Leader–member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate–supervisor conscientiousness similarity.
Group and Organization Management, 23, 189 – 216.
Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 12, 339 – 363.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., et al. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally
generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 219 – 256.
Den Hartog, D. N., Van-Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19 – 34.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric: Communicative techniques of international business leaders. The Leadership
Quarterly, 8, 355 – 391.
Dionne, S. D., Randel, A. E., Jaussi, K. S., & Chun, J. U. (2004). Diversity and demography in organizations: A levels of analysis review of the
literature. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 3, 181 – 229.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James, L. R. (2002). Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory: Leadership effects and
common-source bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 454 – 464.
Dose, J. J. (1999). The relationship between work values similarity and team-member and leader-member exchange relationships. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 20 – 32.
*Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process. New York7 Free Press.
Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales
management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15, 17 – 31.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness
and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road
ahead (pp. 35 – 66). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Dunegan, K. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Duchon, D. (2002). LMX and subordinate performance: The moderating effects of task characteristics. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 17, 275 – 285.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field
experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735 – 744.
Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. The
Eden, D. (1998). Multiple levels as a self-fulfilling prophecy: One sees what one expects to see. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 163 – 172). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental
leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571 – 604.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality.
The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153 – 179.
Ehrlich, S. B. (1998). Leader-centric and follower-centric research at multiple levels of analysis: Toward a balanced perspective. In F. Dansereau, &
F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 303 – 309). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 587 – 606.
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
988 – 1010.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (1999). The impact of relational demography on the quality of leader–member exchanges and employees’ work
attitudes and well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 237 – 240.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic career success: The compensatory roles of leader–
member exchange and perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57, 305 – 332.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader–
member exchange theory. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65 – 114). Greenwich, CT7 Information Age Publishing.
Erdogan, B., Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., & Dunegan, K. J. (2004). Implications of organizational exchanges for accountability theory. Human
Resource Management Review, 14, 19 – 45.
Evans, M. G. (1996). R.J. House’s bA path-goal theory of leader effectivenessQ. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 305 – 309.
Evans, M. G. (1998). Fire: When, where, and for what? In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part
B (pp. 31 – 35). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
Evans, M. G. (2002). Path-goal theory of leadership. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 115 – 138). Greenwich, CT7
Information Age Publishing.
Farmer, S. M., Maslyn, J. M., Fedor, D. B., & Goodman, J. S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 17 – 42.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2004). Is similarity in leadership related to organizational outcomes? The case of transformational leadership. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10, 92 – 102.
Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across-jobs perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 8,
67 – 84.
Ferris, G. R., & Harrell-Cook, G. (1998). Assumptions, interpersonal dynamics, and organizational contexts in the individualized leadership
approach. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 411 – 419). Stamford, CT7 JAI
Press Inc.
*Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York7 McGraw Hill.
Fields, D. L., & Herold, D. M. (1997). Using the leadership practices inventory to measure transformational and transactional leadership.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 569 – 579.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects. Minneapolis, MN7 West Publishing.
Fiol, C. M., Harris, D., & House, R. J. (1999). Charismatic leadership. Strategies for effecting social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
449 – 482.
Fleishman, E. A. (1998a). Consideration and structure: Another look at their role in leadership research. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Fleishman, E. A. (1998b). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover: Some post hoc reflections. Personnel
Psychology, 51, 825 – 834.
Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J., Crow, S. M., & Moore, A. (1995). Use of the leadership opinion questionnaire to predict managerial success in
organizations: A longitudinal study. Organization Development Journal, 13, 23 – 32.
Forsyth, D. R., Heiney, M. M., & Wright, S. S. (1997). Biases in appraisals of women leaders. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1,
98 – 103.
Foti, R. (1998). Levels issues in followers’ perceptions of leadership. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level
approaches Part B (pp. 199 – 204). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Fu, P. P., Peng, T. K., Kennedy, J. C., & Yukl, G. (2004). Examining the preferences of influence tactics in Chinese socities: A comparison of
Chinese managers in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 32 – 46.
Fu, P. P., & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence tactics in the United States and China. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 251 – 266.
Fuller, J. B., Morrison, R., Jones, L., Bridger, D., & Brown, V. (1999). The effects of psychological empowerment on transformational leadership
and job satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 389 – 391.
Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological
Reports, 78, 271 – 287.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32 – 58.
Garman, A. N., Davis-Lenane, D., & Corrigan, P. W. (2003). Factor structure of the transformational leadership model in human service teams.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 827 – 844.
Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 47, 397 – 420.
Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does mentor–protégé agreement on mentor leadership behavior influence the quality of a mentoring
relationship? Group and Organization Management, 25, 291 – 317.
Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, J. L. (2001). A theoretical and empirical extension of the transformational leadership construct.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 – 247.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1998). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The
multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 103–133). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader–member exchange and related work
attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203 – 214.
Gronn, P. (1999). Substitutes for leadership: The neglected role of the leadership couple. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 41 – 62.
Guzzo, R. A. (1998). Leadership, self-management, and levels of analysis. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-
level approaches Part A (pp. 213 – 219). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1995). Multi-level information-processing explanations of followers’ leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly,
6, 265 – 287.
Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1998a). Multi-level information-processing explanations of followers’ leadership perceptions. In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 159 – 183). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1998b). The role of within-individual cognitive structures in determining higher-level effects. In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
Halverson, S. K., Holladay, C. L., Kazama, S. M., & Quiñones, M. A. (2004). Self-sacrificial behavior in crisis situations: The competing roles of
behavioral and situational factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 263 – 275.
*Harzing, A. W. (2003). Journal quality list (7th ed.). Australia7 University of Melbourne. www.harzing.com
Haslam, S. A., Platow, M. J., Turner, J. C., Reynolds, K. J., McGarty, C., Oakes, P. J., et al. (2001). Social identity and the romance of leadership:
The importance of being seen to be bdoing it for usQ. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 191 – 205.
Hawkins, K., & Tolzin, A. (2002). Examining the team/leader interface: Baseball teams as exemplars of postmodern organizations. Group and
Organization Management, 27, 97 – 112.
*Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977, 1984). The management of organizational behavior (3rd ed., 4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999). Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational support and leader–
member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 286 – 296.
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader–member exchange and content
specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170 – 178.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23,
375 – 408.
*House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321 – 339.
*House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL7
Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323 – 352.
House, R. J. (1999). Weber and the neo-charismatic leadership paradigm: A response to Beyer. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 563 – 574.
*House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro
organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71 – 114.
*House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers, & R.
Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81 – 107). San Diego, C.A.7 Academic Press.
Howard, A. (1998). Seeking multiple linkages for the future. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches
Part A (pp. 265 – 272). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Howell, J. P. (1997). bSubstitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurementQ— A historical assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 8,
113 – 116.
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional
leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680 – 694.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (1998). Pockets of fire: The potential and the risk. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The
multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 37 – 44). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of
Management Review, 30, 96 – 112.
Hui, C., & Graen, G. (1997). Guanxi and professional leadership in contemporary Sino-American joint ventures in mainland China. The Leadership
Quarterly, 8, 451 – 465.
Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader–member exchange, and perceived
job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 3 – 21.
*Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA7 Sage.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
129 – 144.
Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999a). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental
examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423 – 448.
Hunt, J. G., & Conger, J. A. (1999a). Overview of charismatic and transformational leadership: Taking stock of the present and future: Part II. The
Hunt, J. G., & Conger, J. A. (1999b). From where we sit: An assessment of transformational and charismatic leadership research. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 335 – 343.
Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1995). Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors. The
Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1998a). Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors. In F.
Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 289 – 327). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1998b). Grounded theory and mainstream theory in multi-level theory: Beyond the foothills. In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 353 – 361). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
*Jacobs, T. O., & Jacques, E. (1987). Executive leadership. In R. Gal, & A. D. Mangelsdorff (Eds.), Handbook of military psychology. Chichester,
UK7 Wiley.
Jacobsen, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory, simulation model, and tests. The Leadership Quarterly,
12, 75 – 112.
*Jacques, E. (1989). Requisite organization. Arlington, VA7 Cason Hall.
*Jacques, E., & Cason, M. (1994). Human capability: A study of individual potential and its application. Arlington, VA7 Cason Hall.
James, L. R. (1998). Implications of a multiple-levels-of-analysis Ohio State leadership study for estimating interrater agreement. In F. Dansereau,
& F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 61 – 63). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
*James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85 – 98.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 475 – 498.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2004). Unconventional leader behavior, subordinate satisfaction, effort and perception of leader effectiveness.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10, 15 – 26.
Jones, H. B. (2001). Magic, meaning and leadership: Weber’s model and the empirical literature. Human Relations, 54, 753 – 771.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751 – 765.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional Leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 755 – 768.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185 – 195.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Examination of transformational leadership and group process among Caucasian-and Asian-Americans: Are they
different? In T. A. Scandura, & M. G. Serapio (Eds.), Research in international business and international relations: Leadership and innovation
in emerging markets (pp. 29 – 66). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task
conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208 – 218.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949 – 964.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some
preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525 – 544.
Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. M. (2003). The interactive effect of leader–member exchange and communication frequency
on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 764 – 772.
Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes
in an electronic meeting system context. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 499 – 524.
Kan, M. M., & Parry, K. W. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership in overcoming resistance to change. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 467 – 491.
