JOBHoogeboom&Wilderom - Integrating Two Classic Leadership Models Augmentation PDF

Journal of Organizational Behavior - For Peer Review Only
Integrating Two Classic Leadership Models: Augmentation

Effects with Initiating Structure
Journal: Journal of Organizational Behavior
Manuscript ID: JOB-15-0378
Wiley - Manuscript type: Research Article
transformational and transactional leadership style, augmentation

Keywords: hypothesis, initiating structure and consideration, video-based behavioral
coding
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/job
Page 1 of 45 Journal of Organizational Behavior - For Peer Review Only
INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

1
2
3
4
5 INTEGRATING TWO CLASSIC LEADERSHIP MODELS:
6
7
AUGMENTATION EFFECTS WITH INITIATING STRUCTURE
8
9
10
11
12 Key words: transformational and transactional leadership style; initiating structure and
13
14 consideration; leader and team effectiveness; video-based behavioral coding
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 1
Journal of Organizational Behavior - For Peer Review Only Page 2 of 45

1
2
3 Abstract
4
5 This empirical study integrates the currently popular “transformational-transactional” model
6
7
with the older “initiating structure-consideration” model and examines whether specific
8
9
10 initiating structure behaviors can explain more incremental variance in effectiveness criteria
11
12 than the transactional leadership style. We combine expert scores (n = 216) on leader
13
14 effectiveness with follower surveys (n = 623) and video-coded leader behavior data (n = 72).
15
16 After controlling for either transformational leadership or consideration, initiating structure
17
18
19 behaviors (i.e., informing, directing and structuring) are shown to explain more variance in
20
21 leader and team effectiveness than the two transactional factors (i.e., contingent reward and
22
23 management-by-exception active). In terms of initiating structure, we show specific
24
25 behavioral augmentation effects: something not shown earlier within the
26
27
transformational/transactional model in which the augmentation hypothesis emerged. The
28
29
30 discussion lists theoretical and practical implications of the results, limitations of the study’s
31
32 design as well as future research directions.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 2

1
2
3 Integrating Two Classic Leadership Models: Augmentation Effects with Initiating
4
5 Structure
6
7
Leader behavior has been shown to be a proximal predictor of leader and team
8
9
10 effectiveness (e.g., DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Piccolo, Bono, Heinitz,
11
12 Rowold, Duehr, & Judge, 2012). Especially Bass’ (1985) leader behavioral
13
14 conceptualization, the so-called full range transformational-transactional leadership theory,
15
16 has received much research attention (e.g., Antonakis & House, 2014; Antonakis, Bastardoz,
17
18
19 Liu, & Schriesheim, 2014; Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010). Bass (1985)
20
21 argued that transformational behaviors need to operate in conjunction with transactional
22
23 behaviors; only when the basis of transactional leadership is strong can the transformational
24
25 style get followers to perform beyond expectations (i.e., the augmentation hypothesis) (Bass,
26
27
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bass, 1985; Bass, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Howell &
28
29
30 Avolio, 1993). This means that we cannot fully understand how the transformational style
31
32 works without looking at its transactional counterpart (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Vecchio,
33
34 Justin, & Pearce, 2008). Quite a few leadership scholars have criticized the transformational-
35
36 transactional model; they reported empirical overlap between both styles (Hinkin &
37
38
39 Schriesheim, 2008; Michel, Lyons, & Cho, 2011; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004; Rowold &
40
41 Heinitz, 2007; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; Yukl, 2006) as well as the omission of
42
43 crucial task-oriented leader behaviors (DeRue et al., 2011; Michel et al., 2011; Yukl, 1999)
44
45 that are prominently represented in the predecessor, Ohio State model.
46
47
In the Ohio State model, which is centered on the initiating structure-consideration
48
49
50 dichotomy, the task behaviors are subsumed in the initiating structure dimension (Judge,
51
52 Piccolo, & Illies, 2004; Antonakis & House, 2014). This dimension appeared to be
53
54 “forgotten” for a while by leadership scholars (Judge et al., 2004: 36). Recently, calls have
55
56 been made for theoretical integration of both models and their associated constructs (Avolio,
57
58
59
60 3

1
2
3 2007; Dansereau, Seitz, Chiu, Shaughnessy, & Yammarino, 2013; DeRue et al., 2011).
4
5 Conceptual and empirical comparisons of “new genre” theories (such as the transformational
6
7
theory) with traditional leadership models (such as the initiating structure-consideration
8
9
10 model) may give insight into (1) whether the effects are independent, and (2) which classic or
11
12 integrated behavioral model explains most variance in terms of leader and team effectiveness.
13
14 The present study specifically focuses on the predictive value of initiating structure behaviors
15
16 over the transactional style factors.
17
18
19 Furthermore, in order to better understand the great variety of leader behaviors
20
21 (DeRue et al., 2011) calls have been made to revise the most commonly invoked measures
22
23 associated with both models. Indeed, scholars have advocated that the leadership literature is
24
25 in need of less parsimonious constructs than those contained by the Multifactor Leadership
26
27
Questionnaire (MLQ: Bass & Avolio, 1995) and the Leader Behavior Description
28
29
30 Questionnaire (LBDQ: Stogdill, 1963). They are the two most predominantly used
31
32 instruments to examine both models (DeRue et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2004; Van
33
34 Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Especially the initiating structure factor is seen as too
35
36 parsimonious; it fails to capture specific leadership behaviors (Antonakis & House, 2014;
37
38
39 Dansereau et al., 2013; DeRue et al., 2011). The present study’s focus is therefore on leader’s
40
41 specific initiating structure behaviors (see, also, Antonakis & House, 2014; Schriesheim,
42
43 House, & Kerr, 1976) that are theoretically part of the classic Ohio State paradigm.
44
45 Almost all of the measures used to examine both models have been criticized for
46
47
being mere perceptual recall ratings of behavior (Bono, Hooper, & Yoon, 2012; Glynn &
48
49
50 Raffaelli, 2010; Yukl, Gordan, & Taber, 2002; Yukl, 2012). Research guided by
51
52 categorization and implicit leadership theory has amply shown that perceptions of behavior
53
54 do not correspond with actual behavior (Cantor & Mischel, 1977; Hoogeboom & Wilderom,
55
56 2015; Lord, 1985). That is why Blicke, Kane-Friedr, Oerder, Wihler, Von Below, Schütte,
57
58
59
60 4

1
2
3 Matanovic, Mudlagk, Kokudeva and Ferris (2013), for instance, called for objective
4
5 measurement of leaders’ actually observed initiating structure and consideration behaviors.
6
7
To date, few scholars have used observational methods to assess micro-level or visible leader
8
9
10 behavior. The present study engages in video-based observations from which fine-grained
11
12 leader behaviors have been systematically coded.
13
14 The research reported in this paper contributes to the extant leadership literature in
15
16 three fundamental ways. First, in response to recent calls to integrate the two most prominent
17
18
19 leadership models, we test whether specific initiating structure behaviors explain more
20
21 incremental variance than the behaviors traditionally included in the transactional style.
22
23 Second, we empirically test not only Bass’ classical augmentation effect but also refined
24
25 augmentation effects with the specific initiating behaviors. Third, this paper adopts a multi-
26
27
method approach to study leader behavior, thereby reducing common method/source bias,
28
29
30 which, in the past, may have played a role in the reports of high correlations between leader
31
32 behaviors and effectiveness outcomes (e.g., Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).
33
34 Below, we will first review the relevant literature on the transformational-
35
36 transactional model and then the literature on the Ohio State model. After this, the need for
37
38
39 integration of both models is elaborated on, and the hypotheses are presented (see, also,
40
41 Figure 1). The Methods, Results and Discussion sections follow thereafter.
42
43 [Insert Figure 1 about here]
44
45 Theory and Hypotheses
46
47
48
Transformational-transactional model
49
50 Over the past 20 years, the transformational leadership style has attracted a lot of
51
52 academic attention. The notion of transformational leadership was initially developed by
53
54 Bernard Bass (1985). Transformational leaders define the need for change, develop a vision
55
56 for the future and mobilize follower commitment to achieve results beyond normal
57
58
59
60 5

1
2
3 expectations. Transformational leadership is typically operationalized in 5 dimensions:
4
5 Behavioral idealized influence (i.e., socialized charisma of the leader, whether the leader is
6
7
seen as trustworthy and energetic); attributed idealized influence (i.e., charismatic acts of the
8
9
10 leader, and social identification); inspirational motivation (i.e., the articulation of a vision or
11
12 ambitious goals by means of which a leader inspires his/her followers); intellectual
13
14 stimulation (i.e., intellectually challenging followers by using their analytical skills or asking
15
16 for their viewpoints on complex issues); and individualized consideration (i.e., supporting
17
18
19 and giving attention to the personal needs of followers). The most frequently used instrument
20
21 to examine these dimensions is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ: Avolio &
22
23 Bass, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013;
24
25 Wang, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011); 77% of the studies examining individual-level
26
27
relationships used the MLQ, while 85% of the published articles used it to study unit-level
28
29
30 relationships. In well over 100 empirical studies, transformational leadership was found to be
31
32 consistently related to organizational, team and leadership effectiveness (e.g., Bass, 1985;
33
34 Bass & Avolio, 1995; Bryman, 1992; Lowe et al., 1996; Wilderom, Van den Berg, &
35
36 Wiersma, 2012). Almost all the transformational studies that established a significant link
37
38
39 with the various indicators of leader effectiveness, including subordinate satisfaction,
40
41 motivation and performance (Bass & Bass, 2008; Hater & Bass; 1988; Judge & Piccolo,
42
43 2004), limited themselves to using survey scales. To the best of our knowledge, also the
44
45 transactional leadership style has been assessed only through perceptual survey scales.
46
47
Transactional leadership is defined by Bass (1985) as monitoring and controlling
48
49
50 employees whereby transactional leaders clarify followers’ responsibilities and task
51
52 objectives (Bass, 1997; Yukl, 1999). Edwards, Schyns, Gill, and Higgs (2012) suggested that
53
54 transactional leadership can be best represented by contingent reward (CR) and management-
55
56 by-exception (MBE) (i.e., as separate factors). CR focuses on exchanging or bargaining
57
58
59
60 6

