File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The folly of theorizing "A" but testing "B" A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed Leader-Member Exchange illustration

TitleThe folly of theorizing "A" but testing "B" A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed Leader-Member Exchange illustration
Authors
Issue Date2001
PublisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
Citation
Leadership Quarterly, 2001, v. 12 n. 4, p. 515-551 How to Cite?
AbstractLeadership research has recently begun to emphasize the importance of examining the level of analysis (e.g., individual, dyad, group, organization) at which phenomena are hypothesized to occur. Unfortunately, however, it is still not commonplace for theory to clearly specify, and for investigations to directly test, expected and rival level-of-analysis effects. This article first selectively reviews a cross-section of theories, models, and approaches in leadership, showing generally poor alignment between theory and the level of analysis actually used in its testing. A multiple levels of analysis investigation of the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model is next presented. This theory has as its foundation the dyadic relationship between a supervisor and his or her subordinates. Yet, less than 10% of published LMX studies have examined level of analysis-and none has employed dyadic analysis. Using within- and between-entities analysis (WABA) and two different samples, four LMX level-of-analysis representations are tested, which involve monosource data; three of these models are then tested using heterosource data. Overall, good support is found for the LMX approach at the within-groups and between-dyads levels. Implications for aligning theory with appropriate levels of analysis in future research are considered. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/177893
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.938
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.770
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSchriesheim, CAen_US
dc.contributor.authorCastro, SLen_US
dc.contributor.authorZhou, Xen_US
dc.contributor.authorYammarino, FJen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-12-19T09:40:43Z-
dc.date.available2012-12-19T09:40:43Z-
dc.date.issued2001en_US
dc.identifier.citationLeadership Quarterly, 2001, v. 12 n. 4, p. 515-551en_US
dc.identifier.issn1048-9843en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/177893-
dc.description.abstractLeadership research has recently begun to emphasize the importance of examining the level of analysis (e.g., individual, dyad, group, organization) at which phenomena are hypothesized to occur. Unfortunately, however, it is still not commonplace for theory to clearly specify, and for investigations to directly test, expected and rival level-of-analysis effects. This article first selectively reviews a cross-section of theories, models, and approaches in leadership, showing generally poor alignment between theory and the level of analysis actually used in its testing. A multiple levels of analysis investigation of the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) model is next presented. This theory has as its foundation the dyadic relationship between a supervisor and his or her subordinates. Yet, less than 10% of published LMX studies have examined level of analysis-and none has employed dyadic analysis. Using within- and between-entities analysis (WABA) and two different samples, four LMX level-of-analysis representations are tested, which involve monosource data; three of these models are then tested using heterosource data. Overall, good support is found for the LMX approach at the within-groups and between-dyads levels. Implications for aligning theory with appropriate levels of analysis in future research are considered. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/leaquaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofLeadership Quarterlyen_US
dc.titleThe folly of theorizing "A" but testing "B" A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed Leader-Member Exchange illustrationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailZhou, X: tzhou@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityZhou, X=rp01130en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00095-9en_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0035717656en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0035717656&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume12en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.spage515en_US
dc.identifier.epage551en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000174278500007-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSchriesheim, CA=6701715345en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCastro, SL=7101787237en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZhou, X=36574549700en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYammarino, FJ=6603737478en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats