THE ROMANCE OF LEADERSHIP

AS A FOLLOWER-CENTRIC THEORY:
A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH

James R. Meindl*
State University of New York at Buffalo

This article uses the romance of leadership notion to develop a follower-centric perspective on
leadership. A social constructionist view is highlighted. I clarify some of the assumptions of this
approach, contrasting them with those of a more leader-centered perspective. In an effort to increase
the testability of this approach, I outline a general model, paving the way for generating individual-
and group-level hypotheses, and discuss implications for practice and for future leadership research.

INTRODUCTION
Hollander (1978) once wrote that leadership is the union of leaders, followers, and
situations. Over the years, leadership studies have tended to emphasize the thoughts,
actions, and personas of leaders over those of followers. In addition, leadership
situations have tended to be defined from the perspectives of leaders and not of
followers. This article attempts to provide a more follower-centric perspective. I use
the “romance of leadership” notion and its emphasis on social construction to provide
a complement to leader-centric perspectives. In doing so, I clarify and further elaborate
the approach developed in two earlier papers (Meindl, 1990, 1993), articulating
hypotheses at the group and individual levels of analysis. Other approaches are possible
(e.g., Lord & Maher, 1991). For those readers interested in using the romance of
leadership notion as an entre for their own studies of leadership, this and the previous
two papers together will provide useful background.

* Direct all correspondence to: James R. Meindl, School of Management, State University of New York
at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260.

Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329-341.

Copyright @ 1995 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 10489843
330 LEADERSWIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 3 1995

The romance of leadership notion (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985) refers to the
prominence of leaders and leadership in the way organizational actors and observers
address organizational issues and problems, revealing a potential “bias” or “false
assumption-making” regarding the relative importance of leadership factors to the
functioning of groups and organizations. Some researchers see in this a rationale or
justification for abandoning the study of leadership, portraying it in anti-leadership
terms (Yukl, 1989; Bass, 1990). This is a mistaken view. The romance of leadership
notion embraces the phenomenologica~ significance of leadership to people’s
organizational experiences. As such, it can be used as a point of departure for theorizing
about leadership in a way that operates from a set of assumptions which distinguishes
it from other leader-centric approaches. Thus, rather than being anti-leadership, the
romance of leadership, and the perspective it provides, is more accurately portrayed
as an alternative to theories and perspectives that place great weight on “ieaders” and
on the substantive significance of their actions and activities. The romance of leadership
notion emphasizes foilowers and their contexts for defining leadership itself and for
understanding its significance, It loosens traditional assumptions about the significance
of leaders to leadership phenomena.

TOWARD SOCIAL CONSTR~~ION

The romance of leadership emphasizes leadership as a social construction. Attention
is focused on the development of theory and hypotheses regarding the features,
outcomes, and implications of the social construction process, as it occurs among
followers and as it is affected by the contexts in which they are embedded. It seeks
to understand the existence of general and more situation-specific concepts of “leaders”
and how they are conceptualized and otherwise constructed by actors and observers.
Although there are currently many available perspectives that highlight the thoughts
and phenomenology of the leader, the romance of leadership is about the thoughts of
followers: how leaders are constructed and represented in their thought systems. The
romance of leadership perspective focuses on the linkage between Leaders and foIlowers
as constructed in the minds of followers. Rather than assuming leaders and followers
are linked in a substantially causal way, it assumes that the relationship between leaders
and followers is primarily a constructed one, heavily influenced by interfollower factors
and relationships. The behavioral linkages between the leader and follower are seen
as a derivative of the constructions made by followers. The behavior of followers is
assumed to be much less under the control and inff uence of the leader, and more under
the control and influence of forces that govern the social construction process itself.

AWAY FROM LEADER PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOR

One aspect of a leader-centric perspective is a focus on the persona of the leader. The
romance of leadership perspective moves a researcher away from the personality of
the leader as a significant, substantiate, and causal force on the thoughts and actions
of followers. It instead places more weight on the images of leaders that followers
construct for one another. It assumes that followers react to, and are more influenced
by, their constructions of the leader’s personality than they are by the “true”personality
A Social-Constructionist Approach to Leadership 331

of the leader. It is the personalities of leaders as imagined or constructed by followers

that become the object of study, not “actual” or “clinical” personalities per se.
Similarly, this approach does not explain or deal with the behavior of the leader
and the direct impact of that behavior on followers. In other words, direct effects of
the actions and activities of the leader, independent of and unmoderated or unmediated
by social construction processes, are not addressed. Thus, leadership is assumed to be
revealed not in the actions or exertions of the leader but as part of the the way actors
experience organizational processes. In essence, leadership is very much in the eyes of
the beholder: followers, not the leader-and not researchers-define it. From this
perspective, the idea that leadership cannot and does not occur without followers is
taken literally to be true.

THE SUBJECTIVITY OF LEADER EFFECTIVENESS

No behaviors on the part of the leader are assumed to represent “more” or “better”
leadership than any others, independent of the constructions of followers. It is assumed
instead that any given behavioral exertion of “leadership” by the leader can be associated
with a wider range of constructions, and imbued with a wider range of meanings, than
is otherwise assumed. In this perspective, the predefined, behavioral measures/
definitions/ concepts of leadership normally used by researchers are taken to represent
indirect, rough “clues” to the constructions of leaders and leadership made by followers.
As such, the “variance” in leadership ratings made by followers is assumed to reveal
a variance of constructions and not assumed to reveal variations in the behavioral
effectiveness of the leader. A leader-centric research agenda seeks to understand what
behaviors by the leader cause certain reactions among followers (leader behaviors
causing followership) and what behaviors are more or less effective in doing so (given,
say, certain types of followers and situations). By constrast, the follower-centric agenda
of romance of leadership seeks to understand the variance of constructions as influenced
by social processes that occur among followers and by salient contextual/situational
factors, and their implications for behavior.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

Leader-centric approaches to charismatic leadership tend to emphasize the close and
special interpersonal linkages that exist between leaders and their followers, highlighting
the behavioral processes between them that cause these relationships. In the present
approach, these charismatic relationships are assumed to exist in the minds of followers
and are treated as a byproduct of interfollower processes and activities. So, instead
of understanding a particular social relationship that develops between a leader and
a follower mainly in terms of the interaction dynamics that occur within it, this approach
seeks to examine that same relationship as a function of the network of relationships
in which the followers are embedded. The role that peers play in constructing for
followers the nature of their linkages to the leader is emphasized, as is the nature of
the contexts and settings in which charisma constructions are more or less likely to
develop.
332 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 3 1995

EMERGENT LEADERSHIP AND HIERARCHICAL RELATIONSHIPS

Prominent in this approach is the idea that leadership is an emergent phenomenon.
Leadership is considered to have emerged when followers construct their experiences
in terms of leadership concepts-that is, when they interpret their relationship as having
a leadership-followership dimension. Given this emergent definition of leadership, it
becomes crucial to understand when and under what conditions such construals are
likely to occur among group members-when and what sort of leadership criteria are
used to make sense of self in relation to other group members, tasks, and outcomes.
Thus, in research designed to pursue this idea, less importance is placed on discovering
who emerges as the leader and what he or she had to do to get there-a leader-centric
agenda-and more emphasis is placed on discovering when and under what conditions
alternative forms of leadership emerge, as the way that followers make sense of and
evaluate their organizational experiences.
In this vein, it is not assumed that the construction of leadership is an integral part
of formal, hierarchical relationships. Thus, to speak of a “leader,” reference is being
made only to those figures who are defined as leaders by followers in a relationship
that has been constructed by them as entailing issues of leadership and of followership
on their part. In this sense, the formality of hierarchical “power” differentials that exist
between a superior and a subordinate is conceptually independent from that of
leadership emergence. This, then, is not a theory of the formal positions of leadership
but a theory about whether or not leadership emerges as an “overlay” to whatever other
formal or informal dimensions individuals use to think about their relationships to other
group members and to the tasks at hand.