1
2
3 rewards with followers for meeting expected performance (Bass, 1985). MBE is centered on
4
5 monitoring task progress and intervening after mistakes have been made. MBE can take an
6
7
active or a passive form; in the active form a leader pro-actively takes corrective action when
8
9
10 necessary and monitors work processes and performance throughout. In the passive form, a
11
12 leader only intervenes after mistakes have been made or when critical problems arise (Howell
13
14 & Avolio, 1993). The transactional CR has been shown to lead to leader effectiveness while
15
16 research with the MBE-Active dimension has led to contradictory results (Deichmann &
17
18
19 Stam, 2015; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
20
21 When a leader scores high on both the transactional and transformational style, it is widely
22
23 held that he or she is most effective. This thesis is known as the augmentation effect. Few
24
25 researchers have tested this effect empirically (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), even though several
26
27
scholars consider this effect as one of the most “fundamental” propositions in leadership
28
29
30 research (Bass & Avolio, 1993: 69). Most studies testing the augmentation effect have taken
31
32 CR as the sole factor of transactional leadership (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008; Wang et al.,
33
34 2011). They found that the transformational style explained significant variance in
35
36 performance beyond CR (Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990; Wang
37
38
39 et al., 2011). Few other studies have appeared with the other transactional style factors
40
41 substantiating the augmentation thesis, which might reveal different effects (e.g., Vecchio et
42
43 al., 2008). Beyond the transformational-transactional dimensions, Antonakis and House
44
45 (2014) showed that instrumental leadership (i.e., leadership focused on formulating and
46
47
implementing strategic goals, and environmental and outcome monitoring) could predict
48
49
50 leader effectiveness. In addition, two earlier studies found that survey measures of initiating
51
52 structure added weak or no significant variance to a model with transformational leadership
53
54 style (Piccolo et al., 2012; Koene, Vogelaar, & Soeters, 2002). According to Bass and Bass
55
56 (2008) and DeRue et al. (2011), the transactional leadership style covers in essence task-
57
58
59
60 7

1
2
3 oriented leader behaviors; another leader dimension which also claims to encompass leaders’
4
5 task-oriented behavior, is “initiating structure” which is part of the classic initiating structure-
6
7
consideration model (Fleishman, 1973).
8
9
10 Initiating structure-consideration model
11
12 The initiating structure-consideration model resulted from studies conducted at the
13
14 Ohio State University (Fleishman, 1973). Consideration is characterized by showing concern
15
16 for and appreciation to followers (Judge et al., 2004). Initiating structure is defined as
17
18
19 assigning to and structuring work tasks for the followers and establishing good
20
21 communication channels with them (Fleishman, 1973; Judge et al., 2004). Several past
22
23 studies showed that these two types of leader behaviors can occur concurrently (e.g., Judge et
24
25 al., 2004; Klein, Knight, Ziegert, Lim, & Saltz, 2011; Yukl, 2010). Thus, as with the
26
27
transformational-transactional model, the Ohio dimensions are seen as independent of each
28
29
30 other. Most studies found that high levels of leader consideration have positive effects on job
31
32 satisfaction, employees’ commitment and leader effectiveness (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004;
33
34 Wallace, Chernatony, & Buil, 2013). This is in line with the DeRue et al.’s (2011) meta-
35
36 analytic results whereby consideration was most strongly related to followers’ job and leader
37
38
39 satisfaction, while initiating structure behavior was more strongly related to team
40
41 performance. Additionally, Klein et al. (2011) found that in heterogeneous teams a leader’s
42
43 task-oriented behavior led to high team performance. Initiating structure behavior fosters
44
45 team performance because it contains a high level of task direction and clarity and increases
46
47
employees’ perceptions of accountability (Dale & Fox, 2008). These results were also
48
49
50 supported in two meta-analytic studies; both initiating structure and consideration were
51
52 related to follower job satisfaction, satisfaction with the leader, leader effectiveness and team
53
54 performance (Judge et al., 2004; Keller, 2006). Despite the evidence showing the importance
55
56 of both Ohio-State behavioral classes, they have been hardly integrated in other models to
57
58
59
60 8

1
2
3 extend the full range of leader behaviors; while DeRue et al. (2011) meta-analytically tested
4
5 whether leader behavior could explain more variance above and beyond leader traits, Seltzer
6
7
and Bass (1990) included only CR as the transactional factor.
8
9
10 Over the years, several measures have been developed to reflect initiating structure
11
12 and consideration behaviors (see, e.g., Stogdill, 1963; Keller, 2006) but they have often been
13
14 subject to criticism (e.g., Schurer Lambert, Tepper, Carr, Holt, & Barelka, 2012). Most
15
16 importantly, the dichotomous Ohio-State model is seen as being too parsimonious; it does not
17
18
19 capture the variety of specific functional acts of a leader very well (Dansereau et al., 2013).
20
21 Clustering the model’s behaviors into merely two oversimplified behavioral dimensions has
22
23 led to very narrow leadership insights (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Some empirical studies
24
25 have also not found consistent relationships between the initiating structure and consideration
26
27
factors with important leadership criteria (Northouse, 1997; Yukl, 1998). Compared to the
28
29
30 new-genre styles, such as transformational leadership, initiating structure and consideration
31
32 demonstrated lower predictive variance (Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). This may explain
33
34 why the entire Ohio model has been referred to as the “forgotten model.” However, according
35
36 to Dansereau et al. (2013), the classical leadership models have the potential to add predictive
37
38
39 power to several outcome criteria. The foundation for integrating the Ohio model with the
40
41 more contemporary, transformational-transactional model is noted below.
42
43 Integrating both models
44
45 The transformational-transactional paradigm claims to capture a full range of leader
46
47
behaviors. However, this model has been criticized, for instance for substantial overlap
48
49
50 between the transformational and transactional style behaviors, resulting in deficient
51
52 construct validity (House & Aditya, 1997; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004; Tejeda, Scandura, &
53
54 Pillai, 2001; Tepper & Percy, 1994; Yukl, 1999). Especially the transactional CR dimension
55
56 of Bass’ model has been shown to be confounded with transformational style, with
57
58
59
60 9

1
2
3 correlations typically exceeding .60 (e.g., O’Shea, Foti, Hauenstein, & Bycio, 2009). Wang et
4
5 al. (2011: 234) even argued that “the predictive power of transactional leadership is solely
6
7
due to its overlap with transformational leadership.” This is remarkable, given their
8
9
10 independence; transactional leadership should assess what transformational leadership is not
11
12 (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Hence, CR could be seen as being part of the
13
14 transformational style; nonetheless in the rest of this paper we use CR in the way it was
15
16 originally proposed: as part of the transactional dimension.
17
18
19 The other two transactional dimensions of Bass’ model, MBE-Active and MBE-
20
21 Passive, received much less empirical attention in the prediction of effectiveness outcomes
22
23 (Michel et al., 2011). Especially MBE-Active conceptually reflects the other end of the
24
25 transformational-transactional continuum better. However, research that used MBE-Active
26
27
produced mixed results (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). Podsakoff, Todor, Grover and
28
29
30 Huber (1984) found that leaders who show MBE behavior enhance follower performance if
31
32 their interventions are perceived as fair or justified. Others showed that MBE has a negative
33
34 effect on performance (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Howell & Avolio, 1993). Hater and
35
36 Bass (1988) found a negative relation between MBE and team performance but it was not
37
38
39 statistically significant. The other dimension, MBE-Passive, has conceptual overlap with the
40
41 so-called Laissez-Faire dimension that is also embedded in the MLQ (Bass et al., 2003; Den
42
43 Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). As a result, most
44
45 studies combine these latter two dimensions: referred to as “passive” or “non-leadership.”
46
47
Hence, although some scholars have interpreted the transactional style as encompassing task-
48
49
50 oriented behavior, the only two sub-dimensions denoting task-oriented behavior, MBE-
51
52 Active and MBE-Passive, tend to stress controlling, punitive or passive behaviors (Hinkin &
53
54 Schriesheim, 2008; Michel et al., 2011; Yukl, 2006). In light of this criticism of Bass’
55
56 transactional dimensions, we note that important positive task-oriented behaviors conducive
57
58
59
60 10

1
2
3 to effective leadership are missing in the transactional style. The behaviors needed in the day-
4
5 to-day activities of a leader may thus have been overlooked by those who empirically used
6
7
Bass’ transformational-transactional model (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). In other words,
8
9
10 exploring other important day-to-day, functional leader behaviors is recommended since it
11
12 has been documented that the elementary causes of ineffective leadership are often related to
13
14 task-oriented behaviors: the lack of ability to plan, direct, inform, and coordinate (Hannah,
15
16 Sumanth, Lester, & Cavarretta, 2014; Mumford & Fried, 2014). Indeed, other researchers
17
18
19 have argued that in the transformational-transactional conceptualization, especially the task-
20
21 oriented behaviors, as represented in the initiating structure dimension, are omitted (Hunt,
22
23 2004; Judge et al., 2004; Michel et al., 2011; Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Rafferty & Griffin,
24
25 2004; Yukl, 2006).
26
27
The task-based behavioral vacuum of the Bass model may be filled by the Ohio
28
29
30 model’s task-oriented dimension: initiating structure. House (1996: 329) advocated more
31
32 appropriate measurement of initiating structure; he wrote that the extant scale “has been
33
34 found to measure very different kinds of behavior” (see, also, Antonakis & House, 2014).
35
36 Initiating structure behaviors establish form to a set of tasks, with clear roles and task
37
38
39 responsibilities, making sure that employees are well-informed about their tasks, thus
40
41 promoting greater task productivity (Bass, 1990; DeRue et al., 2011). Directing, providing
42
43 information and enabling structure are seen as important initiating structure behaviors in the
44
45 behavioral taxonomy of Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, and Halpin (2006). Thus, rather
46
47
than examining initiating structure as one parsimonious meta-category, it can be captured by
48
49
50 the following three behaviors: directing, informing and structuring (Mumford & Fried, 2014).
51
52 The directing type of leader behavior is defined as providing followers with explicit
53
54 guidance or precise directions to execute tasks (House, 1996). This non-authoritarian type of
55
56 instructive leader behavior is likely to achieve followers’ satisfaction and enhanced
57
58
59
60 11

1
2
3 performance (House, 1996; Martin, Liao, & Campbell, 2013), placing directive leadership
4
5 behavior within the realm of initiating structure behaviors (Martin et al., 2013; Pearce, Sims,
6
7
Cox, Ball, Schnell, Smith, & Trevino, 2003). It is worth mentioning here that Martin et al.
8
9
10 (2013) defined directing leader behavior as being different from the transactional style.
11
12 Leader informing is described by Kim and Yukl (1994: 65) as “disseminating relevant
13
14 information about decisions, plans, and activities to people who need the information to do
15
16 their work.” Borgatta (1962) and Greenhalgh and Chapman (1998: 474) described
17
18
19 information sharing within teams in its purest form as “stating the facts.” The ability of a
20
21 leader to disclose factual information to followers is a central tenet in the organizing process
22
23 (Mumford, 2006); a leader who offers factual information relatively frequently might be
24
25 more effective compared to a leader who does so infrequently (Mesmer-Magnus &
26
27
DeChurch, 2009; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006).
28
29
30 Structuring is seen as analogous to “enabling structure” (Burke et al., 2006: 219;
31
32 Judge et al., 2004). This entails establishing good communication channels and guiding team
33
34 actions or interactions by outlining their roles (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). In a
35
36 similar vein, Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin, and Hein (1991) claimed that
37
38
39 structuring of resources, such as data, roles, or tasks is an important leadership function. A
40
41 leader can thus engage in the more broadly termed structuring behavior by managing and
42
43 structuring resources (as, for example, during conversations with followers at work) for the
44
45 task at hand (Burke et al., 2006).
46
47
Based on the foregoing theorizing about the initiating structure behaviors we expect
48
49
50 that, compared to the transactional style, initiating structure will have a stronger explanatory
51
52 effect on leader and team effectiveness as well as on extra effort because of its positive, task-
53
54 oriented and functional effects. Showing evidence of incremental validity is important to
55
56 establishing unique empirical contributions (Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007). Judge
57
58
59
60 12

1
2
3 and Piccolo (2004: 758) state in this context that when transactional is an important basis for
4
5 transformational leadership, “transactional leadership (or at least one dimension of it) should
6
7
predict the outcome criteria controlling for transformational leadership.”
8
9
10 While initiating structure and transactional behaviors tap into dissimilar constructs,
11
12 transformational leadership style and consideration are conceptually much closer (House and
13
14 Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 2002). Both types of leadership behaviors tend to be proactive and
15
16 geared towards high follower satisfaction and motivation. Several studies revealed that
17
18
19 transformational style and consideration overlap (Keller, 2006; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Piccolo
20
21 et al., 2012). Hence, in the first two hypotheses we control for either transformational
22
23 leadership style or consideration (Mumford & Fried, 2014). We test whether initiating
24
25 structure behaviors explain more incremental variance than transactional behaviors in
26
27
predicting leader and team effectiveness, as well as employee extra effort, while controlling
28
29
30 for transformational style or consideration.
31
32 Hypothesis 1: Initiating structure behaviors (directing, informing and structuring) have
33
34 more incremental validity in predicting leader and team effectiveness as well as employee
35
36 extra effort than the transactional style (contingent reward and management-by-exception
37
38
39 active), while controlling for the transformational leadership style.
40
41 Hypothesis 2: Initiating structure behaviors (directing, informing and structuring) have
42
43 more incremental validity in predicting leader and team effectiveness as well as employee
44
45 extra effort than the transactional style (contingent reward and management-by-exception
46
47
active), while controlling for consideration.
48
49
50 When assessing only the transformational and transactional styles, a recurring theme
51
52 is their augmentation effect. Bass (1985) hypothesized that transformational leadership style
53
54 adds unique variance above and beyond the transactional style in predicting important
55
56 organizational outcomes. We test this augmentation hypothesis not only with the two active
57
58
59
60 13

1
2
3 transactional style factors, CR and MBE-Active, but also with the initiating structure
4
5 behaviors as a substitute for the transactional style. As these three specific task-oriented
6
7
behaviors are seen in the literature to provide an important basis to a leader’s repertoire, we
8
9
10 hypothesize that transformational leadership positively augments and moderates the relation
11
12 between the initiating structure behaviors and the three outcome variables as well. The same
13
14 augmentation effect is expected with the Ohio State dimension consideration.
15
16 Hypothesis 3: Transformational leadership style will positively (a) augment and (b)
17
18
19 moderate the relationship between initiating structure behaviors (directing, informing and
20
21 structuring) and leader and team effectiveness as well as employee extra effort, such that
22
23 when transformational leadership style is high the relationship will be more positive.
24
25 Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership style will positively (a) augment and (b)
26
27
moderate the relationship between the transactional behaviors (contingent reward and
28
29
30 management-by-exception active) and leader and team effectiveness as well as employee
31
32 extra effort, such that when transformational leadership style is high the relationship will be
33
34 more positive.
35
36 Hypothesis 5: Consideration will positively (a) augment and (b) moderate the
37
38
39 relationship between initiating structure behaviors (directing, informing and structuring) and
40
41 leader and team effectiveness as well as employee extra effort, such that when consideration
42
43 is high the relationship will be more positive.
44
45 Hypothesis 6: Consideration will positively (a) augment and (b) moderate the
46
47
relationship between the transactional behaviors (contingent reward and management-by-
48
49
50 exception active) and leader and team effectiveness as well as employee extra effort, such
51
52 that when consideration is high the relationship will be more positive.
53
54
55 Methods
56
57 Design of the study
58
59
60 14

1
2
3 This study has a cross-sectional design, with three different data sources: (1) experts
4
5 rated the effectiveness of 72 leaders, (2) a survey measured followers’ perceptions of both
6
7
transactional leadership style (represented by MBE and CR), transformational leadership
8
9
10 style, team effectiveness and their own extra effort, and (3) systematic video-based coding
11
12 was used to quantify the leaders’ initiating structure behaviors (directing, informing and
13
14 structuring) as well as consideration behaviors during regular staff meetings. On using this
15
16 variety of methods and sources, common method/source bias was not a great issue in this
17
18
19 study (Podsakoff et al., 2012). This study’s outcome criteria are leader and team effectiveness
20
21 as well as employee extra effort; they are used in most meta-analyses and effective leadership
22
23 studies (De Rue et al., 2011; Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Seltzer & Bass, 1990).
24
25 Sampling, data collection, and research setting
26
27
Data was gathered from 72 randomly selected permanent work teams, including their
28
29
30 72 leaders and 623 followers, in five organizations in the Dutch public and private sectors.
31
32 The leaders (43 males and 29 females) were on average 45.2 years of age (ranging from 27 to
33
34 61: SD = 8.9), with a job tenure averaging 14 years (SD = 12.6). Immediately after video-
35
36 recording, during a randomly chosen periodic meeting with their followers, the attending
37
38
39 followers were asked to fill out a survey. This follower subsample consisted of 623 followers:
40
41 332 males and 272 females (21 followers did not fill in the demographical questions). Their
42
43 average age was 43.6 years (SD = 10.6); their team tenure averaged 15.9 years (SD = 12.6).
44
45
46 Measures
47
48 Leadership effectiveness. Within each participating organization, 3 expert raters
49
50 were selected who, independently of each other, gave one overall effectiveness score per
51
52 leader. We selected only those raters from within each organization who were
53
54
55 knowledgeable, at that time, about the functioning of each leader. We carried out this
56
57 selection process in conjunction with a member of the HRM staff in each organization. The
58
59
60 15

1
2
3 expert raters (n = 216) were predominantly male (76%). Leader effectiveness was rated on a
4
5 scale of 1 (highly ineffective) to 10 (highly effective) which is the generic grading scale in The
6
7
Netherlands. On average, the focal leaders were given a score of 7.2 (ranging from 5.1 to
8
9
10 8.9).
11
12 Based on the ICC1 (.07, p < .05) and ICC2 (.82, p < .05), and the average Rwg of .82
13
14 (with a range from .49 to .98), we aggregated the perceptual data of the expert raters. These
15
16 aggregation decisions were based on: 1) an evaluation of Rwg (which reflects the homogeneity
17
18
19 or consensus among the raters [James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984]), and 2) the ICC1 and ICC2
20
21 (which reflect the amount of variance attributable to group membership and reliability across
22
23 group members, respectively [Biemann, Cole, & Voelpel, 2012; Bliese, 2000; Klein &
24
25 Kozlowski, 2000]). Aggregation of the data in a target construct is justified when Rwg
26
27
exceeds the widely accepted cut-off score of .70 (Lance, Butts, & Michels, 2006) and when
28
29
30 ICC1 values exceed or are equal to .05 and ICC2 exceed .70 (Bliese, 2000; LeBreton &
31
32 Senter, 2008).
33
34 Followers also rated the degree of leader effectiveness. This was measured by the 4
35
36 overall-effectiveness items that are part of the MLQ-5X-Short package (Bass & Avolio,
37
38
39 1995). A sample item is: "My supervisor is effective in meeting my job-related needs." The
40
41 response categories range from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The Cronbach's alpha for this
42
43 construct is .83. The expert leader effectiveness scores correlate significantly with the
44
45 effectiveness scores given by the followers (r = .60, p < .01). This gives extra confidence
46
47
when using the expert scores to assess leader effectiveness.
48
49
50 Team effectiveness. Team effectiveness, as perceived by the followers, was measured
51
52 with a four-item scale, developed by Gibson, Cooper, and Conger (2009). A sample item is:
53
54 "Our team is effective" (α = .91). The responses were scored on a 7-point Likert scale; the
55
56 categories range from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The ICC1 was .05 (p < .05)
57
58
59
60 16

