(chapter two). Basically the lowest level of analysis is the single leader, the next level of analysis is
the leader-follower dyad and the level higher is leadership of the organizational system (Klein et al.,
2000). Whereas supervisory leadership is considered at the second-mentioned level of analysis aimed
at increasing subordinate motivation, strategic leadership functions at the third-mentioned level,
dealing with organizational functioning, determined by the interaction of the organization with its
environment. 7KHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHWZRKDVDOVREHHQODEHOHG³OHDGHUVKLSLQRUJDQL]DWLRQV ́DQG
³OHDGHUVKLSRIRUJDQL]DWLRQV ́(Dubin, 1979).
STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AT DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS
These two concepts have been introduced as the privilege of a specific organizational level in the
organizational hierarchy (chapter two). Strategic leadership was supposed to be displayed at higher
organizational levels (Elenkov et al., 2005; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Sosik et al., 2005),
whereas lower organizational levels would be largely involved with motivating their subordinates
(House & Aditya, 1997). Yet, this clear delineation of leadership along the organizational hierarchy
seems no longer warranted (chapter two). It is increasingly acknowledged that motivation plays a
distinctive role at all organizational levels (Zaccaro, 2001). And given the increasingly challenging
environment in which organizations are operating, performing strategic leadership has become a
requirement for organizational members at all organizational levels (Hitt & Ireland, 2002).
This dissertation showed (chapter seven) that there was no significant difference per organizational
level in the manifestation of transformational leadership (except for vision, which supported the
continuity perspective (De Meuse et al., 2011), where top-level managers score highest and lower-
level managers score lowest). As for strategic leadership, a distinct pattern was deduced (see Figure
10.2). By large the continuity perspective was applicable on the manifestation of both strategic and
supervisory leadership. Top-level managers scored highest on all leadership dimensions. For the two
Exploitation-oriented dimensions a discontinuous (De Meuse et al., 2011) pattern was found. Middle
managers scored lower on Operational efficiency and Client centricity than their lower-level
counterparts.