LEADERSHIP RATINGS AS SELF-REPORTS

Reports made by followers regarding their leaders are treated as information regarding
the constructions of followers, not as information about the qualities and activities of
the leader as with more leader-centric approaches. For example, the commonly
employed distinctions between transactional and transformational leadership ratings
are used here as rough approximations of two alternative leadership constructions that
can occur and that can be employed by followers in various situations and contexts.
Furthermore, the correlation between various constructions (leadership ratings made
by followers) and their judgments of the effectiveness and personal satisfaction with
the leader are taken as evidence of the use of alternative leadership criteria, not as an
objective measure of the impact of the leader’s behavior on dependent followership
variables or criteria,
Although the use of correlated perceptions in making inferences regarding leadership
has often been problematic, the romance of leadership approach treats correlated
perceptions (and variations of those correlations, variations in concepts, and ratings
of self as correlated or not with ratings of the leader) as data relevant to understanding
the process and the contents of construction. Such correlations and their variations
reveal the thought systems and ideologies regarding leadership that are employed by
followers. The assumption is that these systems and ideologies are important causes
of “followership.”
A Social-Constructionist Approach to Leadership 333

APPLICATIONS AND PRACTICE

Those who are interested in practical applications may begin to see the implications
of this perspective around the issues of control and followership. Whereas the leader-
centric perspective favors the rather direct control of followers-by engaging in so-called
leadership behaviors-the present approach would emphasize more indirect and less
tightly controlled effects on followers. Manipulations of contexts and constructions,
rather than of leader behaviors, would, in a sense, constitute the “practice” of leadership.
Rather than searching for the right personality, one would search for the opportunitiy
to create the right impression. Reputations would be more significant than actions.
Rather than being concerned about engaging in the right practices, one would be
concerned about creating the right “spin.” Rather than schooling leaders in the proper
exertions of leadership, training and development programs would represent
opportunities to inculcate potential followers with the “right way” to construct
leadership. The creation and sustenance of interpretive dominance regarding leadership
would have the highest proirity.

A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH

The perspective outlined above can be used as a general framework from which a
number of researchable models, with testable hypotheses, might be developed. One of
these is described below. It simplies and unifies work being done and planned on the
romance of leadership notion and the follower-centric view that it provides. The
individual aspects of the model focus on the situational and individual difference
variables that influence the construction of leadership within individual actors. The
group-level aspects of the model focus on the intermember processes that take place
within a group or larger collective, emphasizing social processes. The model is focused
on construction, referring to: (1) the emergence, in the thought systems of actors and
observers, of leadership as a way to understand and address organizational issues; and
(2) alternative constructions concerning the definition, criteria, or “theory-in-use”
through which leaders are evaluated. Variations in the constructions of leadership are
the immediate, dependent variables of interest.
A simple overarching model is depicted in Figure 1. It highlights two interrelated
outcomes: followers’ orientation to the leader and to the self. These are treated as the
immediate, psychological precursors to overt acts of followership. These attitudes
involve a self-perception by followers that they are, indeed, followers, who are
committed to the causes, missions, goals, and aspiriations that the leader presumably
embodies, exemplifies, and symbolizes. The self-definition of followers and their
commitments to the personification of causes, as embodied in the figure of the leader,
are the outputs of leadership concepts and ideologies, judgments, and evaluations that
have been formulated as part of the social construction process. Through this process,
followers understand themselves and each other and their relationships to
organizational tasks. These social constructions, in turn, are generated by processes
at the level of individuals and of groups, combining with each other to produce
leadership as it occurs from the perspectives of followers.
334 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 3 1995