Kane, T. D., & Tremble Jr., T. R. (2000). Transformational leadership effects at different levels of the army. Military Psychology, 12,
137 – 160.
Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Leadership in organization: Looking ahead to the 21st century. Canadian Psychology, 39, 71 – 82.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on
followers. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 67 – 91). Oxford, UK7
Elsevier Science.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 246 – 255.
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 589 – 607.
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14, 141 – 160.
Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (2001). The effects of adding items to scales: An illustrative case of LMX. Organizational Research Methods, 4,
131 – 143.
*Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
22, 375 – 403.
Kim, K., Dansereau, F., & Kim, I. (2002). Extending the concept of charismatic leadership: An illustration using Bass’ (1990) categories. In B. J.
Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 143 – 172). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Kim, K., Dansereau, F., Kim, I., & Kim, K. S. (2004). A multiple-level theory of leadership: The impact of culture as a moderator. Journal of
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-reported and subordinate-reported leadership
behaviors from the multiple-linkage model. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361 – 377.
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1998). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-reported and subordinate-reported leadership
behaviors from the multiple-linkage model. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A
*Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 440 – 452.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., Wofford, J. C., & Baum, J. R. (2002). Measuring motive imagery contained in the vision statement. The Leadership Quarterly,
13, 139 – 150.
*Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management
Review, 19, 195 – 229.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 183 – 198.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1998a). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership:
The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 3 – 21). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1998b). Further thoughts on fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino
(Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 45 – 52). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints, leader–member exchange, and goal commitment on
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 88 – 95.
Koene, B. A. S., Vogelaar, A. L. W., & Soeters, J. L. (2002). Leadership effects on organizational climate and financial performance: Local
leadership effect in chain organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 193 – 215.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in
Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319 – 333.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The
role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60 – 84.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate performance: The mediating role of expatriate
adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54, 71 – 99.
Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related values and leadership styles among one company’s U.S. and German telecommu-
nication employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 135 – 154.
Larson Jr., J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Franz, T. M. (1998). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-
making groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 482 – 496.
Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of
newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352 – 368.
Liden, R. C. (1998). Critique and suggested extensions for the multiple-linkage model of leadership. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development.
Journal of Management, 24, 43 – 72.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between
the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407 – 416.
Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum
contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610 – 621.
Locke, E. A. (1998). The role of individual consideration, vision, and egoism in effective leadership. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 85 – 92). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133 – 152.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/
follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 167 – 203.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for
leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 311 – 338.
Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2001). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research.
*Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA7 Rutledge.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385 – 425.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 115 – 134.
Madzar, S. (2001). Subordinates’ information inquiry: Exploring the effect of perceived leadership style and individual differences. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 221 – 232.
Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional leadership. Sex Roles, 37, 209 – 225.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization
outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418 – 431.
*Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 5, 361 – 367.
Markham, S. E., & Markham, I. S. (1995). Self-management and self-leadership reexamined: A levels-of-analysis perspective. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 343 – 359.
Markham, S. E., & Markham, I. S. (1998a). Self-management and self-leadership reexamined: A levels-of-analysis perspective. In F. Dansereau, &
F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 193 – 210). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Markham, S. E., & Markham, I. S. (1998b). Scorecard on self-leadership and self-management: The scientific story must not rest. In F. Dansereau,
& F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 229 – 241). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2001). Role of organizational identification on implicit leadership theories (ILTs), transformational leadership, and
work attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 247 – 262.
Masi, R. J., & Cooke, R. A. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms, and organizational
productivity. International Journal of Organizational Productivity, 8, 16 – 47.
Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality.
Mayo, M., Pastor, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (1996). The effects of group heterogeneity on the self-perceived efficacy of group leaders. The Leadership
Quarterly, 7, 265 – 284.
McCann, S. J. H. (1997). Threatening times and the election of charismatic U.S. presidents: With and without FDR. Journal of Psychology, 131,
393 – 400.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
13, 545 – 559.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6,
329 – 341.
Meindl, J. R. (1998a). The romance of leadership as follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino
(Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 285 – 298). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Meindl, J. R. (1998b). Thanks—And let me try again. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B
*Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78 – 102.
Morales, J. F., & Molero, F. (1995). Leadership in two types of healthcare organization. In J. M. Peiro, Prieto F., et al. (Eds.), Work and
organizational psychology: European contributions of the nineties (pp. 209 – 221). Hove, England7 Taylor and Francis.
Muczyk, J. P., & Adler, T. (2002). An attempt at a consentience regarding formal leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9,
2 – 17.
