Introduction

LEADERSHIP:
THE MULTIPLE-LEVEL APPROACHES

Fred Dansereau*
State University of New York at Buffalo
Francis J. Yammarino
State University of New York at Binghamton

Steven E. Markham
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

INTRODUCTION
What would happen if we viewed the major approaches to leadership as described in
most academic writings and organizational behavior textbooks in light of multiple levels
of analysis? An answer to this question is the 13 articles that appear in this two-part
special issue titled: “Leadership: The Multiple-Level Approaches.” As editors, we wanted
the leading proponents of 13 major theories in the field to examine the implications of
multiple levels of analysis for their work. As a result, most readers of Leadership
Quarterly will recognize not only the theories but also the names of the authors.
We expected, obviously, the theoretical content of the articles to vary by approach;
we did not expect such a substantial variation in methods, but this is what we found.
At one extreme, Hunt and Ropo display the logic behind a qualitative grounded theory

* Direct all correspondence to: Fred Dansereau, School of Management, State University of New York
at Buffalo, Department of Organization and Human Resources, Jacobs Management Centre, Buffalo, NY
14260.

Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 97-109.

Copyright Q 1995 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048-9843
98 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

approach. At the other extreme, Schriesheim, Cogliser, and Neider exemplify a

quantitative empirical approach. As editors, the authors taught us that levels-of-analysis
issues must be addressed regardless of the approach or chosen method of analysis.
Although the methods differ, the major contribution of each of the articles lies in its
advancement of theory. Because the topics in the special issue parallel the major
approaches to leadership in organizational behavior, the advances of each approach are
important, virtually by definition. In many ways, the advances that occurred took us,
as editors, by surprise. We suspected that multiple levels of analysis would enhance
theory, but not necessarily in the ways that occurred. Thus, in the first part of this
introduction, we summarize and highlight some of the key contributions of each article.
In the second part, we attempt to provide a general integration of the approaches so
as to identify their commonalities and differences. In reading the special issue, it is
important to keep in mind that we and the authors are not talking about levels in organ-
izations such as higher-, middle-, and lower-level managers, but rather we are talking
about levels of analysis such as individuals, dyads, groups, and organizations. (For a
detailed background on this distinction, see Dansereau, Alutto, 8z Yammarino, 1984.)

CONSIDERING EACH APPROACH SEPARATELY

In analyzing each of the 13 contributions, we have taken the liberty of grouping them
according to their research roots in the field. Aside from allowing for ease of discussion,
this helps to historically anchor them.

The Classical Approaches

The three articles that fit under classical approaches include: (1) Schriesheim,
Cogliser, and Neider; (2) Ayman, Chemers, and Fiedler; and (3) Vroom and Jago. These
should be instantly recognizable by any student of organizational behavior because of
their resilience and longevity during the last 35 years.

Ohio State Approach

The article by Schriesheim, Cogliser, and Neider reexamines the results of an
empirical study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology about consideration
and structure-the key variables in the Ohio State approach. As editors, we will not
reveal the punch line of their story by stating what they found in their reanalyses.
Nevertheless, Schriesheim et al. demonstrate “the absolute necessity of having
researchers explicitly state the levels of analysis at which their hypothesized
phenomenon hold and of testing obtained data for alignment with those expectations.”
Schriesheim et al. use a new extension of contemporary empirical methods to test for
multiple-level effects and demonstrate it. They not only focus on one of the oldest
approaches to leadership in organizational behavior but also raise questions about most
previous research that has not explicitly considered levels of analysis. Specifically, they
ask, “Are old data trustworthy?” We hope this article opens the door for individuals
with quantitative interests to further pursue multiple-level research. It clearly shows
that even in the early studies of leadership, multiple levels of analysis were at least an
implicit theoretical issue even though not considered empirically in much detail.
Introduction 99

Contingency Approach
The article by Ayman, Chemers, and Fiedler shows how the contingency model
clearly stated 30 years ago the multiple levels of analysis contained in its domain.
Although readers may agree or disagree with the arguments of the authors about the
meaning of LPC (least-preferred coworker), the clarity of specification of it and other
variables in terms of levels of analysis is a remarkable example of one of the first
multiple-level theories. This article makes the specification of levels of analysis clear
and unambiguous. Moreover, the article makes a clear distinction between the level
of the concepts and the level of measurement. In addition to the original specification,
the authors offer various extensions of the theory, for example, to the dyad level of
analysis. Although the extensions are just beginning to receive research attention, they
represent in our view a potentially useful direction for the future.