1
2
3 and the ICC2 was .73 (p < .05). The average Rwg was .84 (range .53 to .99). This permits
4
5 aggregation of these scores at the team level.
6
7
Employee extra effort. Employee extra effort was measured through the eyes of
8
9
10 followers, with a three-item scale from Bass and Avolio’s MLQ instrument. A sample item
11
12 is: "Heighten others’ desire to succeed" (α = .80), with response categories from 1 to 7. The
13
14 ICC1 was .06 (p < .05) and the ICC2 was .75 (p < .05). The average Rwg was .76 (range .18 to
15
16 .99).
17
18
19 Transactional leadership style. Transactional leadership style was assessed with the
20
21 CR and MBE-Active items from the MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1995); the answers, given by the
22
23 followers, were on a 7 point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
24
25 Earlier studies indicated that CR and MBE-Active typically reflect transactional style
26
27
(Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Avolio et al., 2003; Den Hartog et al., 1997).
28
29
30 A sample item of CR is: “Provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts”, and of
31
32 MBE-Active: “My leader keeps track of all mistakes.” Cronbach’s alphas of the aggregated
33
34 scores were .81 for CR and .94 for MBE-Active. ICC1 and ICC2 for CR were .05 and .75 (p
35
36 < .05), and the average Rwg was .80 (range .40 to .98); ICC1 and ICC2 for MBE-Active are
37
38
39 .07 and .84 (p < .05), and the average Rwg was .83 (range .49 to .99).
40
41 Transformational leadership style. The extent to which followers perceive the
42
43 leaders exhibiting the transformational leadership style (i.e., TLS) was measured through the
44
45 following MLQ dimensions: Idealized Influence, split further into the sub factors Idealized
46
47
Influence Behavior (4 items, α = .90) and Idealized Influence Attributed (4 items, α = .85);
48
49
50 Inspirational Motivation (4 items, α = .93); Individualized Consideration (4 items, α = .86);
51
52 and Intellectual Stimulation (4 items, α = .92). The response scale ranged from 1 (never) to 7
53
54 (always). Overall, we obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .97. The ICC1 of TLS was .07 (p < .05)
55
56 and the ICC2 was .84 (p < .05); average Rwg was .86 (range .63 to .99).
57
58
59
60 17

1
2
3 Leader initiating structure and consideration behaviors. Meetings are prevalent in
4
5 modern organizational life, and managers spend 25-80% of their time in team meetings.
6
7
Hence, behavior during those meetings affects leader and team effectiveness (e.g., Allen,
8
9
10 Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Rogelberg, 2015). The 72 leaders were video recorded during a
11
12 randomly selected, regular staff meeting (Perkins, 2009; Romano & Nunamaker, 2001; Scott,
13
14 Rogelberg, & Allen, 2010). Before each meeting the camera was placed at a fixed position in
15
16 the room, directed at the leader; it became quickly a ”normal” part of the background
17
18
19 (Erickson, 1992; Foster & Cone, 1980; Mead 1995). In order to control for reactivity
20
21 assumptions, we asked the followers directly after the meetings to offer their views on the
22
23 behavior of the leader: “to what extent do you find the behavior of your leader during the
24
25 video-taped meeting to be representative in comparison with non-video-taped meetings?” The
26
27
response category ranges from 1 (not representative) to 7 (highly representative). The
28
29
30 average score was 5.8 (SD = 1.0), indicating that the leaders’ behaviors were representative.
31
32 To systematically code leader directing, informing, structuring and consideration
33
34 behavior, we made use of a detailed behavioral observation manual, designed and developed
35
36 in previous field studies (e.g., Hoogeboom & Wilderom, 2015; Van Der Weide, 2007). With
37
38
39 this extensively defined scheme, two independent observers minutely coded the leader
40
41 behaviors, using a specialized software program “The Observer XT” (Noldus, Trienes,
42
43 Hendriksen, Jansen, & Jansen, 2000; Spiers, 2004). The 15-page codebook included detailed
44
45 instructions for coding each of the 10 mutually exclusive leader behaviors (for a short
46
47
description and examples of the coded behaviors, see, Table 1). The observers were trained in
48
49
50 advance in the use of the software and observational codebook. After coding the same video
51
52 independently of each other, the two coders discussed their results, using the so-called
53
54 confusion error matrix and inter-rater reliability output generated by the program. An average
55
56 inter-rater reliability of 95.1% (Kappa = .94) was established, which can be interpreted as an
57
58
59
60 18

1
2
3 “almost perfect” agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977). The behaviors were coded as
4
5 frequencies, i.e., how often a specific behavior occurred. In total, leader directing behavior
6
7
was coded 1546 times; informing was coded 5339 times; structuring was coded 2856 times;
8
9
10 and consideration was coded 4470 times. The standardized frequencies were used for the
11
12 analyses.
13
14 [Insert Table 1 about here]
15
16 Control Variables. Past research identified demographic variables which might aid in
17
18
19 explaining leader and team effectiveness. Several studies demonstrated that the gender of the
20
21 leader (e.g., Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Eagly, Karau, &
22
23 Makhijani, 1995) and the age (Liden, Stilwell, & Ferris, 1996) might affect effectiveness.
24
25 These two demographic factors were also utilized at the employee level.
26
27
Analytical Procedures
28
29
30 Before testing the hypotheses, we conducted Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to
31
32 analyze the factor structure and distinctiveness of the independent variables. To execute the
33
34 CFA and maximum likelihood estimation, we used Amos 21.0. First, a 7 factor structure was
35
36 estimated, with 3 of the 7 factors representing the leadership styles (i.e., TLS, CR and MBE-
37
38
39 Active, each loading on 1 factor) and the 4 initiating structure-consideration behaviors of this
40
41 study (x2 (100) = 188.02, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .06). In order to test the
42
43 distinctiveness of TLS, CR and MBE-Active, we also estimated a 5 factor model where TLS,
44
45 CR and MBE-Active were loaded onto 1 factor, together with the 4 initiating structure-
46
47
consideration behaviors. This model resulted in a significantly better measurement model
48
49
50 with a better model fit (x2 (92) = 123.14, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .07). The model
51
52 in which the 2 transactional dimensions (CR and MBE-Active) were loaded onto one factor
53
54 resulted in a significantly worse model fit (x2 (92) = 226.29, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .15,
55
56 SRMR = .32). Loading TLS and CR onto 1 factor resulted in an even worse model fit (x2
57
58
59
60 19

1
2
3 (107) = 195.15, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .07). The same was true for a
4
5 measurement model with TLS and MBE-Active loaded onto 1 factor (x2 (92) = 233.68, CFI =
6
7
.86, RMSEA = .14, SRMR = .29). Hence, the 5 factor model was stronger than the 7 factor
8
9
10 model which is in line with previous criticism on the distinctiveness of the MLQ dimensions
11
12 (see, e.g., Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin,
13
14 2013). However, because most scholars have used TLS, CR and MBE-Active as separate
15
16 scales, we show the results based on a 7-factor structure with TLS, CR and MBE-Active
17
18
19 representing separate factors.
20
21 In order to test the hypotheses, dominance analysis and hierarchical moderated
22
23 regression analysis (Budescu, 1993) were used. Dominance analysis is used to supplement
24
25 hierarchical moderated regression and examines the incremental contribution (i.e., the
26
27
relative importance) of each independent variable to explain the variance of the dependent
28
29
30 variable (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011). With this fairly new technique one can identify the
31
32 most important predictor, after controlling for other variables. It is a technique which
33
34 provides additional information about predictor importance over the information which is
35
36 provided by the result of a hierarchical regression analysis. A standard regression analysis
37
38
39 does not partition variance appropriately. Hence, dominance analysis is used to examine the
40
41 true relative contribution (LeBreton, Hargis, Griepentrog, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2007).
42
43 Budescu (1993) overcame several issues of earlier techniques, such as using the squared
44
45 partial or semi-partial correlation, or when decomposing the model’s fit into the variable’s
46
47
direct and total effects. Recently, Piccolo et al. (2012) and Michel et al. (2011) applied
48
49
50 dominance analysis to compare the relative validity and importance of predictors to several
51
52 outcome variables. Also Graen, Rowold and Heinitz (2010) advocated greater use of these
53
54 kinds of variance techniques. To test for augmentation effects, as for instance in Wang et al.
55
56 (2011), hierarchical regression analysis was conducted, including the interaction terms for the
57
58
59
60 20

1
2
3 independent variables. No outliers were present (p < .001). However, when testing for
4
5 univariate non-normality, the data for leader directing and informing were not normally
6
7
distributed. In order to use the data under the assumption of normal distribution, we
8
9
10 transformed this data with a lognormal distribution, which resulted in no univariate non-
11
12 normalities.
13
14 Results
15
16 Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of the key
17
18
19 variables of this study. The correlations show that CR, MBE-Active and TLS are
20
21 significantly related to both leader effectiveness (r = .60, p < .01, r = .35, p < .01, and r = .52,
22
23 p < .01, respectively) and employee extra effort (r = .83, p < .01, r = .52, p < .01, and r = .91,
24
25 p < .01, respectively). Only CR is significantly related to team effectiveness (r = .27, p < .05).
26
27
Directing is not significantly related to the three dependent variables. Informing is
28
29
30 significantly associated with both leader and team effectiveness (r = .34, p < .01, and r = .34,
31
32 p < .01, respectively). Structuring is negatively related to employee extra effort, although in
33
34 the opposite direction than expected (r = -.48, p < .01). Consideration is not significantly
35
36 related to any of the three outcome variables.
37
38
39 [Insert Tables 2, 3 and 4 about here]
40
41 Hypotheses testing
42
43 Hypothesis 1 posits that the initiating structure behaviors (i.e., directing, informing
44
45 and structuring) are more strongly related to leader effectiveness, team effectiveness and
46
47
employee extra effort than the transactional behaviors (CR and MBE-Active). To examine
48
49
50 the relative importance of the initiating structure behaviors over the transactional factors, and
51
52 controlling for TLS, we use dominance analysis. Table 3 presents the results of this analysis.
53
54 On controlling for TLS, the initiating structure behaviors explain 14% of the additional
55
56 variance in leadership effectiveness, whereas CR and MBE-Active explain an additional 10%
57
58
59
60 21