Mumford, M. D. (1998). Situations, interactions, and followers: The case of individualized leadership. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Mumford, M. D., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Vision and mental models: The case of charismatic and ideological leadership. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 109 – 142). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex
social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11 – 35.
Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003). Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange
relationships. Human Relations, 56, 61 – 84.
Murry, W. D. (1998). A re-examination of substitutes for leadership within a levels-of-analysis framework. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino
(Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 261 – 270). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Neck, C. P. (1998). The rest of the self-leadership story. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part
A (pp. 221 – 228). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
*Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (Eds.) (2002). Leadership. Greenwich, CT7 Information Age Publishing.
O’Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. L., & Connelly, M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: An historiometric
study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529 – 555.
*Ostroff, C., & Harrison, D. A. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting
meta-analytic results in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 260 – 270.
Parent, M., & Gallupe, R. B. (2001). The role of leadership in group support systems failure. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10, 405 – 422.
Parry, K. W. (2002). Four phenomenologically determined social processes of organizational leadership: Further support for the construct of
transformational leadership. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp.
339 – 372). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Pastor, J. C., & Mayo, M. C. (1995). A network analysis of charismatic leadership: The case of a police department. Academy of Management, Best
Papers Proceedings, 327 – 331.
Paul, J., Costley, D. L., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Trafimow, D. (2001). The effects of charismatic leadership on followers’ self-concept
accessibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1821 – 1844.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual
examination. Academy of Management Review, 22, 80 – 109.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage.
Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership in groups: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26, 543 – 562.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A bmesoQ level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis
to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24, 643 – 671.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A
two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897 – 933.
Pillai, R., Stites-Doe, S., Grewal, D., & Meindl, J. R. (1997). Winning charisma and losing the presidential election. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 27, 1716 – 1726.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (1998). Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voter perceptions of candidates’ transformational and charismatic
leadership and the 1996 U.S. presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 397 – 416.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K. B., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). An examination of substitutes for leadership within a levels-of-analysis framework. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 289 – 328.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership model: Background, empirical assessment, and
suggestions for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 117 – 125.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, K. D. (1998a). An examination of substitutes for leadership within a levels-of-analysis framework. In F. Dansereau,
& F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 215 – 258). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, K. D. (1998b). Are there effects of substitutes for leadership at different levels of analysis? In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996a). Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for
leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380 – 399.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996b). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of
employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259 – 298.
Pool, S. W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership behavior, and work motivation. Journal of
Psychology, 131, 271 – 283.
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2002). Internal world of transformational leaders. In B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and
charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 203 – 229). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
14, 41 – 65.
Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational leadership and attachment. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267 – 289.
Porter, L. W., & Bigley, G. A. (2001). Motivation and transformational leadership: Some organizational context issues. In M. Erez, & U. Kleinbeck
(Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy (pp. 279 – 291). Mahwah, NJ7 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 67 – 81.
Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 19, 523 – 538.
*Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., & McGrath, M. R. (2003). Becoming a smarter manager (2nd ed.). New York7 Wiley.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15, 329 – 354.
Rai, S., & Sinha, A. K. (2000). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and facilitating climate. Psychological Studies, 45, 33 – 42.
Romm, C., & Pliskin, N. (1999). The role of charismatic leadership in diffusion and implementation of e-mail. Journal of Management
Development, 18, 273 – 290.
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078 – 1086.
*Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior,
7, 1 – 37.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). LMX meets the psychological contract: Looking inside the black box of leader–member exchange. In F. Dansereau, & F. J.
Russ, F. A., McNeilly, K. M., & Comer, J. M. (1996). Leadership, decision making and performance of sales managers: A multi-level approach.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16, 1 – 15.
Sankar, Y. (2003). Character not charisma is the critical measures of leadership excellence. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9,
45 – 55.
Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches: A review and synthesis. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
nature of leadership (pp. 171 – 196). Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage Publication Inc.
Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader–member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25 – 40.
Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders: A leader–member exchange approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 7,
243 – 263.
Schneider, B. (1998). There is some there. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part B
*Schriesheim, C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual-directed and group-directed leader behavior descriptions. Academy of Management
Journal, 22, 345 – 355.
Schriesheim, C. A. (1997). Substitutes-for-leadership theory: Development and basic concepts. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 103 – 108.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory,
measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63 – 113.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and
