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

Chester Schriesheim, Stephanie L. Castro, Xiaohua Zhou, Francis J. Yammarino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

101 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Leadership 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)515-551
Number of pages37
JournalLeadership Quarterly
Volume12
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

leader
Research
dyad
leadership
Levels of analysis
Testing
Theorizing
Leader-member exchange
model theory
Group
organization
Dyads

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business and International Management
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
  • Applied Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

The folly of theorizing "A" but testing "B" A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed Leader-Member Exchange illustration. / Schriesheim, Chester; Castro, Stephanie L.; Zhou, Xiaohua; Yammarino, Francis J.

In: Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001, p. 515-551.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{79f838429a5c40bd904645b206758eff,
title = "The folly of theorizing {"}A{"} but testing {"}B{"} A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed Leader-Member Exchange illustration",
abstract = "Leadership 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.",
author = "Chester Schriesheim and Castro, {Stephanie L.} and Xiaohua Zhou and Yammarino, {Francis J.}",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00095-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "515--551",
journal = "Leadership Quarterly",
issn = "1048-9843",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The folly of theorizing "A" but testing "B" A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed Leader-Member Exchange illustration

AU - Schriesheim, Chester

AU - Castro, Stephanie L.

AU - Zhou, Xiaohua

AU - Yammarino, Francis J.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Leadership 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.

AB - Leadership 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035717656&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035717656&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00095-9

DO - 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00095-9

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 515

EP - 551

JO - Leadership Quarterly

JF - Leadership Quarterly

SN - 1048-9843

IS - 4

ER -