Search results

The quantitative literature on levels of analysis emphasizes identifying the level of a construct as a confirmation rather than a discovery process. Based on the comments we received from Parry and Gephart we integrate some of their ideas regarding discovery in our earlier model to augment the verification process associated with construct validation. However, we also emphasize the need to use structure even with qualitative methods, given the nature of the level verification process. We begin by discussing their specific comments as well as our reactions to these comments. We then discuss the ideas of theoretical sampling, discovery and levels of abstraction, and include an example to demonstrate the utility of using a “discovery”-oriented approach to level specification for construct validation. Finally, we provide a brief conclusion for our reply.

We argue in this chapter that quantitative techniques alone cannot enable appropriate verification of the levels in which a construct should be defined and validated. We propose a process model that takes advantage of qualitative and quantitative methods when specifying and measuring the level(s) of analysis in construct development. The model implies that operationalizing a construct and its measurement should involve both qualitative and quantitative methods. Level specification begins with induction of constructs and continues with qualitative or quantitative operationalizations that are verified through the convergence of using triangulation and aggregation tests. Construct development continues until the level of analysis is accurately specified. We provide a theoretical example of construct development from the leadership literature and an empirical example to represent the verification process.

This chapter deals with the issue of distance between leaders and followers. I claim that distance from a leader is not only a reflection of time and space (i.e., objective distance) but also connected to followers’ emotions toward the leader manifested in their construal of their leaders. I report the findings of initial investigations that demonstrate how the patterns of construal of leaders as close or distant can be explained by construal level theory as well as through psychological theories of emotions. Finally, I discuss implications to theories of leadership and followership.

Despite apparent consensus about the importance of leader rhetoric, the topic has not received systematic attention from leadership scholars. The purpose of this article is to advance the study of the relationship between rhetorical behavior and charismatic leadership in three ways: first, by presenting theoretically derived propositions about the expected contents of charismatic leaders’ speeches; second, by offering a thematic content analysis of a representative speech by a charismatic orator, in order to demonstrate the content themes suggested by the propositions; and third, by specifying the requirements for more systematic studies of the relationship between speech content and charisma.

The literature on charismatic leadership in organizations has neglected the organizational context in which such leadership is embedded. The purpose of this article is to enrich and refine charismatic leadership theory by linking it to its organizational context. We argue that while charismatic leadership principles and processes potentially apply across a wide variety of situations, the emergence and effectiveness of such leadership may be facilitated by some contexts and inhibited by others. We develop and present a series of propositions linking contextual variable to the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Among the contextual variable we examine are the organizational environment, life-cycle stage, technology, tasks, goals, structure, and culture, as well as the leader’s level in the organization and the circumstances surrounding his or her appointment.

This paper reviews and compares six theoretical explanations of the effects of charismatic leaders on their followers. Of the six explanations two are based on psychoanalytic theory, two on attribution theory, one on a sociological theory of symbolic centers, and one on the social psychology of the self-concept. The review exposes differences among the explanations in their motivational assumptions, their predictions regarding leader behaviors and effects on followers, and the mediating mechanisms they posit between leader behaviors and effects on followers. The most critical differences are highlighted and suggested as foci of future research on charismatic leadership.