1
2
3 of variance (see, columns 3 and 4 of Table 3, bold numbered). Controlling for TLS, initiating
4
5 structure behaviors explain an additional 20% of the variance in predicting team
6
7
effectiveness, while the transactional factors only add 4% to the explained variance. In terms
8
9
10 of employee extra effort, both initiating structure and transactional behaviors explain an
11
12 additional 1% of variance. Thus, regarding leader and team effectiveness, we find support for
13
14 Hypothesis 1. Moreover, when examining the explained variance in the final steps of the
15
16 hierarchical regression analysis (see, Table 4), we find similar results. The classical
17
18
19 transformational-transactional model (CR+MBE-Active+TLS) explains 40%, 20% and 84%
20
21 of the total variance in leader effectiveness, team effectiveness and employee extra effort,
22
23 respectively; the regression results of the model in which transactional behavior is replaced
24
25 with initiating structure behaviors (initiating structure behaviors+TLS), explains in the final
26
27
step, 52%, 38% and 84%, respectively. As expected, the three specific initiating structure
28
29
30 behaviors explain, together with TLS, the greater variance in both leader and team
31
32 effectiveness.
33
34 Hypothesis 2 proposes that, when controlling for consideration, initiating structure
35
36 behaviors explain more incremental variance than the transactional behaviors. We compare
37
38
39 the initiating structure-consideration model (Initiating Structure behaviors+consideration)
40
41 with a transactional behavior-consideration model (i.e., CR+MBE-Active+consideration).
42
43 After controlling for consideration, the explained variance of the initiating structure behaviors
44
45 is lower for leader effectiveness in comparison with the transactional behaviors (10% versus
46
47
24%), but higher for team effectiveness (4% versus 19%). Thus, only when team
48
49
50 effectiveness is the dependent variable, Hypothesis 2 is accepted; we find that the initiating
51
52 structure behaviors explain more variance than the transactional factors. In addition, we
53
54 compared the explained variance in the final steps of the hierarchical moderated regression
55
56 analysis. The model in which initiating structure behavior replaces the two transactional
57
58
59
60 22

1
2
3 factors (CR+MBE-Active+consideration) explains, in the final step, 36%, 23% and 74% of
4
5 the total variance in leader effectiveness, team effectiveness and employee extra effort,
6
7
respectively; the classical, Ohio-State initiating structure-consideration model explains 29%,
8
9
10 35% and 39%. However, in the CR+MBE-Active+consideration model, CR is the most
11
12 important predictor of leader effectiveness and employee extra effort. But, CR is highly
13
14 correlated with TLS; it shows multicollinearity in the regression models. As argued before,
15
16 this might indicate that CR is more of a reflection of TLS than a representation of a leader’s
17
18
19 actual task-oriented behavior (see, also, Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013; Wang et al., 2011).
20
21 Hence, one should consider that CR is more similar to TLS than to the transactional style. In
22
23 addition, the results show that initiating structure behaviors explain the increase in variance in
24
25 team effectiveness.
26
27
Bass’ classical augmentation thesis gave rise to Hypothesis 3a; it proposes that TLS
28
29
30 positively augments the three initiating structure behaviors in relation to leader effectiveness,
31
32 team effectiveness and extra effort. Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical moderated
33
34 regression analyses. In Model I, Step 3, initiating structure behaviors are entered first,
35
36 followed by the transformational style. The beta weights in the regression equation, with
37
38
39 leader effectiveness and employee extra effort as the dependent variables, show that
40
41 transformational style contributes significantly, after controlling for the initiating structure
42
43 behaviors. Thus, Hypothesis 3a is supported regarding leader effectiveness and employee
44
45 extra effort. Hypothesis 3b posited that the relation between initiating structure and the
46
47
effectiveness outcomes would be positively moderated by TLS. Our results (Model I, Step 4)
48
49
50 show that TLS positively moderates directing behavior in relation to leader effectiveness (β =
51
52 .22, p < .05: Figure 2) and, contrary to our expectations, negatively moderates informing and
53
54 structuring behavior (β = -.21, p < .05; β = -.19, p < .05, respectively: see, Figures 3 and 4).
55
56 Only the moderating effect of TLS on directing, as in Hypothesis 3b, with leader
57
58
59
60 23

1
2
3 effectiveness, is supported. Hypothesis 4a proposes that transformational leadership would
4
5 positively augment the transactional factors. Table 4 (Model II, Step 3) shows that when CR
6
7
is entered into the equation with leader and team effectiveness, transformational style does
8
9
10 not significantly add to the prediction. Hypothesis 4b stated that TLS would positively
11
12 moderate the relationship between the transactional factors and the three effectiveness
13
14 criteria. TLS is found to positively moderate CR in relation to leader effectiveness (β = .25, p
15
16 < .05, 1-tailed). Also, TLS positively moderates the relationship between MBE-Active and
17
18
19 team effectiveness (β = .29, p < .05, see, Figure 5). Hence, we find partial support for
20
21 Hypothesis 4b.
22
23 Hypothesis 5a proposes that consideration positively augments the three initiating
24
25 structure behaviors in relation to leader effectiveness, team effectiveness and employee extra
26
27
effort. In Model III, Step 3, the beta weights in the regression of leader effectiveness and
28
29
30 employee extra effort show that consideration contributes, after controlling for the initiating
31
32 structure behaviors, thus supporting Hypothesis 5a. Hypothesis 5b posited that consideration
33
34 positively moderates the initiating structure behaviors; the results do not support the
35
36 Hypothesis as no significant interaction terms were found. Hypotheses 6a and 6b state that
37
38
39 consideration not only augments but also moderates the relationship between transactional
40
41 factors (CR+MBE-Active) and performance outcomes. We find no support for Hypothesis 6a
42
43 (see, Model IV, Step 3). However, in relation to team effectiveness, the moderation effect
44
45 between consideration and CR is significant (β = .33, p < .05), thereby partially supporting
46
47
Hypothesis 6b. Again, caution must be warranted that CR might reflect TLS better than
48
49
50 transactional or task-oriented behavior.
51
52 [Insert Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 about here]
53
54 Discussion
55
56
57
58
59
60 24

1
2
3 In an effort to examine the integration of two main leader-behavior models, a multi-
4
5 method approach is taken with 3 sources of data: video-recorded and –coded leader
6
7
behaviors; follower perceptions; and expert effectiveness ratings. During regular staff
8
9
10 meetings 72 leaders were video-taped. Afterwards their initiating structure and consideration
11
12 behaviors were inter-reliably coded with a detailed observation scheme. As hypothesized, the
13
14 results show that the initiating structure behaviors explain more incremental variance in
15
16 leader and team effectiveness than the two transactional factors. It appears that not all of the
17
18
19 initiating structure behaviors are positively related to the three dependent variables;
20
21 structuring (the conversation) is negatively related to both team effectiveness and employee
22
23 extra effort, while informing and directing behaviors are positively associated with leader and
24
25 team effectiveness.
26
27
These results present several important implications for current leadership theorizing.
28
29
30 First, we find that the initiating structure behaviors explain unique incremental variance in
31
32 important leader and team outcomes. Some scholars have stated that the transactional style is
33
34 equivalent to task-oriented leader behavior (Bass & Bass, 2008; De Rue, 2011). However,
35
36 important task-oriented initiating structure behaviors, such as directing, informing and
37
38
39 structuring, are absent in the transformational-transactional model. For the purpose of
40
41 predicting leader effectiveness criteria, this study shows that it is important to examine these
42
43 task-oriented behaviors, because without a solid understanding of transactional and task-
44
45 oriented behavior, transformational effects might not be easily optimized in practice (Bass,
46
47
1998). After all, the true effects of TLS may only be fully understood when its basics --
48
49
50 transactional and/or task-oriented, initiating structure behaviors-- are studied simultaneously
51
52 (Keller, 2006). Due to the flaws associated with the transactional style factors (e.g., their high
53
54 inter-relation with TLS: Judge et al., 2004), leadership scholars must indeed further question
55
56 whether the transactional style is too narrow as the basis for the transformational style and
57
58
59
60 25

1
2
3 whether this style is of any importance in advancing knowledge about task-oriented or
4
5 transactional leader behaviors (Judge et al., 2004). Also, Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008), for
6
7
example, claim that transactional behavior is more akin to transformational leadership. Thus,
8
9
10 compared to the transactional style, initiating structure behaviors appear to be more
11
12 ecologically valid. These task-oriented behaviors address functional, basic demands of
13
14 effective leadership and may therefore enhance team goal achievement (Hannah et al., 2014).
15
16 In the present study, we show that initiating structure behaviors explain unique, meaningful
17
18
19 variance in both leader and team effectiveness, when controlling for TLS. Regarding team
20
21 effectiveness, initiating structure behaviors are found to be even more important than TLS.
22
23 Thus, the initiating structure construct appears to be an simplified representation of a more
24
25 complex set of leader behaviors (Antonakis & House, 2014; Dansereau et al., 2013; Pearce et
26
27
al., 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1993); we find that some aspects in this behavioral class are
28
29
30 effective while others do not contribute to leader performance (Schurer Lambert et al., 2012).
31
32 Second, a refined, behavioral-specific augmentation effect is shown between directing
33
34 and TLS. Transformational leadership strengthens the relationship between directing and
35
36 leader effectiveness. An effective leader must direct followers’ tasks and provide them with
37
38
39 clear goals. However, if a leader is not able to motivate or inspire followers to achieve these
40
41 goals (i.e., the augmenting effect of TLS over directing), directing behavior is less effective
42
43 (Dansereau et al., 2014) (see, Figure 2). Similarly, Berson et al. (2001: 67) suggest that the
44
45 most effective transformational leaders must also be instrumental; their exhibited behaviors
46
47
“must be grounded in some level of practicality” because followers need a sense of concrete
48
49
50 direction and information to execute their tasks successfully (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994;
51
52 Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000; Zaccaro et al., 2001). In a similar vein, we find that TLS
53
54 positively moderates the relationship between MBE-Active and team effectiveness (see,
55
56 Figure 5). In addition, informing is positively related to leader (β = .34, p < .01) and team
57
58
59
60 26