Followership
Action

Figure 1. A General Model

MODELING INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL PROCESSES

Within this general framework, one can attempt to identify: (1) the sets of input variables
that are linked to alternative constructions of leadership in the minds of individual
actors, (2) the underlying mechanisms through which those variables operate and exert
their influence, and (3) the immediate outcomes of those alternative constructions. Input
variables that are connected to alternative constructions can be divided, as is commonly
done, into those that are associated with individual followers and those that emanate
from the social-organizational contexts in which followers are embedded. On the output
side, evidence of alternative constructions can be seen in various attributions of
leadership made by followers and in their use of alternative criteria through which
evaluations of leadership are made. Mechanisms that link input variations to outcomes
are attitudinal in nature, working through cognitive and affective channels.
A Social-Constructionist Approach to Leadership 335

One avenue of research is to explore the covariations between input factors, such
as individual difference variables, and evidence of alternative constructions, such as
attributions of leadership. Meindl and Ehrlich (1988) constructed a “romance of
leadership scale” (RLS). This was conceptualized as a generalized propensity to see
leadership as more or less important to the general functioning of organizations. Initial
work on that scale, reported in Meindl(1990), found, on the input side, evidence linking
various individual difference variables-such as locus of control and age-with scores
on that scale. On the output side, another study found that RLS scores were linked
to the tendency to “see” more or less charisma in highly public leaders, such as the
president of the United States and CEOs of well-known corporations.
In parallel to the work done on the individual differences, it is possible to examine
situational factors on the input side. The underlying assumption is that certain
contextual features, quite independently of the personal attributes of followers, alter
the nature of the emergent leadership constructions. These include factors such as
performance cues (that is, information about how well or how poorly the group or
organization is accomplishing its tasks) and perceptions of crisis. A study by Pillai and
Meindl(199 1a) found evidence of the increased use of charismatic criteria for emergent
leadership among members in task groups that were exposed to a crisis versus members
who were in groups operating under less threatening circumstances. With respect to
performance cues, Pillai and Meindl (1991b) manipulated the information raters
received regarding the performance patterns of a company. Exposing different raters
to the same description of a leader but varying the patterns of firm performance,
evidence was found indicating that certain patterns (such as a turnaround) are more
likely to cause an attribution of charisma than other patterns. Evidence obtained in
these studies suggests that the presence or absence of crisis influences leadership ratings
depending upon the broad domain of leadership being evaluated. As a general rule,
those attributes typically associated with “tranformational” leadership-such as
charisma-are more affected by contextual cues-such as crisis perceptions-than those
typically linked with “transactional” forms of leadership.
An interesting direction for exploring the individual-level model would be to focus
on the precise cognitive/affective mechanisms that alter the use of various leadership
constructions. The arousal levels of followers seem a likely candidate in this regard.
The notion here is that various individual and situational factors combine to produce
a level of psycho-physiological arousal in followers, which in turn influence the kinds
of leadership constructions that emerge. Meindl, Mayo, and Pastor (1994) advanced
the hypothesis that higher arousal levels would lead to the development and/or use
of more tranformational, “charismatic” constructions than lower levels of arousal. As
a corollary, one could expect that perceptions and use of tranformational attributes
and criteria for evaluating leadership would covary with differing arousal levels to a
greater degree than transactional ratings.
This arousal-level factor can be modeled as either a situational or individual difference
variable. In other words, one can refer to the origins of arousal as “state-based” (that
is, induced externally, perhaps by certain situational events) or as “trait-based” (that
is, emanating from the personality of the follower). Experimental studies designed to
explore a state-based arousal mechanism could independently manipulate some aspect
of arousal and examine its effects on leadership perceptions, holding constant some
336 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 3 1995

presentation of leadership stimuli to followers. Mood manipulations might be useful

(e.g., Lewter & Lord, 1992), but one must be careful about what aspect of arousal is
being manipulated. There is reason to believe that mood states vary aiong two
underlying dimensions of activation level and positivity/ negativity (Larsen & Diener,
1992; Russell, 1980; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Studies designed to examine state-based
arousal effects on leadership perceptions might examine each of these underlying
components, separately and in combination.
A general, trait-based arousal mechanism can be found in the concept of “affect
intensity” (Larsen & Diener, 1987). This is an individual difference variable that refers
to the tendency of some people to generally over- or underreact, affectively or
emotionally, to potentially arousing events in their environment. This trait-based
mechanism, though, acts in combination with situational contexts. Under nonarousing
conditions, high- and low-reactivity people cannot be differentiated. This mechanism
only comes into play under arousing conditions. In terms of its impact on leadership
constructions, high- and low-affect-intensity followers would, under the right
conditions, be expected to exhibit differing arousal levels and, hence, make more and
less respective use of charismatic attributes in their constructions. Indeed, affect intensity
might function as a moderator in models that link the perception of crisis to perceptions
of leadership.