leadership and Participa five Decision Making

The article by Vroom and Jago presents some of the latest thinking about the decision-
making approach to leader participation. This approach clearly differs from the two
other classical approaches, which focused on the individual differences of leaders
(contingency approach) and of followers (Ohio State approach). The level of analysis
of interest in this participation approach is the situation (or the decision). In other words,
Vroom and Jago assert that different situations stimulate different decisions. The use
of “problem sets”can capture the degree to which an individual responds participatively
to multiple situations. Their article, in our opinion, suggests the need to think in more
detail about the various levels that may be reflected in participation and different types
of participation. In a sense, we believe the model is clear in that individuals “should”
or “do” respond in a manner that depends on the situation, rather than in terms of
one style.
We believe additional research and conceptualization is necessary to clarify how this
model differs from the other two preceding models on an empirical as well as theoretical
basis. In other words, the individual differences approach and this situational approach
need to be more clearly articulated. As editors, our own view of individual differences
means relevant variations between individuals. In contrast, Vroom and Jago’s
participation approach examines differences that occur neither between individuals nor
within individuals but rather in the situation (i.e., within and between individuals). This
requires a focus on the time dimension that is built into their theory. Specifically, a
leader changes styles over time depending on the situation. Although not completely
articulated in this article, the situational and person-by-situation approach described
here stimulated our thinking, and we hope it will stimulate others’ thinking about the
unique and important contribution of this approach in terms of levels of analysis.

The Contemporary Approaches

The contemporary approaches have a more explicit focus on both the leaders and
the development of their followers. This subtle shift can be seen in the three articles
in this section. First, Klein and House explicate the nature of charisma. Second, Avolio
and Bass work with one aspect of transformational leadership. Third, the LMX
approach of Graen and Uhl-Bien seems almost exclusively targeted on the linkage (i.e.,
100 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

the relationship) between the follower and the leader and does not focus on the leader
or follower per se.

Charismatic Leadership
Charisma, for the Greeks, was the fire from the gods that anointed the leader. This
article is “on fire” as we see the clarity of House’s charismatic approach to leadership
where the level of interest is the dyad. But this article is much more than about just
linkages or dyads. Through its propositions, Klein and House specify how and why
charismatic dyads form and how they do or do not become widespread. There is little
ambiguity here about levels. Leaders have different characteristics (an individual
difference perspective) and followers respond as individuals. Clearly, this is a first step
in developing a concept of charismatic leadership not just from a dyadic perspective
but also from an individual difference perspective of leaders and followers. It is, in our
view, a major step in a new and exciting direction with testable propositions for future
research.

Transformational Leadership
Avolio and Bass take a narrower perspective by focusing on one construct-
individual consideration-and extending it to clarify‘its different meanings at different
levels of analysis: individual, group, and collective. They show how the concept changes
meaning depending upon which level of analysis is of interest. Moreover, they show
how, over time, the concept changes as organizations develop. Thus, changes in
theoretical meaning, measurement tools, and the nature of what happens over time are
all linked to levels-of-analysis issues. The authors also describe their current research
that focuses on these issues. The focus of the article on only one variable shows the
importance of clearly specifying the level of analysis for a particular variable because
the meaning of the variable changes depending on which level of analysis is of interest.

Leader-Member Exchange
The article by Graen and Uhl-Bien suggests to us that the leader-member exchange
(LMX) approach focuses solely on (leader-follower) relationships (or linkages). This
is an extremely important clarification of the LMX approach. The leader and the
follower per se are not of interest in this approach. The relationship between them is
of interest. The primary variable (LMX) is defined by them as involving mutual respect,
reciprocal trust, and mutual obligation, thereby making it a relational concept.
This new definition helps explain why the LMX approach, unlike other approaches,
is not specific about the appropriate level of analysis forfollowers or leaders. Followers
and leaders per se are not of interest; relationships are of most interest. Thus, the LMX
approach does not seem to specify levels for the leaders and followers as separate entities.
Graen and his associates appear to believe that any level of analysis (or all levels of
analysis) can be subsumed under the idea of relationships.
The LMX approach departs markedly from the contemporary approach of Klein
and House, where leaders are viewed as individuals and followers are viewed as
individuals and the linkages are dyadic. The LMX approach provides little guidance
as to how to view leaders or followers from a levels-of-analysis perspective. Likewise,
one measure (LMX) is used to reflect relationships apparently at all levels of analysis,
Introduction 101