1
2
3 effectiveness (β = .39, p < .01: see, Table 4, Model I, Step 4) which is in line with the
4
5 functional-diversity approach (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Cummings, 2004; Huckman &
6
7
Staats, 2011). A leader who frequently distributes factual information should obtain high
8
9
10 team effectiveness; if team members receive more information, they are able to assess
11
12 alternative task-types of decisions (e.g., Van Ginkel & Van Knippenberg, 2009). However,
13
14 when a leader scores high on the transformational style, informing is found to have less
15
16 impact on leader and team effectiveness (see, Figure 3). Given that transformational leaders
17
18
19 provide guidance to followers (through vision and motivation for shared team goals) (Bass et
20
21 al., 2003; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007; Wang et al., 2011), this style might reduce
22
23 followers’ need for factual information. Hence, informing seems to be more important for
24
25 leader effectiveness under low levels of TLS. This study’s results on informing behavior (as
26
27
an aspect of initiating structure behavior) follow the logic of House’s (1996) path-goal
28
29
30 theoretical proposition for CR behavior. He proposed that TLS is more important for low
31
32 levels of transactional CR behavior (i.e., a negative moderation). Although informing is
33
34 found to be positive for leader and team effectiveness, too much structuring behavior can
35
36 come across as overly controlling (Holtz & Harold, 2013; Wallace et al., 2013) which can
37
38
39 result in lower levels of team member empowerment, reducing leader and team effectiveness.
40
41 This negative effect (β = -.31, p < .05) is not positively moderated by TLS (see, Figure 4).
42
43 Hence, if one scores high on a transformational style, structuring behavior will be negatively
44
45 related to leader effectiveness.
46
47
Third, although the transformational leadership theory spurred a vast number of
48
49
50 studies, signaling the importance of transformational behavior for leader and team
51
52 effectiveness (see, e.g., the meta-analytic studies of Judge and Piccolo, 2004; and DeRue et
53
54 al., 2011), a recent review questioned the validity of many transformational findings (Van
55
56 Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). It is argued that the TLS mirrors subjective perceptions of
57
58
59
60 27

1
2
3 effectiveness. Similarly, Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, and James (2002: 454) referred to
4
5 same source behavioral-effectiveness relationships as “statistical artifacts.” The present study
6
7
shows that leader consideration behavior, which is seen as the most important
8
9
10 transformational dimension (i.e., in emphatically influencing followers), is a critical behavior
11
12 for both leader effectiveness and employee extra effort (Bass & Bass, 2008; Gardner, Avolio,
13
14 Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Schriesheim, Wu, & Scandura, 2009; Yukl, 2010). Thus,
15
16 this study shows the added value of the video-based approach to examining various specific
17
18
19 leader behaviors.
20
21 Practical Implications
22
23 The results of this study imply that leaders need to pair the transformational
24
25 leadership style with frequent factual informing as well as directing behaviors and infrequent
26
27
displays of structuring the conversation. This is because, as shown by our findings, if during
28
29
30 staff meetings leaders provide their team members frequently with factual work-related
31
32 information and direct them frequently in their tasks, the teams are more effective.
33
34 Employing a precise or fine-grained (video-based) assessment of initiating structure
35
36 behaviors is thus important because this may lead ultimately to optimizing leadership
37
38
39 development (programs). Designers of such programs and related HRM activities need to be
40
41 better informed about what specific patterns of task-oriented leader behaviors result in leader
42
43 and team effectiveness (Burke et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2011; Yukl, 2010; Zaccaro et al.,
44
45 2001). Much more insight into the studied and other task-based behaviors is warranted
46
47
because they are shown to complement the mostly more alluring transformational type
48
49
50 behaviors (Day, 2001).
51
52 Strengths, Limitations, Future Research and Conclusion
53
54 The results of this study provide new insights into the building blocks of effective
55
56 leader behavior. Especially using the video-observation method reduced common method
57
58
59
60 28

1
2
3 bias, which is a reason in itself why it should be used much more in future studies of effective
4
5 leader behaviors. Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden and Hu (2014) found that over a 12
6
7
year period, from 2000 to 2012, only 1 percent of the published studies in the top 10
8
9
10 management journals used an observation methodology (see, for instance, Antonakis, Fenley,
11
12 & Liechti [2011]; Berson, Shamir, Avolio, & Popper [2001]; Frese, Beimel, & Schoenborn
13
14 [2003]; Purvanova and Bono [2009]). These studies rated specific occurrences of charismatic
15
16 or transformational behavior with a Likert scale, while our study used a well-developed
17
18
19 codebook to systematically code various mundane behaviors of leaders in a field setting.
20
21 Despite this study’s strengths, it is limited through the perceptual ways in which we
22
23 also assessed both the transactional and the transformational styles. On the other hand, these
24
25 perceptions serve as an academic benchmark for the video-based specific leader behaviors;
26
27
using the MLQ as instrument allowed us to conduct a more robust test of the incremental
28
29
30 variance of the initiating structure behaviors (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002). One
31
32 weakness of this study is not having incorporated the survey-based LBDQ. Future research
33
34 must compare this perceptual measure with the video-based measure utilized in this study. To
35
36 remove the concern that the established effects might be due to method differences we also
37
38
39 video-coded the transformational behaviors intellectual stimulation and consideration.
40
41 Compared to idealized influence and inspirational motivation, they are the two most
42
43 observable transformational behaviors. The most observable transactional behaviors are task
44
45 monitoring and providing negative feedback. After employing additional dominance analysis
46
47
the video-coded transactional behaviors explain less incremental variance in leader and team
48
49
50 effectiveness as well as employee extra effort, controlling for the transformational style (3%,
51
52 3% and 1%, respectively). Also, the transactional factors explain less incremental variance
53
54 than the initiating structure behaviors for leader and team effectiveness as well as extra effort,
55
56 controlling for two video-coded transformational behaviors (3%, 2% and 0%, respectively).
57
58
59
60 29

1
2
3 Another limitation of this study is that the level of the manager was not taken into
4
5 account. In order to be effective, different hierarchical positions may require different
6
7
managerial behaviors (Pavett & Lau, 1983). However, in their meta-analysis, Lowe et al.
8
9
10 (1996) found that the effect of transformational style was not moderated by the level of the
11
12 leader. In relation to initiating structure or consideration behaviors, we believe that factual
13
14 informing and providing direction are generic, instrumental and effective behaviors at all
15
16 management levels. Further research should explore whether our results hold at different
17
18
19 hierarchical levels and also in other prototypal leadership settings. The Dutch context may be
20
21 less representative given the empirical fact that Dutch employees do not seem to be positively
22
23 affected by charismatic leadership (Den Hartog, 1991; Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe,
24
25 2009). Hence, this study’s results are in need of cross-cultural replication.
26
27
In conclusion, the present study advances leadership research by integrating the
28
29
30 traditional initiating structure and the more contemporary transformational paradigm. We
31
32 show the added value of unraveling initiating structure behaviors, because together with
33
34 transformational style, they are shown to elicit high leader and team performance. Thus, by
35
36 using systematic and reliable video-based coding of leaders’ initiating structure and
37
38
39 consideration behaviors, the present study shows the importance of focusing on specific task
40
41 behaviors of leaders: in addition to and instead of the well-known biased perceptual leader
42
43 measures.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 30

1
2
3 References
4
5 Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2015). The science of workplace
6 meetings. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7
8 Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination
9 of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire.
10 The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
11
12 Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Liu, Y., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2014). What makes articles highly
13 cited? The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 152-179.
14
15 Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two
16 interventions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 374-396.
17
18 Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of
19
transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 746-771.
20
21
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American
22
Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33.
23
24
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational
25
26
and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of
27 Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 7, 441-462.
28
29 Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third edition manual and
30 sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
31
32 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
33
34 Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
35 the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
36
37 Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend
38 organizational boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.
39
40 Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.
41 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42
43 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public
44 Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.
45
46 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
47 leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48
49 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire for research:
50 Permission Set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
51
52 Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of
53 men and women. Applied Psychology, 45(1), 5-34.
54
55 Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
56 transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
57
58
59
60 31

1
2
3 Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
4 applications. New York, NJ: Free Press.
5
6 Bedell-Avers, K., Hunter, S. T., Angie, A. D., Eubanks, D. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2009).
7 Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: An examination of leader–leader
8 interactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 299-315.
9
10 Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength,
11 leadership style, and context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 53-73.
12
13 Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of
14 rWG and rWG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The Leadership
15 Quarterly, 23, 66-80.
16
17 Blickle, G., Kane-Frieder, R. E., Oerder, K., Wihler, A., von Below, A., Schütte, N., Matanovic, A.,
18 Mudlagk, D., Kokudeva, T., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Leader behaviors as mediators of the
19 leader characteristics: Follower satisfaction relationship. Group & Organization Management,
20 38(5), 601-629.
21
22 Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for
23 data aggregation and analyses. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Multilevel theory, research, and
24 methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San
25 Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26
27 Bono, J. E., Hooper, A. H., & Yoon, D. J. (2012). Impact of rater personality on transformational and
28
transactional leadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 23,132-145.
29
30
Borgatta, E. F. (1962). A systematic study of interaction process scores, peer and self-assessments,
31
personality and other variables. Genetic Psychology Monographic, 66, 219-291.
32
33
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
34
35
36 Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of
37 predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542-551.
38
39 Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional
40 diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management
41 Journal, 45, 875‐893.
42
43 Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of
44 leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17,
45 288-307.
46
47 Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1977). Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition memory. Journal of
48 Personality and Social Psychology, 35(1), 38-48.
49
50 Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global
51 organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352-364.
52
53 Dale, J., & Fox, M. (2008). Leadership style and organizational commitment: Mediating effect of role
54 stress. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(1), 109-130.
55
56 Dansereau, F., Seitz, S. R., Chiu, C.-Y., Shaughnessy, B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). What makes
57 leadership, leadership? Using self-expansion theory to integrate traditional and contemporary
58 approaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 798-821.
59
60 32