MODELING GROUP-LEVEL PROCESSES

In addition to the individual-level processes that give rise to constructions of leadership,
there are a host of allied social processes-within groups of followers-that might
influence individual member’s constructions. These group-level processes function to
fix the level of inputs in the individual-level model but also cause the constructions
of individual members to become a collaborative, negotiated, intersubjectively shared
system of leadership concepts that link and unify followers within the group. These
processes are those traditionally labeled as “social influence,” arising out of the
interactions that take place among fellow group members. In general, such processes
work in the direction of generating, among fully embedded members, isopraxisms out
of the otherwise independent, potentially diverse, and idiosyncratic constructions.
Studies that seek to find evidence of social construction can take a number ofdifferent
tacts (see Chen & Meindl, 199 1, for one example), but analyses that focus on the network
of interactions within groups and organizations can perhaps provide the most direct
information regarding the microprocesess involved. To that end, Meindl (1990, 1993)
proposed a social contagion model of charismatic leadership in which longitudinal and
cross-sectional studies linking interaction-network characteristics to the diffusion of
leadership concepts, attributions, and evaluations within groups are implied.
Interaction networks are important to this perspective because they are the channels
of communication and influence through which the social construction of leadership
takes place. Taking a cross-sectional perspective, where the reseacher is working at the
group level of analysis, evidence of a contagion process would be revealed in the residual
pattern and distribution of leadership constructions within a group of followers.
Although the contents of those contructions, and how they vary across groups, will
be interesting to document, a focus on variation in content (examining the mean
A Social-Constructionist Approach to Leadership 337

differences of leadership construction between organizations or groups of followers)

is less useful for examining the contagion notion than is a focus on the relative variance
of those constructions within different groups of followers, when these groups vary
significantly from one another in terms of important network characteristics. For
example, given a social contagion hypothesis, certain network parameters should be
correlated with the dispersion of leadership constructions within a group. That is
because the evidence of a social contagion process is revealed in the residue of more
or less homogeneous leadership constructions that conform to network parameters. One
might well expect, for example, that the relative density of network ties would predict
the relative dispersion of leadership constructions: In groups of followers characterized
by high-density networks, the residual constructions of leadership, across group
members, ought be more homogenous than in groups characteristized by lower-density
networks, everything else being equal (such as time and size). The same might be
expected for other group-level variables, such as cohesion, Preliminary evidence
suggests that such a cross-sectional methodology is fruitful (Pastor, Meindl, & Mayo,
1994).
Although concepts such as social contagion and interaction networks describe group
phenomena, this does not mean that only between-groups analyses are appropriate.
Indeed, valuable evidence pertaining to a social contagion-interaction network model
of leadership can be obtained by conducting analyses of individuals within groups. One
research strategy would be to examine if the positions of individual followers within
a group’s network predict what their views of leadership will be. For example, one might
hypothesize that “deviant” views of leadership (that is, views that are at variance with
the central tendency of the group) would be greatest or most likely to occur in followers
who are at the sociometric fringes of the group. Thus, network-position parameters,
such as the centrality of the follower within the group, ought to be inversely correlated
with the deviation from the group’s mean leadership contruction: those followers who
occupy central positions within the group will have greater weight in determining, and
hence have views that are more indicative of, the mean than less central followers.
With respect to the discussion above, one might speculate that the “shape” of the
social network within which the followers in a group communicate and influence one
another would be correlated with the shape of the distribution of leadership
constructions among them. The shape of the network is described by well-known
network parameters; the shape of the distribution of constructions can be described
by its mathematical moments. The first moment-the mean of a distribution-is less
meaningful than higher moments such as variance (second moment), skew (third
moment), and kurtosis (fourth moment), for describing the distribution of leadership
constructions as they would be predicted by the social contagion notion.
Whereas cross-sectional studies can observe evidence of the expected residue of a
contagion process having taken place, longitudinal studies can observe evidence of this
process more directly. As described in Meindl (1990), a social contagion view of
leadership highlights the spreading of leadership concepts within a group of followers
over time. Here, observations of temporal order are a paramount concern for the
researcher: in whose mind and when do various constructions of leadership take hold?
Again, given that social contagion and other forms of social influence are likely to occur
through interaction networks, one would expect that some emerging social construction
338 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 3 1995