which differs from the approach of Avolio and Bass who suggest that measures and
concepts change as one changes levels.
We believe the LMX and vertical dyad linkage (VDL) approaches are very different.
The original VDL model, as described in this article, makes assertions about followers
within groups and processes within leaders and dyadic linkages within groups. This
is clear from this article and is the position taken in the later article by Dansereau et
al. In contrast, the more recent LMX model seems to focus on relationships. We believe
a focus on relationships is indeed important and the article by Graen and Uhl-Bien
develops this perspective in detail. But, to us, a focus on leaders and followers per se
also seems as important as a focus on relationships if one is interested in understanding
leadership.

The Alternative Approaches

Although the alternative approaches of the three articles in this section seem to take
a very different tack than the classic or contemporary views, these articles show that
the distinction is quickly becoming blurred. Thus, Hall and Lord’s discussion of
information processing expands beyond a simple individual difference perspective.
Similarly, Podsakoff and MacKenzie refocus the substitutes for leadership area from
individual- to group-level effects. Why the convergence? Simply stated, when levels of
analysis are taken seriously, narrow approaches that previously focused solely on
followers become broader by including leaders and their linkages with followers. The
article by Meindl is an exception to this generalization in that it clearly maintains a
focus on followers.

lnforma tion Processing

The article about information processing by Hall and Lord shows how to extend
the cognitive and affective aspects of information processing by explicitly considering
multiple levels of analysis. In the process, one sees that the information processing of
individual followers about leadership need no longer be viewed in isolation from the
leader. Accordingly, this article shows how one can think of the cognitive and affective
aspects of information processing at more than the individual level-at the dyad and
the group levels of analysis as well. This is accomplished by showing that although
individual-level follower information processing remains important, it can have links
with objects in an individual’s perceptual field (i.e., leaders). In this way, dyads and
groups become important. There are multiple levels and multiple variables discussed
in this article that show the richness and adaptability of the information processing
view in general and for leadership in particular.

Substitutes for Leadership

The article by Podsakoff and Mackenzie focuses on various leadership variables,
substitutes for leadership, and related outcomes. The authors show some ability to
predict outcomes from substitutes and leader behaviors using multiple regression at
the individual and group levels. Essentially, they then use contextual analysis to attempt
to separate out individual-level and group-level effects. This is clearly a potentially
worthwhile but risky endeavor given the various debates about and problems associated
102 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

with how to separate out such effects with contextual analysis. In our view, there is
not yet a satisfactory solution to this controversy.
From our perspective, the results of their study suggest that substitutes for leadership
make some contribution to criterion variables over and above leadership variables. The
individual-level results based on individual reports make some sense to us. In contrast,
the conclusions about the groups (based on group means) seem very tenuous. To
examine group effects, they apparently ignore over 50% of the total variance as well
as all within-group covariance. Why, then, did we publish an article that we consider
to be problematic? We believe the debate about a key issue has only begun, and this
article will add to it. The key issue is: what are the criteria that researchers should use
to decide whether there is a group effect or an individual effect, or both? Substantial
discourse may still be necessary in this area because this issue is far from resolved. We
believe that the Podsakoff and MacKenzie approach uses the absolute minimum criteria
one could use to assert a group effect. Based on more rigorous and conservative criteria,
we do not see group effects in their data; rather, we see largely individual self-reports
that weakly correlate with some criterion variables when considered separately. (This
can be viewed as a type of null result with some weak effects at the individual level.)
The article, however, illustrates an approach that might be useful under the following
condition. When the results show significant effects based on the raw score correlations
(individual differences) and significant group effects (based on group averages), then
one could ask, how much does the group add beyond the individual (raw score effects)?
Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s procedures might be helpful in this circumstance, but the
results they present seem too weak to support such an analysis given, in our view, the
weak group-level results.
Nevertheless, the article illustrates, along with the article by Schriesheim and his
colleagues, some key empirical indicators to use when analyzing data. Both articles
include analyses of within and between variation and covariation to assess levels issues-
obviously we agree with the interpretation by Schriesheim et al. but not with Podsakoff
and MacKenzie’s. Moreover, the article shows that the substitutes-for-leadership
approach, like the information-processing views, is clearly open to testing at multiple
levels regardless of differences of interpretation about the strength of effects. In other
words, the substitutes-for-leadership approach allows for linkages between followers
and leaders but also suggests that there is something beyond the leader’s style.