1
2
3
4 Day, D.V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-
5 613.
6
7 Den Hartog, D. N. (1997). Inspirational leadership. Enschede, The Netherlands: Printpartners
8 Ipskamp.
9 Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus
10 transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and
11 Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-34.
12
13 DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories
14 of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel
15 Psychology, 64(1), 7-52.
16
17 Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership
18 theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing
19 perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36-62.
20
21 Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & James, L. R. (2002). Neutralizing substitutes for
22 leadership theory: Leadership effects and common-source bias. Journal of Applied
23 Psychology, 87(3), 454-464.
24
25 Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they? Academy of
26 Management Review, 11, 118-127.
27
28
Deichmann, D., & Stam, D. (2015). Leveraging transformational and transactional leadership to
29
cultivate the generation of organization-focused ideas. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 204–
30
219.
31
32
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and
33
transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension.
34
35
In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The
36 road ahead (pp. 35-66). Oxford, England: JAI/Elsevier.
37
38 Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A
39 meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125.
40
41 Edwards, G., Schyns, B., Gill, R., & Higgs, M. (2012). The MLQ factor structure in a UK
42 context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33, 369-382.
43
44 Erickson, F. (1992). The interface between ethnography and microanalysis. In M. D. LeCompte, W.
45 L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201-
46 225). San Diego: Academic Press.
47
48 Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E. A. Fleishman & J. G.
49 Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership (pp. 1-37). Carbondale, Ill.:
50 Southern Illinois University Press.
51
52 Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B.
53 (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional
54 interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245-287.
55
56 Foster, S. L., & Cone, J. D. (1980). Current issues in direct observation. Behavioral Assessment, 2,
57 313-338.
58
59
60 33

1
2
3 Frese, M. S., Beimel, & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: Two
4 evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a
5 vision. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 671-698.
6
7 Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the
8 real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership
9 Quarterly, 16, 343-372.
10
11 Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly
12 leadership of the study of leadership: A review of The Leadership Quarterly's second decade,
13 2000–2009. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 922-958.
14
15 Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects
16 of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 62-
17 76.
18
19 Glynn, M. A., & Raffaelli R. (2010). Uncovering mechanisms of theory development in an academic
20 field: Lessons from leadership research. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 359-401.
21
22 Graen, G., Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2010). Issues in operationalizing and comparing leadership
23 constructs. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 563-575.
24
25 Greenhalgh, L., & Chapman, D. (1998). Negotiator relationships: Construct measurement, and
26 demonstration of their impact on the process and outcomes of negotiation. Group Decision
27 and Negotiation, 7, 465-489.
28
29
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive
30
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2),
31
327-347.
32
33
Hannah, S. T., Sumanth, J. J., Lester, P., & Cavarretta, F. (2014). Debunking the false dichotomy of
34
35
leadership idealism and pragmatism: Critical evaluation and support of newer genre
36 leadership theories. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 598-621.
37
38 Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of
39 transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.
40
41 Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of “nonleadership”: From laissez-faire
42 leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied
43 Psychology, 93, 1234-1248.
44
45 Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Effects of leadership consideration and structure on employee
46 perceptions of justice and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Organizational
47 Behavior, 34, 492-519.
48
49 Hoogeboom, A. M. G. M., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2015). Effective leader behaviors in regularly held
50 staff meetings: Surveyed vs. video-taped and –coded observations. In J. Allen, N. Lehmann-
51 Willenbrock & S. G. Rogelberg (Eds.), The science of meetings (pp. 381-412). New York,
52 NY: Cambridge University Press.
53
54 House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The
55 Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352.
56
57 House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of
58 Management, 23(3), 409-473.
59
60 34

1
2
3
4 Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of
5 control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit
6 performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
7
8 Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member
9 exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower
10 performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694.
11
12 Huckman, R. S., & Staats, B. R. (2011). Fluid tasks and fluid teams: The impact of diversity in
13 experience and team familiarity. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 13(3),
14 310-328.
15
16 Hunt, J. G. (2004). What is leadership? In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
17 nature of leadership (pp. 19-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18
19 Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study:
20 Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435-446.
21
22 James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group inter-rater reliability with
23 and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-98.
24
25 Judge T. A., & Piccolo R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic
26 test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768.
27
28
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and
29
initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51.
30
31
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership:
32
A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of
33
Applied Psychology, 91, 202-210.
34
35
36 Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and advancement to self-
37 reported and subordinate-reported leadership behaviors from the multiple-linkage model. The
38 Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361-377.
39
40 Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance
41 orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural
42 examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744-764.
43
44 Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations.
45 San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
46
47 Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Lim, B. C., & Saltz, J. L. (2011). When team members’
48 values differ: The moderating role of team leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human
49 Decision Processes, 114(1), 25-36.
50
51 Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of
52 Management, 20(2), 403-437.
53
54 Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff
55 criteria what did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202-220.
56
57 Landis J. R., & Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
58 Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
59
60 35

1
2
3
4 LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). A
5 multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational research and practice.
6 Personnel Psychology, 60, 475–498.
7
8 LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
9 interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.
10
11 Liden, R. C., Stilwell, D., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The effects of supervisor and subordinate age on
12 objective performance and subjective performance ratings. Human Relations, 49(3), 327-347.
13
14 Lord, R. G. (1985). Social information processing and behavioral measurement: Application to
15 leadership measurement. In B. M.Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational
16 Behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 87-12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17
18 Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasusbramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
19 transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.
20 The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.
21
22 Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings
23 and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied
24 Psychology, 85, 971-986.
25
26 Martin, S., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Comparing empowering leadership and directive
27 leadership on task proficiency and proactivity: A field experiment in the UAE. Academy of
28
Management Journal, 56, 1372-1395.
29
30
Mead, M. (1995). Visual anthropology in a discipline of words. In P. Hockings (Ed.), Principles of
31
Visual Anthropology (pp. 3-12). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
32
33
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A
34
35
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535-546.
36
37 Michel, J. W., Lyons, B. D., & Cho, J. (2011). Is the full-range model of leadership really a full-range
38 model of effective leader behavior? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4),
39 493–507.
40
41 Mumford, M. D. 2006. Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic,
42 ideological, and pragmatic leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
43
44 Mumford, M. D., & Fried, Y. (2014). Give them what they want or give them what they need?
45 Ideology in the study of leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5), 622-634.
46
47 Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and
48 organizational change. California Management Review, 32, 77-97.
49
50 Noldus, L. P. J. J., Trienes, R. J. H., Hendriksen, A. H. M., Jansen, H., & Jansen, R. G. (2000). The
51 observer video-pro: New software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-
52 structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods,
53 Instruments, and Computers, 32, 197-206.
54
55 Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
56
57 O’Shea, P. G., Foti, R. J., Hauenstein, N. M. A., & Bycio, P. (2009). Are the best leaders both
58 transformational and transactional? A pattern-oriented analysis. Leadership, 5(2), 259-237.
59
60 36

1
2
3
4 Pavett, C. M., & Lau, A. W. (1983). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and
5 functional specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 170-177.
6
7 Pearce, C. L., Sims Jr., H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., & Trevino, L. (2003).
8 Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typology
9 of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 273-307.
10
11 Perkins, R. D. (2009). How executive coaching can change leader behavior and improve meeting
12 effectiveness: An exploratory study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
13 61(4), 298-318.
14
15 Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., & Judge, T. A. (2012). The relative
16 impact of complementary leader behaviors: Which matter most? The Leadership Quarterly,
17 23, 567-581.
18
19 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social
20 science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,
21 65, 539-569.
22
23 Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situation moderators of leader
24 reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human
25 Performance, 34, 21-63.
26
27 Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and
28
virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343-357.
29
30
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and
31
empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329-354.
32
33
Romano, N. C. & Nunamaker, J. F. (2001). Meeting analysis: Findings from research and practice.
34
35
Paper presented at the 34th International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
36
37 Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the
38 convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The Leadership
39 Quarterly, 18(2), 121-133.
40
41 Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team
42 values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied
43 Psychology, 92, 1020 –1030.
44
45 Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of
46 discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human
47 Performance, 15(2), 297-321.
48
49 Schriesheim, C. A., Wu, J. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2009). A meso measure? Examination of the levels
50 of analysis of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ). The Leadership Quarterly, 20,
51 604-616.
52
53 Schurer Lambert, L. S., Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Holt, D. T., & Barelka, A. J. (2012). Forgotten but
54 not gone: An examination of fit between leader consideration and initiating structure needed
55 and received. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 913-930.
56
57
58
59
60 37

1
2
3 Scott, C. S., Rogelberg, S. G., & Allen, J. A. (2010). Rethinking work meetings as constitutive. Paper
4 presented at the annual meeting of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research,
5 Washington, DC.
6
7 Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and
8 consideration. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693-703.
9
10 Spiers, J. A. (2004). Tech tips: Using video management analysis technology in qualitative research.
11 International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3, 1-8.
12
13 Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams:
14 Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy and performance. Academy of Management Journal,
15 49, 1239-1251.
16
17 Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire-Form
18 XII. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
19
20 Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and
21 recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52.
22
23
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to
24
regression analysis. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 1–9.
25
26
Tepper, B. J., & Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the multifactor leadership
27
questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 734-744.
28
29
Van Der Weide, J. G. (2007). An explorative video-study on the behavior of effective middle
30
31 managers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tilburg, the Netherlands.
32
33 Van Ginkel, W. P., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Knowledge about the distribution of information
34 and group decision making: When and why does it work? Organizational Behavior and
35 Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 218-229.
36
37 Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational
38 leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1),
39 1-60.
40
41 Vecchio, R., Justin, J., & Pearce, C. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational
42 leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework.
43 Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 71–82.
44
45 Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior:
46 The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Management, 15(4),
47 381-394.
48
49 Wallace, E., de Chernatony, L., & Buil, I. (2013). Building bank brands: How leadership behavior
50 influences employee commitment. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 165-171.
51
52 Wang, G., Oh, I., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and
53 performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group
54 & Organization Management, 36, 223–270.
55
56 Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis on shared leadership and team
57 effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 181-198.
58
59
60 38

