ماهیت چند سطحی و رویکرد های چند سطحی رهبری

This introduction provides an overview to The Leadership Quarterly Special Issue on Multi-Level Approaches to Leadership. Building on the last such Special Issue more than a decade ago and a recent Yearly Review article [Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879–919], we focus on the multi-level nature of leadership and highlight the contributions of six articles that offer various multi-level conceptual and methodological approaches to leadership.

In the leadership literature, multi-level approaches were brought to the forefront of research more than two decades ago in the work of Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino (1984). They noted the importance of clearly specifying the level(s) of analysis at which phenomena are expected to exist theoretically. They also stated that it is critical to ensure that 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. More than one decade ago, when one of us (F. Yammarino) was Senior Editor of The Leadership Quarterly, the other of us (F. Dansereau) was commissioned to develop a two-part Special Issue on 13 multi-level approaches to leadership. Subsequently, we edited and published a two-volume research monograph ( Dansereau and Yammarino, 1998a and Dansereau and Yammarino, 1998b) focusing on these multi-level approaches to leadership. The 13 original Special Issue articles were reprinted in the monograph; and (1) key measurement instruments for each leadership approach, (2) two commentaries on each original article, and (3) replies by the original article authors to the commentaries on their work were added to complete the monograph. More recently, Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau (2005), in a Yearly Review article, sought to review the state of the science in regard to leadership and levels of analysis work for 17 leadership approaches. These authors reviewed and coded nearly 350 leadership publications for the degree of appropriate inclusion and use of levels of analysis in theory formulation, construct/variable measurement, data analytic techniques, and inference drawing. Yammarino et al. (2005) concluded that the state of the science for leadership and levels of analysis, while representing an encouraging improvement over that seen during the previous two decades, remains far from adequate. Unfortunately, relatively few studies (about 9%) in any of the areas of leadership research that were reviewed had addressed levels of analysis issues appropriately in theory, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing. As Guest Editors, we sought to develop this Special Issue of The Leadership Quarterly on Multi-Level Approaches to Leadership with the goal of fostering the development of multi-level approaches to leadership in both theory generation and theory testing. In our Call for Papers, we sought articles that explicitly incorporated levels of analysis issues and approaches in conceptualization, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing. Moreover, we encouraged the submission of quantitative or qualitative empirical articles; integrative research reviews and meta-analyses; theoretical, conceptual, and methodological articles; and research and conceptual notes. Six articles survived the review and revision process and are published in this Special Issue. In this introductory article to Multi-Level Approaches to Leadership, we first provide a simplified multi-level perspective on the nature of leadership. Next, we briefly preview and highlight the key aspects and contributions of the six articles that appear in this Special Issue. Finally, we present an overview of some key themes and conclusions found within these articles based on the work of Yammarino et al. (2005) and the multi-level perspective on leadership in this introduction.

Table 2 summarizes the multi-level themes, issues, and conclusions for the six articles on multi-level leadership approaches found in this Special Issue. As shown in the table, the one conceptual article and five empirical articles found in this Special Issue are quite diverse in terms of the theories and methodologies represented. Despite their wide-ranging approaches and views, these articles share several themes or issues in common. The authors of these six articles have addressed multi-level issues and levels of analysis in theory, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing. In terms of theory, all of the articles have provided specifications of the level(s) of analysis of the unit(s) of interest (i.e., the entities to which theoretical generalizations apply). Where appropriate, they have specified the levels of analysis of the associated concepts, constructs, variables, and relationships. All of these levels and specifications have been theoretically justified. Moreover, in all cases, the authors have attempted to specify boundary conditions, often based on levels of analysis, for their theoretical and conceptual work. In terms of measurement, for the empirical articles, where possible, all construct measures were at the same level of analysis as specified in the theory, model, or hypothesis. When this was not feasible, the authors used appropriate aggregation techniques and provided justification for the use of those techniques. In some cases, they further validated measures that had been modified or adapted to account for different levels of analysis than originally intended. In terms of data analytic techniques, again for the empirical articles, the authors permitted their theories and models (variables, relationships, and levels of analysis) to determine the specific multi-level technique that was used. In some cases, more than one multi-level technique was employed, and the various techniques did not necessarily yield comparable results. Nevertheless, their use was appropriate given the theory being tested. In terms of inference drawing, again for the empirical articles, levels of analyses and multi-level issues were addressed in both theory (as entities) and data (as samples and subjects that were real or simulated) by all of the authors. As a consequence, relationships that were specified as unique to one level of analysis, as crossing levels, or as being multi-level in nature could be adequately tested and confirmed (or not confirmed) to operate in those ways. Furthermore, we are able to infer the view of leaders, followers, and leader–follower linkages employed by the authors in theory development and testing based on the notions in Table 1. In general, these articles have followed the recommendations of Yammarino et al. (2005) for exemplars or “best practices” for formulating and testing multi-level approaches to leadership. By explicitly incorporating levels of analysis and addressing multi-level issues in theoretical formulations, measurement, data analysis, and inference drawing, these authors have developed and tested more comprehensive and integrative leadership approaches. While this work is by no means complete, we believe that the authors and articles in this Special Issue have advanced research farther down the path toward even more comprehensive and integrative multi-level approaches to leadership. We hope you enjoy reading these six articles as much as we enjoyed shepherding them through the review process.