Romance of Leadership
Meindl’s article about the romance of leadership suggests that most classical and
contemporary approaches to leadership ignore followers. We simply disagree. In our
view, most approaches focus on leaders, followers, and their linkage. Meindl, however,
prefers to focus on followers. He views followers as independent of leaders and has
little, if any, interest in the possible link between followers and leaders or in leaders
per se. According to this view, leadership can be viewed as potentially a construction
that individuals can make almost regardless of what leaders actually do. Thus, leadership
can be studied independently of leaders.
This article differs markedly from the article by Hall and Lord, who view dyads and
groups as a possible basis for cognitive and affective effects in information processing.
Likewise, it differs from the work of Podsakoff and MacKenzie where leadership
Introduction 103

measures are considered in addition to substitutes for leadership. We believe that the
romance-of-leadership approach would be advanced by an incorporation of the thinking
in these other alternative approaches. Clearly, the information-processing view of Hall
and Lord and the substitutes-for-leadership approach of Pod&off and MacKenzie
allow for leaders to influence subordinates.
Nevertheless, we agree with the romance-of-leadership notion that followers are very
important and that there is a need to study how they perceive the world (see, e.g., the
article by Hall and Lord). Certainly, followers may bring about the emergence of
leadership. But it is not clear to us that leadership resides only in followers without
at least some referent about which individuals are perceiving (i.e., leaders). There is
probably a philosophical position underlying Meindl’s approach because the article,
as the title suggests, is a social constructionist view of leadership.
Interestingly, the social constructionist perspective of interest seems to allow for the
notion of a contagion effect in which individuals share perceptions as a group-an
individual and group model involving follower-follower linkages. This point is
illustrated in the article. Indeed, we think that this multiple-level view is an important
positive step. We believe, however, that the romance of leadership could be enhanced
by focusing on leaders in addition to followers as well as by focusing on leader-follower
linkages in addition to follower-follower linkages.

The New Wave Approaches

The four articles of this section offer more recent and different perspectives on aspects
of leadership that can be analyzed from a multiple-levels perspective. First, the article
by Markham, Markham, and Neck illustrates some of the problems when moving from
an individual view of self-leadership and self-management to a self-directed work team
vantage point. Second, the article by Kim and Yukl offers the first empirical test at
multiple levels for Yukl’s multiple-linkage theory. Third, Hunt and Ropo use a
qualitative approach to identify how one individual’s leadership style may impact an
entire corporation, in this case, GM. Finally, the Dansereau, Yammarino, Markham,
Alutto, Newman, Dumas, Nachman, Naughton, Kim, al-Kelabi, Lee, and Keller article
takes a different direction by moving away from past VDL models and toward a
tripartite model that specifies a different view of the leader, the follower, and the leader-
follower relationship as necessary parts of a dyadic exchange process. Importantly, they
report data from a number of studies that replicate their findings.

Self-leadership
Self-directed leadership implies that leaders develop followers who can function
independently of the leaders, basically on their own. The ultimate development is self-
managed work teams. As Markham, Markham, and Neck show, this is a fertile area
for theoretical development and research. They suggest that the key levels of interest
in this area in prior research have been the differences between leaders as individuals
and entire work groups. They also note the role of individual differences in how self-
leadership is inculcated. Finally, they enumerate a number of research issues that need
to be addressed vis-bvis levels of analysis.
104 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

Multiple- Linkage Model

The article by Kim and Yukl offers the first empirical test of Yukl’s multiple-linkage
approach to leadership. Of particular significance heie is the finding of correlations
of superiors’ and subordinates’ reports about leaders with higher-level managers’
reports. Based on multiple-level analysis, the results suggest that most of the variables
reflect differences between superiors and between work groups. The group effects, in
our view, are somewhat weak when more rigorous criteria are used. Moreover, we
believe that future research could help to clarify the meaning and independence of the
leadership factors. Nevertheless, the study shows the potential predictive ability of Yukl’s
approach in an empirical sense.