upward controllingness on leader–member exchange using traditional and multivariate within- and between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 659 – 677.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. T., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001). The folly of theorizing bAQ but testing bBQ. A selective level-of-analysis
review of the field and a detailed leader–member exchange illustration. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 515 – 551.
Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1995). Is it btrustworthyQ? A multiple-levels-of-analysis reexamination of an Ohio State
leadership study, with implications for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 111 – 145.
Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1998a). Is it btrustworthyQ? A multiple-levels-of-analysis reexamination of an Ohio State
leadership study, with implications for future research. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches
Part A (pp. 3 – 41). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1998b). bTrustworthyQ is a judgment call. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246 – 257.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (1996). Path-goal leadership theory: The long and winding road. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 317 – 321.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader–member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement
issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298 – 318.
Schyns, G. (2001). The relationship between employees’ self-monitoring and occupational self-efficacy and perceived transformational leadership.
Current Research in Social Psychology, 7, 1 – 8.
Seifert, C. F., Yukl, G., & McDonald, R. A. (2003). Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior of managers
toward subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 561 – 569.
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19 – 47.
Shamir, B. (1999). Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness: A response to Beyer. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
555 – 562.
*Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational
Science, 4, 577 – 594.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit
characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387 – 409.
Shea, C. M., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory study of their effects on self-efficacy and task
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 375 – 396.
Sherman, J. D. (2002). Leader role inversion as a corollary to leader–member exchange. Group and Organization Management, 27, 245 – 271.
Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader–member exchange, and work attitudes.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal,
46, 703 – 714.
Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. (2004). Using role theory to examine determinants of transformational and transactional leader behavior. Journal of
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency
on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27, 66 – 96.
Slocum, J. W. J. (1998). A violation of Occam’s razor. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches Part A
Smith Jr., B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10, 80 – 91.
Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: A multi-level perspective. Journal of
Sosik, J. J. (1997). Effects of transformational leadership and anonymity on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Group and Organization
Management, 22, 460 – 487.
Sosik, J. J. (2001). Self-other agreement on charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Management, 26, 484 – 511.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). Beneath the mask: Examining the relationship of self-presentation attributes and impression
management to charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 217 – 242.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision
support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89 – 103.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1998). Inspiring group creativity: Comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small
Group Research, 29, 3 – 31.
Sosik, J. J., & Dionne, S. D. (1997). Leadership styles and Deming’s behavior factors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 447 – 462.
Sosik, J. J., Godshalk, V. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). Transformational leadership, learning goal orientation, and expectations for career success
in mentor–protégé relationships: A multiple levels of analysis perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 241 – 261.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-
mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 111 – 121.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Leadership style, anonymity, and creativity in group decision support systems: The mediating role
of optimal flow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 227 – 256.
Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and performance: The role of self-other agreement on
transformational leadership perceptions. Group and Organization Management, 24, 367 – 390.
Sosik, J. J., Potosky, D., & Jung, D. I. (2002). Adaptive self-regulation: Meeting others’ expectations of leadership and performance. Journal of
Social Psychology, 142, 211 – 232.
Stewart, G. L., Carson, K. P., & Cardy, R. L. (1996). The joint effects of conscientiousness and self-leadership training on employee self-directed
behavior in a service setting. Personnel Psychology, 49, 143 – 164.
Steyrer, J. (2002). Stigma and charisma and the narcissistic personality. In B. J. Avolio Jr., & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and
charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 231 – 254). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
*Stogdill, R. M., & Coors, A. E. (Eds.) (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH7 Bureau
of Business Research.
Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
343 – 377.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly,
12, 31 – 52.
Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren’t there two parties in an employment relationship? Antecedents and consequences of organization-
employee agreement on contract obligations and violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 585 – 608.
Tierney, P., Bauer, T. N., & Potter, R. E. (2002). Extra-role behavior among Mexican employees: The impact of LMX, group acceptance, and job
attitudes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 292 – 303.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships.
Personnel Psychology, 52, 591 – 620.
Tosi, H. L., & Banning, K. (1998). A need to reconceptualize bsubstitutes for leadershipQ. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership:
The multiple-level approaches Part B (pp. 271 – 276). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Tosi, H. L., & Kiker, S. (1997). Commentary on bsubstitutes for leadershipQ. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 109 – 112.
Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation; and firm performance. The
Tourish, D., & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm: An unholy trinity in the
workplace? Human Relations, 55, 147 – 172.
Towler, A. J. (2003). Effects of charismatic influence training on attitudes, behavior, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 363 – 381.
Townsend, J., Phillips, J. S., & Elkins, T. J. (2000). Employee retaliation: The neglected consequence of poor leader–member exchange relations.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 457 – 463.
Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group and Organization Management, 23,
220 – 236.
Tucker, B. A., & Russell, R. F. (2004). The influence of the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10,
103 – 111.
Tucker, M. L., McCarthy, A. M., & Jones, M. C. (1999). Women and men politicians: Are some of the best leaders dissatisfied? Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 20, 285 – 290.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 304 – 311.
