have become host to micro and macro researchers. At present, not only do experienced academics
readily identify themselves as micro or macro researchers, but graduate students take on this
delineation from the outset of their academic careers, choosing sides in the search for data and
interpretation of theory. Unfortunately, this division has taken its toll on research. Rarely, do micro
and macro experts engage each other in debates or collaboration^2.
The difference between the perspective on leadership embedded in psychology and the approach
embedded in strategic management has also been voiced as the difference between ³OHDGHUVKLSin
organizations ́ and ³OHDGHUVKLSof organizaWLRQV ́ (Dubin, 1979) respectively. As was stated earlier, the
majority of leadership studies considers ³leadership in organi]DWLRQV ́ LH direct leadership ±
primarily, if not entirely, face-to-face leadership³/HDGHUVKLSof organizations ́, defined as dealing
with strategy, along with the indirect impact on those deep within the organization, is a very recent
topic of study. The latter is WHUPHG ³VWUDWHJLF OHDGHUVKLS ́ ZKLOH WKH IRUPHU is referred to as
³VXSHUYLVRU\OHDGHUVKLS ́(Bedeian & Hunt, 2006, p.202). The diverse priorities of the two leadership
functions emerge as follows: strategic leadership focuses on the survival and success of the
organization, its critical audience involves the community of employees, and its time horizon is long-
term. Supervisory leadership, focuses on the accomplishment of tasks, its critical audience involves
individuals, and its time horizon is medium ± to short-term (Kur, 1995). Strategic and supervisory
leadership differ in level of analysis of the outcome variables, strategic leadership is frequently linked
to archival sources of tangible organizational performance (Kor, 2006), whereas supervisor
approaches to leadership are linked to perceptual variables (VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG
VXERUGLQDWH¶SHUIRUPDQFH) (Judge et al., 2004).
Explicit attention for levels of analysis issues in the leadership literature is relatively new, introduced
about two decades ago and considered more seriously over the last decade (Yammarino et al., 2005).
Figure 2.1 graphically displays the two different levels of analysis of leadership adopted in this
dissertation, i.e. leader-follower dyad and organizational system (in interaction with the environment
in which the organization is embedded).
(^2) It is important to note that researchers of management lack a shared conception of the micro-macro divide. For example, researchers drawing on
economics may use the term micro to refer to firms Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management
Science, 32(10): 1231-1241., whereas those drawing on psychology may use micro to refer to individuals Rousseau, D. M. 2000. Multilevel
competencies and missing linkages. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in oganizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions: 572-582. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.. In this dissertation the micro-macro divide is perceived at the divide between
psychological approach to leadership and a strategic management approach.