Qualitative methods offer some advantages for studying leadership, but these methods also have limitations. Discuss some of these limitations.

Student answers may vary. Standards for the application and evaluation of qualitative methods are not as explicit as those for traditional quantitative methods, and interpretations based on qualitative methods are sometimes very subjective. Descriptions of past events may be biased by selective memory for aspects of behavior consistent with the respondent's stereotypes and implicit theories about effective leadership. Direct observation is also susceptible to selective attention and biased interpretation of events. Attribution errors may occur if an observer or interviewer has information about unit performance. When observers immerse themselves in an organization for long periods of time in an effort to understand the context and meaning of what they are seeing, they may become involved in the very processes under observation, thereby risking objectivity. The limitations and advantages of quantitative and qualitative methods make it desirable to use a complementary combination of both methods whenever possible.