Multi-Level Theory
Hunt and Ropo’s article analyzes the case of Roger Smith and General Motors to
further develop Hunt’s multi-level theory. (Multi-level in this case includes the
organizational level.) Using a grounded theory approach, they generate propositions
and suggest various ways that these propositions may contain multiple levels of analysis.
It is an interesting article in that it suggests the potential importance of levels of analysis
even when using a qualitative grounded theory research approach.

individualized leadership
The article by Dansereau et al. has a somewhat different focus than the other new
wave articles. It moves away from the vertical dyad linkage approach that focused on
(1) the differences within followers, (2) differences within leaders, and (3) differences
among dyads within groups. Instead, it views followers as independent of each other
or as individuals, and leaders as linking with subordinates on this individual basis.
Leaders then respond to the situation (i.e., each follower) and link dyadically with
followers. In this new approach to leadership, leaders first provide support for the sense
of self-worth of followers as unique individuals who are independent of other individuals
with whom they interact. Second, in exchange, followers then perform in ways that
satisfy the leader. Third, as a result, leaders and followers link together in dyads where
there is consistency and agreement, yet differences, between these independent dyads
(i.e., agreement is not dependent on work group membership). This theory is tested
in a number of studies, and nearly identical effects were found in all studies. There
are two key points that distinguish this approach from the old VDL approach. First,
the failure of a key variable in the vertical dyad linkage approach, negotiating latitude
to show an effect. Second, the individualized leadership approach focuses on dyads
independent of groups.
This approach would be enhanced by considering some of the features of the other
new wave approaches. An increase in the number of variables of interest in future
research seems appropriate as well as a comparison with the variables described by
Kim and Yukl. Observations in the field of how support for self-worth, the key variable
of interest, might be manifested in multiple contexts using a qualitative perspective
similar to the one used by Hunt and Ropo seem useful. Finally, a consideration of
how the individualized approach might culminate in self-leadership as described by
Markham et al. seems appropriate.
Introduction 105

INTEGRATING THE APPROACHES

Table 1 provides a theoretical perspective on the issue of multiple levels of analysis
for the articles in the special issue rather than the historical perspective used thus far.
As illustrated in Table 1, we believe that all but two of the articles presented here focus
on leaders, followers, and the linkages between them (leader-follower linkage
approaches). Inherent in these leader-follower linkage approaches is a multiple-levels-
of-analysis view that we discuss below in terms of the three different perspectives on
leaders. After a discussion of this approach, we highlight the two more narrow
approaches.

Leader-Follower linkage Approaches

There are three very different views of leaders that emerge from this set of articles.
First, there is the more traditional individual-difference view. The focus here is on
differences between leaders. Second, there is the view that leaders differentiate among
individuals and become leaders for only some followers. The focus in this case is upon
differences within leaders (a vertical dyad linkage approach). Third, there is the view
that leadership is based on the situation and, in this sense, independent of the leader.
The focus in this instance is not on the leader but rather on the situation. These three
views follow the ideas of Dansereau, Alutto, and Yammarino (1984) and Klein,
Dansereau, and Hall (1994): (1) homogeneity or “whole entities,” (2) heterogeneity or
“parts of entities,” and (3) independence or equivocality. These three perspectives are
different views of one level of analysis-in this case, of the leader as a person. This
focus on only the leader, however, is very deceiving because, in fact, the approaches
focus on followers per se and leader-follower linkages. We now consider each set of
approaches.