Interaction
Dynamics

Figure 2. A Group-Level Model

of leadership would flow through sociometric channels, being picked up and perhaps
modified, in a sequential fashion, by individual followers who reside in those channels.
Clearly, longitudinal perspectives of this sort offer some of the most exciting
opportunities to examine the social construction of leadership, as it occurs in groups
and organizations, but they have yet to be done.
Quite apart from social contagion notions, other group-level processes can also be
examined. For example, the notion of group composition has had a long tradition in
the analysis of small groups and has been reincarnated in the management literature
under the general rubrics of group demography and organizational diversity. The
variables and processes highlighted by those concepts offer yet another set of
opportunities for exploring leadership as social construction at the group level. It is
possible to formulate some initial, simple models upon which future work might be
elaborated. A general model is depicted in Figure 2. Here, group composition is seen
as influencing the interaction dynamics that occur among individual followers.
Hereogeneous groups increase the range of perspectives, attitudes, and opinions
A Social-Constructionist Approach to Leadership 339

regarding task-related matters and alter the socioemotional climate of the group via
situated identities and stereotypes made operative as a result of any salient social
categories. The interaction dynamics that result are, in turn, hypothesized to determine
the construction of leadership through their effects on various cognitive and affective
attitudinal mechanisms.
Specific hypotheses along these lines can be developed and tested. As one example,
group composition might be operationalized as an index of demographic diversity (in
terms of gender, race, ethnicity, etc.). Interaction dynamics may be assumed to be more
conflict ridden in heterogeneous groups than in homogeneous ones and, as a result,
perceptions regarding the need for greater integration and group cohesion would be
heightened, along with an increase in the general level of stress and arousal that
individuals experience and that pervade group atmosphere. The results of a recent study
by Mayo, Meindl, and Pastor (1994) indicate that such reactions are likely to produce
an increased use of charismatic criteria as a way to evaluate leadership. That is, the
correlation between perceptions of charisma and evaluative judgments about leadership
effectiveness would be greater across heterogeneous groups and weaker across more
homogeneous groups of followers.

CONCLUSION
This article set forth some statements regarding the -romance of leadership” as a way
to define and understand leadership. I realize that my efforts may strike some readers
as radical and others, perhaps, as plain silly. Both reactions are likely to stem from
my deliberate eschewal of leaders-their personas and behaviors-from consideration.
Those who chafe at the decidedly one-sided emphasis on followers may yearn for a
more “balanced” approach, such as might come from an interactionist (leader X
follower, person X situation) perspective (e.g., Mowday & Sutton, 1993). Such an
approach suggests an integration of theoretical work done on both the leader- and
follower-centric sides. Even if that were ultimately desirable, however, attempted
integrations at this point are extremely premature, given the long development of leader-
centric approaches and the newness of follower-centric ones. There is simply not yet
enough follower-centric work with which to integrate effectively. Any integration will
be heavily biased in the direction of leader-centric traditions, concepts, and research
agendas. Better to let alternative traditions develop on their own, unencumbered by
each other’s assumptions and biases.
Those who have aspirations for an “objective” theory of leadership will find great
difficulty with the inherently subjectivistic, social constructionist view being advanced
here. Years ago, Calder (1977), among others, reminded us that leadership as a concept
was not invented by social scientists but borrowed by them from the cultural, linguistic
vernacular of commonly employed concepts social actors use to make sense of the world
around them and to communicate it to others. The point is that much of the trouble
with conventional leadership research is attributable to the conceptual difficulties
encountered when theorists and research scientists attempt to impose outside, objective,
third-party definitions of what is inherently subjective. Much sweat and tears have gone
into redoubled efforts to remediate leadership studies by disentangling, decoupling, or
separating leadership from its origins: objectifying it-cleaning it up, so to speak-so
340 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 3 1995