van Engen, M. L., van der Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context and leadership styles: A field study. Journal of Occupational
Varma, A., Farias, G., & Stroh, L. K. (1999). Relationship between a low-performing supervisor and a high-performing subordinate: Does
supervisor performance level impact subordinate ratings? In M. A. Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, & K. D. Mackenzie (Eds.), Current topics in
management, vol. 4 (pp. 101 – 111). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Vecchio, R. P. (1998). Some continuing challenges for the contingency model of leadership. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership:
The multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 115 – 124). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29, 222 – 240.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice Hall.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1995). Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leader participation. The Leadership Quarterly, 6,
169 – 181.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1998a). Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leader participation. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1998b). On interdependence and levels of analysis. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The
multiple-level approaches Part A (pp. 183 – 189). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
*Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA7 University of Pittsburgh Press.
Waldman, D. A., & Javidan, M. (2002). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: Taking a new look at upper echelons theory. In B. J. Avolio, &
F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 173 – 199). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science.
Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. The
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., & House, R. J. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of
perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134 – 143.
Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels of management and levels of analysis effects. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 266 – 285.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and
work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515 – 530.
Warrick, D. D. (1995). Best practices occur when leaders lead, champion change, and adopt a sound change process. Organization Development
Journal, 13, 91 – 99.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support
and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590 – 598.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82 – 111.
*Weber, M. (1924/1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York7 Free Press T. Parsons, translator.
Weierter, S. J. M. (1997). Who wants to play bfollow the leader?Q A theory of charismatic relationships based on routinized charisma and follower
characteristics. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 171 – 193.
Weierter, S. J. M. (1999). The role of self-awareness and self-monitoring in charismatic relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
1246 – 1262.
Weierter, S. J. M. (2001). The organization of charisma: Promoting, creating, and idealizing self. Organization Studies, 22, 91 – 115.
Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive
effects on employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 593 – 606.
Wofford, J. C. (1999). Laboratory research on charismatic leadership: Fruitful or futile? The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 523 – 529.
Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. (1998). A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and
transactional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 55 – 84.
Wofford, J. C., Whittington, J. L., & Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Follower motive patterns as situational moderators for transformational leadership
effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 196 – 211.
Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: Attribution of charisma of close and distant leaders. The Leadership
Quarterly, 9, 161 – 176.
*Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Individual- and group-directed leader behavior descriptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 739 – 759.
*Yammarino, F. J. (1996). Group leadership: A levels of analysis perspective. In M. A. West (Ed.), The handbook of work group psychology
(pp. 189 – 224). Chichester, England7 John Wiley and Sons.
*Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Person and situation views of leadership: A multiple levels of analysis approach. The Leadership
Quarterly, 2, 121 – 139.
*Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (Eds.) (2002). Many faces of multi-level issues. Research in multi-level issues, vol. 1. Oxford, UK7 Elsevier
Science.
*Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (Eds.) (2004). Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and processes. Research in multi-level issues, vol. 3
(pp. 189 – 224). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier.
*Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., & Chun, J. U. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: A level-of-analysis review of theory,
measurement, data analysis, and inferences. In L. L. Neider, & Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership. Research in Management, vol. 2 (pp. 23 – 63).
Greenwich, CT7 Information Age Publishing.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A
multiple levels of analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205 – 222.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., & Spangler, W. D. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group
levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 27 – 54.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group
levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 27 – 54.
Yetton, P. W., & Craig, J. F. (1998). Integrating across levels of analysis. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level
approaches Part A (pp. 173 – 182). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, R. J. (1999). The effect of leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma.
*Yukl, G. A. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 414 – 440.
*Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
285–205.
Yukl, G. A., & Chavez, C. (2002). Influence tactics and leader effectiveness. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership
(pp. 139 – 165). Greenwich, CT7 Information Age Publishing.
*Yukl, G. A., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics in upward, downward, and lateral inference attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
132 – 140.
Yukl, G. A., & Fu, P. P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 219 – 232.
Yukl, G. A., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Influence tactics used for different objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group and
Organization Management, 20, 272 – 297.
Yukl, G. A., & Kim, H. (1998). Limitations in the managerial practices questionnaire and the leadership study. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino
Yukl, G. A., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. (1999). Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence behavior as determinants of target commitment.
Yukl, G. A., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 309 – 317.
*Yukl, G. A., & Tracey, B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77, 525 – 535.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1998). The contingency model and executive leadership. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level
approaches Part A (pp. 125 – 133). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press Inc.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 211 – 226.
Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2004). Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices: Scripts as proxy of behavior patterns.