Approaches Focusing on Differences Between leaders

Clearly, the Ohio State approach (Schriesheim et al.), the contingency approach
(Ayman et al.), the transformational approach (Avolio and Bass), and the self-directed
leadership approach (Markham et al.) focus on characteristics that differ among leaders.
Likewise, the multiple-linkage (Kim and Yukl) approach focuses on 14 dimensions that
are viewed as characteristics of different leaders. In general, this set of approaches
considers multiple levels of analysis because the criteria variables typically refer to the
characteristics of leaders’ followers as members of groups. Thus, these approaches focus
on the differences between leaders as persons and between their groups of followers.
At least two levels (person and group) are included in these approaches and the linkage
is between persons and groups. The charismatic approach (Klein and House) also
highlights the characteristics of the leader that distinguish leaders from others, but it
views followers as persons (or individuals) rather than as groups. Thus, the emphasis
is not on a person-group linkage, as in the other approaches, but rather on person-to-
person linkage, which results in a focus on the dyad level in addition to the person level.
Three other approaches, we believe, also tend to shed light on the leader as an
individual or person and significantly broaden the view of followers. The information-
processing view (Hall and Lord) clearly leaves “open” the level of analysis of interest
for different variables (i.e., multiple different levels are plausible). Likewise, the
 Table 1
Comparison and Integration of the Different Approaches
Approaches that Focus on Leaders, FoUowers, and Linkages

View of Laaders View of Followers View of Linkage

Focus on Differences Between Leaders as Persons

Ohio State Approach Followers as a group Person-Group
Contingency Approach Followers as a group Person-Group
Transformational Leadership Followers as a group Person-Group
Self-Leadership Followers as a group Person-Group
Multiple Linkage Model Followers as a group Person-Group
Charismatic Leadership Followers as individuals Person-Person (Dyad)
Information Processing Open Open
Substitutes for Leadership Open Open
Multi-level Theory Open Open

Focus on Differences Within Leaders

Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach Differences among individuals within groups Differentiated dyads within groups

Focus on Differences Independent of Leaders

Leadership and Participative Decision Making Open Open
Individualized Leadership Followers as individuals Dyadic

An Approach that Focuses on Followers Not on Leaders or Leader-Follower Linkages

Romance of Leadership: Followers are viewed as individuals or members of groups

An Approach that Focuses O& on Linkages Not on Leaders or Followers

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): Levels are open; Linkages may be individuals in groups, leader-followers, dyads, dyads in groups, and so forth.
Introduction 107

substitutes-for-leadership approach (Podsakoff and MacKenzie) uses the averages of

subordinates’ reports to obtain measures of leader individual differences. In addition,
it attempts to aggregate the substitute-for-leadership variables. The idea apparently is
that the substitutes may show a “contagion effect” among subordinates and serve as
an alternative to the individual differences of the leaders. Finally, the multiple-level
model (Hunt and Ropo) with its description of Roger Smith (N = 1) clearly focuses
on one individual and the consequences for the organization (a combined individual-
level and organizational-level analysis). As shown in Table 1, for these last three
approaches, we leave open the actual level of interest for followers and leader-follower
linkages because it is not yet clear how these theories will evolve in this regard.

Approaches Focusing on Differences Within Leaders

No article in the special issue focuses mainly on the differences that occur within
leaders and on the distinctions leaders may make among individuals one relative to
another. The articles by Graen and Uhl-Bien and Dansereau et al. did mention the
vertical dyad linkage (VDL) approach. Both articles seem to agree at least that the VDL
approach is focused on the distinction leaders make, one subordinate relative to another
subordinate, and on the differentiation of work groups into in-groups and out-groups.
The leader, accordingly, is viewed not in terms of his or her individual differences but
rather in terms of the differentiation he or she makes on a relativistic basis (a within-
person effect). Subordinates are viewed as individuals within groups, and the linkage
occurs in dyads within groups. The articles by Dansereau et al. and Graen and Uhl-
Bien move away from this approach, but the VDL approach remains a viable multiple-
level approach that deserves additional research attention. Schriesheim (personal
communication) has recently found results compatible with this view.

Approaches Focusing on Differences Independent of Leaders

(Situational Approaches)
Two of the articles take a very different perspective on leadership than the articles
described thus far. The level of analysis is not actually on the leader per se but rather
is based in the situation. In the case of the participation model (Vroom and Jago), the
level of analysis of interest is the situation. Thus, a leader acts in a more or less
participative way depending on the situation. In addition to the situation (i.e., the
decision), individual differences (as was the case in the first set of approaches) also are
considered. Thus, Vroom and Jago take a unique approach to multiple levels of analysis.
In the case of individualized leadership (Dansereau et al.), each follower represents
a unique “situation” for the leader. In other words, leadership depends on each
individual with whom a leader interacts. For some or all individuals, a focal person
becomes a leader, and for others, a focal person may or may not become a leader.
This is a multiple-level approach because it focuses on the dyadic link of the individual
follower as a person with the leader (i.e., a person and dyadic approach).