that researchers can better work with it as a scientific construct, independent of its lay
meanings. But another response is possible, one which embraces rather than resists
leadership’s origins in lay psychology. Given its cultural ontology, it seems at least
permissible-perhaps even desirable-to return leadership study to a focus on what
actors and observers construct as a normal part of their social experiences. The fact
that leadership and the figure of the leader are prominent in these constructions is
something that itself is worthy of study.
A subjectivist definition and a social construction view of leadership does not imply
that it cannot be studied through normal scientific processes of inquiry. As I have tried
to show, it is possible to use the romance of leadership notion, with its constructionistic,
followership-centric bent, to formulate testable hypotheses. Although I have focused
on individuals and groups in this article, there are likely many exciting possibilities for
research at all levels of analysis, the only real limitation being the creativity and interest
of the researcher.

REFERENCES
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & StogdillS handbook of leadership. 3rd edition. New York: Free Press.
Calder, B.J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B.M. Staw & G.R. Salancik (Eds.),
New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179-204). Chicago: St. Clair.
Chen, C.C., & Meindl, J.R. (1991). The construction of leadership images in the popular press:
The case of Donald Burr and People Express. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 521-
551.
Hollander, E.P. (1978). Leadership dynamics. New York: Free Press.
Larsen, R.J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A
review. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, l-37
Larsen, R.J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion.
Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 25-59.
Lewter, J., & Lord, R.G. (1992). Affect and the multifactor leadership questionnaire: A replication
and extension. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Las Vegas, NV,
August.
Lord, R.G., & Maher, K.J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions
and organizational performance. New York: Routledge, Chapman, & Hall.
Mayo, M., Meindl, J.R., & Pastor, J.C. (1994). Diversity and leadership: The effects of relational
demography on the emergence of charismatic leadership. Unpublished manuscript, School
of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Meindl, J.R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B.M. Staw
& L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 159-203).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Meindl, J.R. (1993). Reinventing leadership: A radical, social psychological approach. In J.K.
Murnighan (Ed.), Socialpsychology in organizations (pp. 89-l 18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Meindl, J.R., & Ehrlich, S.B. (1988). Developing a romance of leadership scale. Silver
Anniversary Proceedings, Eastern Academy of Management Meetings, Washington, DC,
May.
Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B., & Dukerich, J.M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102.
A Social-Constructionist Approach to Leadership 341

Meindl, J.R., Mayo, M.C., & Pastor, J.C. (1994). The effects of arousal on attributions of
charisma. Unpublished manuscript, School of Management, State University of New York
at Buffalo.
Mowday, R.T., & Sutton, R.I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups
to contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195-229.
Pastor, J.C., Meindl, J.R., & Mayo, M. (1994). Teacher as leader: A network analysis of charisma
perceptions in the classroom. Unpublished manuscript, School of Management, State
University of New York at Buffalo.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J.R. (1991a). The impact of a performance crisis on attributions of
charismatic leadership: A preliminary study. Best Paper Proceedings of the 1991 Eastern
Academy of Management Meetings, Hartford, CT, May.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J.R. (1991b). The effects of a crisis on the emergence of charismatic
leadership: A laboratory study. Best Paper Proceedings of the 1991 Academy of
Management Meetings, Miami, FL, August.
Russell, J.A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
39, 1161-l 178.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological
Bulletin, 98, 219-235.
Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.