Leader distance: a review and a proposed theory

Abstract

Authors' note: We would like to thank Jerry Hunt, LQ Senior Editor, for his helpful comments and encouragement. We are also grateful for the feedback of the LQ 2002 Symposium Distinguished Scholar panel, participating LQ Editors, and attendees. ABSTRACTThe concept of leader distance has been subsumed in a number of leadership theories; however, with few exceptions, leadership scholars have not expressly defined nor discussed leader distance, how distance is implicated in the legitimization of a leader, and how distance affects leader outcomes. We review available literature and demonstrate that integral to untangling the dynamics of the leadership influencing process is an understanding of leaderfollower distance. We present distance in terms of three independent dimensions: leader-follower physical distance, perceived social distance, and perceived task interaction frequency. We discuss possible antecedents of leader-follower distance, including organizational and task characteristics, national culture, and leader/follower implicit motives. Finally, we use configural theory to present eight typologies (i.e., coexistence of a cluster or constellation of independent factors serving as a unit of analysis) of leader distance and propose an integrated cross-level model of leader distance, linking the distance typologies to leader outcomes at the individual and group levels of analysis.

Transformational leadership and R&D workers' multiple commitments: Do justice and span of control matter?

“…Since leader-follower relationship does not occur in a vacuum, the context in which leadership is enacted should be studied as an important contextual variable of leadership effectiveness, especially in enhancing the levels of commitment among the followers (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982;Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). Even if managers possess the desired leadership style, organizational context, namely span of control in the present study, may interfere with their ability to influence desirable outcomes for their subordinates (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002) such as increasing their commitment. In other words, span of control may shape the social-exchange relationships between the employee and the leader/organization and the resulting commitments to these targets.…”

“…Studies examining leadership-context interaction mostly focus on leader distance (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002) which is defined as "a multidimensional construct that describes the psychological, structural and functional separation, disparity, or discord between a supervisor and a subordinate" (Napier & Ferris, 1993, p.326). Such studies of leader distance consider span of control as one aspect of structural distance.…”

Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance

“…Tenure was measured by four categories ranging from less than one year to more than five years. As the number of subordinates per supervisor could affect interaction frequency and therefore LMX (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002), we also controlled for team size.…”

Critique and review of leader–member exchange theory: Issues of agreement, consensus, and excellence

“…According to Antonakis and Atwater (2002), leader distance can comprise three aspects: (a) status and power distance, (b) physical distance, and (c) infrequent contact with followers. It often refers to leaders on a higher level of the organisational hierarchy rather than direct supervisors.…”