A Follower-Only Approach

The romance of leadership (Meindl) is clearly multi-level in the sense that individuals
or groups can cogitate about leaders. Moreover, in our view, the notion that followers
108 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

are important is an implicit part of all the approaches described thus far. The notion,
however, that followers alone influence their perceptions of the leaders without regard
to a target person is probably a new idea but it is not very persuasive for us. We do
believe the idea that followers’ perceptions may have no link with leaders and may simply
reflect followers’ individual differences is a very valid point made by the romance-of-
leadership approach. We define this as a case of no leadership, where there is a lack
of dyadic or person-group link between leaders and followers. Likewise, we believe
leadership may emerge from followers. We, however, believe, as apparently do most
theorists in this area, that at least sometimes there is a link or interdependence between
leaders and followers. We believe the romance-of-leadership approach could be
enhanced by incorporating a ‘more formal and explicit consideration of both leaders
and leader-follower linkages.

A Linkage-Only Approach

The LMX approach (Graen and Uhl-Bien) suggests a focus not on the leader or
follower but rather on their relationship (linkages in our terminology). We do not believe
that relationships exist entirely independently of the actors who compose them. While
Graen and Uhl-Bien describe different relationships that may evolve between leaders
and followers, there is a lack of specificity about the actors involved in this process.
For example, we are told that relationships may reflect dyads or dyads in groups and
that dyads may be about just any two entities. Clearly, this is a multi-level statement
that needs substantial clarification. For example, Klein and House refer to a dyadic
relationship in which the leader and follower are viewed as individual persons. In
contrast, Dansereau et al. refer to a dyadic relationship in which the follower is an
individual but the leader responds to just the follower (the situation) as such. Likewise,
several other approaches focus on links between the leader as a person and a group.
We are not convinced that a single LMX measure will assess all of these different aspects
of the linkage between leaders and followers. We believe that the power of the LMX
approach would be enhanced by focusing on leaders and followers and by making
predictions about them as do most other approaches. Finally, we distinguish the LMX
from the VDL approach because the latter approach makes predictions about all three
components of leadership: leaders, followers, and their linkage.

CONCLUSION
We believe that all the approaches to the study of leadership in this issue make a
contribution because they view leadership as a multiple-level-of-analysis phenomenon.
In fact, these well-developed approaches to leadership suggest that individuals who are
viewed as prominent and famous leaders probably (1) differ from other individuals,
(2) make distinctions among people, and (3) are influenced by the situation (the
followers). This general three-fold perspective endorsed by 11 of the 13 articles in this
special issue recognizes that followers are important (as pointed out by Meindl) and
that they form linkages with leaders (as pointed out by Graen and Uhl-Bien) but that
leaders, as a separate research focus, are important as well.
Introduction 109

We believe that there is a lack of empirical data about the variables that (1) distinguish
leaders from nonleaders, (2) capture how leaders differentiate among people, and (3)
assess how situations influence leaders. In other words, the theories (particularly as
described in the articles in this issue) go far beyond existing empirical results in the
extant literature. We hope the articles presented in this special issue, and in particular
the extension of the approaches in terms of levels of analysis, will encourage data
collection and research that include multiple levels of analysis. We view the articles
in this special issue not as an ending but as a beginning for theory development and
data analysis.

Acknowledgments: We owe a special debt to Dean Frederick Winter and Associate

Dean Howard Foster of the School of Management at the State University of New
York at Buffalo for their support for the special issue beyond that available in the
Department of Organization and Human Resources. We also want to thank Dennis
Gleason, Sabina Schneider, and Scott With for their help in the editing process. In
addition, the authors of the articles in the special issue deserve special thanks. They
were willing to push their theories to their outer edges by attempting to state explicitly
the multiple levels of analysis associated with their approaches-a truly scientific
endeavor.

REFERENCES
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1984). ZZkeory testing in organizational
behavior: The vurient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R.J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data
collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195-229.