Leadership and Levels of Analysis: A State-Of-The-Science Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership and Levels of Analysis: A State-Of-The-Science Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005) 879 – 919

Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review

2. Levels of analysis (Entities)

3. Coding scheme and procedures

Vertical dyad linkage

Information processing and implicit leadership

Substitutes for leadership

4. Leadership approaches and levels of analysis

4.1. Ohio State Model

Informational processing and implicit leadership

4.1.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.2. Contingency model

predicted to be more successful in high-and low-control situations. In contrast, relationship-oriented leaders, as

4.2.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.3. Participative leadership

4.3.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.4. Situational leadership

4.4.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.5. Path-goal theory

4.5.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.6. Vertical dyad linkage

4.6.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.7. Charismatic leadership

4.7.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.8. Transformational leadership

4.8.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.9. Leader–member exchange

4.9.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.10. Information processing and implicit theories

4.10.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.11. Substitutes for leadership

4.11.2. Level of analysis results

4.12. Romance of leadership

4.12.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.13. Influence tactics

4.13.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.14.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.15. Multiple linkage

4.15.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.16. Multilevel and leaderplex

4.16.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.17. Individualized leadership

4.17.2. Levels-of-analysis results

4.18. All approaches — overall levels results

5. Implications for leadership and levels issues

5.3. Data analysis

5.4. Inference drawing

6. Recommendations and conclusions

! Berson and Avolio (2004)

n In terms of theoretical recommendations:

n In terms of data analytic technique recommendations:

You might also like