1
2
3 Wilderom, C. P. M., Van Den Berg, P. T., & Wiersma, U. J. (2012). A longitudinal study of the
4 effects of charismatic leadership and organizational culture on objective and perceived
5 corporate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 835-848.
6
7 Yukl, G. A. (1994) Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8
9 Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10
11 Yukl, G. A. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European
12 Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48.
13
14 Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15
16 Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17
18 Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19
20 Yukl, G. A. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more
21 attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 11, 66-85.
22
23 Yukl, G. A., Gordan, A., & Taber, T. 2002. A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
24 Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
25 Studies, 9, 15-32.
26
27 Yukl, G. A., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D.
28
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial & organizational psychology (2nd
29
ed.) (Vol. 3, pp. 147-197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
30
31
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
32
12, 451–483.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 39

1
2 Figure 1. Integrating the Transformational-Transactional with the Initiating Structure-Consideration Model
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 40

1
2 Table 1.
3
4 Descriptions and Examples of the Video-based Coded Behaviors, including their Relative Display Frequency
5
6 (N = 72)
7
8
Displayed
9
10 Coded Behavior Short Description Examples Label Behavior
11 in %
12 1. Showing disinterest Not taking any action (when expected) Not listening CP .7
13 actively
14 2. Defending one’s Emphasizing one’s leadership position; “I am the manager CP 1.2
15 own position Emphasizing self-importance within this
16 organization”
17 3. Providing negative Criticizing the behavior of followers; “I am not so happy CP 2.0
18 feedback Focusing on irregularities or mistakes with the way you
19 did this”
20 4. Task monitoring Checking upon the task progress of “Have you not done C/M 10.7
21 followers’ current situation; Referring this yet?”
22 to previously made agreements with
23 followers; Making clear who is
24 responsible
25 5. Directing Dividing tasks among followers “John, I’d like you I 5.9
26 (without enforcing them); Determining to take care of that”
27 the current direction
28 6. Informing Giving factual information “The budget for this I 21.9
29 project is…”
30
7. Structuring Structuring the meetings; Changing the “We will end this I 12.0
31
topic; Shifting towards the next agenda meeting at 2pm”
32
point
33
34 8. Visioning Giving personal opinion about future “Given the recent T 18.3
35 plans developments, I
36 think we should…”
37
9. Intellectual Positively stimulating the behavior of “What actions T 8.9
38
stimulation followers; Challenging professionally should be taken
39 according to you”
40 10. Consideration Showing an interest in follower's “I am sorry to hear T 18.3
41 feelings or situation; Showing empathy; that; how are things
42 Creating a friendly environment now?
43 100%
44 Note. CP= Counter-productive; C/M=Checking/Monitoring; I=Initiating (preparing employees to do their job well);
45
46 T=Transformational.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 41

1
2 Table 2.
3
4 Variables’ Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-order Correlations
5
6 Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
7 1
1 Leader effectiveness 7.18 .75
8
2
9 2 Team effectiveness 5.10 .60 .40 **
2
10 3 Extra effort 4.17 .71 .53 ** .17
11 4 CR
2
4.32 .62 .60 ** .27 * .83 **
12 2
5 MBEA 4.45 .69 .35 ** .21 .52 ** .69 **
13 2
14 6 TLS 4.56 .63 .52 ** .21 .91 ** .90 ** .61 **
3
15 7 Directing 20.61 16.00 .20 .12 .10 .11 .14 .11
16 8 Informing
3
71.20 47.14 .34 ** .34 ** .06 .20 .28* .06 .19
17 9 3
38.09 16.56 - .18 - .29 - .48 ** - .36 ** - .32 ** - .41 ** - .05 .02
Structuring
18 3
10 Consideration 59.59 27.87 .14 - .04 .17 .05 - .02 .07 - .14 - .20 .08
19
20 11 Leader gender 1.39 .49 - .05 - .07 .03 - .03 - .08 .00 - .02 - .17 - .27 * - .04
21 12 Leader age 45.23 9.00 .19 .12 .19 .15 - .05 .18 .04 - .23 - .06 .13 - .13
22 13 Employee gender 1.45 .26 - .01 .18 - .23 - .09 - .13 - .17 - .09 .15 .02 -.10 .22 - .25 *
23
14 Employee age 43.17 6.39 .06 .02 .34 ** .26 * .19 .36 ** .09 - .15 - .15 .03 - .01 .49 ** -.45 **
24
25 Note. CR = Contingent Reward; MBEA = Management-By-Exception Active; TLS = Transformational Leadership
26
27 Style.
28
29 *p< .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.
30
31 ¹ Variable measured through surveys filled in by expert raters for each leader (N = 72)
32
2
33 Variable measured through surveys filled in by followers of the participating leaders (N = 623)
34
3
35 Variable measured through systematic video-based coding of the leaders (N = 72)
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 42

1
2 Table 3.
3
4 Results of the Dominance Analysis of Leader and Team Effectiveness as well as Employee Extra
5
6 Effort (N = 72)
7
8 2
9 R for Step 1 Incremental Contribution of Behaviors in Step 2
10 Leadership Dir,
11 Behaviors Entered in CR, Info,
12 Step 1 MBEA Struct TLS CR MBEA Dir Info Struct
13 Leadership effectiveness
14 TLS .27 ** .10 ** .14 ** .09 ** .00 .05 † .10 ** .00
15
Consideration .14 ** .24 ** .10 ** .14 ** .23 ** .00 .00 .02 .00
16
17 CR .36 ** .11 ** .00 .01 .04 † .05 .00
18 MBEA .12 ** .11 ** .15 ** .25 ** .03 .04 .01
19 Directing .01 .40 ** .31 ** .39 ** .15 ** .11 ** .04 †
20
21 Informing .11 ** .32 ** .26 ** .30 ** .07 * .01 .04 †
22 Structuring .03 .24 ** .33 ** .10 ** .02 .12 **
23 CR, MBEA .37 ** .35 ** .00 .04 † .06 * .00
24 Directing, Informing, Structuring .17 ** .55 ** .24 ** .28 ** .30 **
25
Team effectiveness
26
27 TLS .04 † .04 † .20 ** .04 † .02 .01 .11 ** .05 †
28 Consideration .04 .04 † .19 ** .01 .04 † .00 .00 .05 † .04 †
29 CR .07 * .17 ** .01 .01 .01 .09 ** .04 †
30 MBEA .05 † .18 ** .01 .00 .01 .08 ** .05 †
31
32 Directing .00 .08 ** .05 † .08 * .05 † .12 ** .01
33 Informing .11 ** .05 † .04 † .05 † .00 .01 .09 **
34 Structuring .08 * .03 .01 .03 .00 .02 .12 **
35 CR, MBEA .07 .17 ** .01 .01 .09 ** .04 †
36
Directing, Informing, Structuring .23 .01 .01 .00 .05 †
37
38 Employee Extra Effort
39 TLS .82 ** .01 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01
40 Consideration .03 .67 ** .21 ** .80 ** .67 ** .27 ** .01 .01 .21 **
41 CR .69 ** .03 .13 ** .00 .00 .01 .02
42
43 MBEA .27 ** .08 ** .55 ** .42 ** .02 .01 .09 **
44 Directing .01 .68 ** .81 ** .68 .26 .00 .17 **
45 Informing .00 .69 ** .82 ** .69 ** .27 ** .01 .21 **
46 Structuring .20 ** .52 ** .63 ** .51 ** .16 ** .00 .01
47
CR, MBEA .69 ** .03 .14 ** .00 .01 .03
48
49 Directing, Informing, Structuring .18 ** .11 ** .65 ** .54 ** .17 **
50 *p< .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. †p< .05, one-tailed.
51
52 CR = Contingent Reward; MBEA = Management-By-Exception Active; TLS = Transformational Leadership
53
54 Style; Dir = Directing; Info = Informing; Struct = Structuring.
55
56
57
58
59
60 43

1 Table 4.
2 Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analyses of the Integrated and Classical Models
3 Leader Effectiveness Team Effectiveness Employee Extra Effort
4 Model Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
5 I Leader Gender - .02 .60 .09 .00 - .12 - .17 - .16 - .19 .05 - .05 .03 .02
6 Leader Age .00 .43 .13 .15 .12 .23 † .23 † .28 * .03 .04 .03 .03
7 - .09 .28 - .10 - .04 .26 † .24 † .24 * .26 * - .12 - .12 - .11 * - .09
Employee Gender
8
Employee Age .09 .74 - .14 - .15 .09 .08 .04 .04 .29 * .23 † - .05 - .05
9
Directing .10 .08 .12 .06 .06 .07 .03 - .01 - .00
10
Informing .43 ** .38 ** .34 ** .37 ** .36 ** .39 ** .1 .01 .00
11
Structuring - .07 .10 .10 - .34 ** - .29 * - .31 * - .40 ** - .10 - .09
12
13 TLS .53 ** .53 ** .12 .15 .86 ** .86 **
14 TLS*Directing .22 * .03 .01
15 TLS*Informing - .21 * - .20 † - .02
16 TLS*Structuring - .19 * .00 - .05
2
17 R .02 .23 ** .43 ** .52 ** .07 .33 ** .34 ** .38 ** .14 ** .31 ** .84 ** .84 **
18 ∆R
2
.11 ** .20 ** .09 * .14 ** .01 .04 .17 ** .53 ** .00
19 II Leader Gender - .02 - .01 - .01 .00 - .12 - .10 - .10 - .12 .05 .08 .05 .04
20 Leader Age .00 .06 .06 .00 .12 .18 .18 .13 .03 - .01 .01 - .01
21 Employee Gender - .09 - .06 - .06 - .07 .26 † .27 * .27 * .25 † - .12 - .16 * - .12 * - .12 *
22 Employee Age .09 - .12 - .12 - .13 .09 - .02 - .01 .00 .29 * .07 - .14 - .04
23 .59 ** .59 * .61 * .18 .22 .22 .87 ** .15 .15
CR
24
MBEA .01 .01 - .02 .14 .14 .06 - .11 - .08 - .10
25
TLS .00 - .04 - .04 .00 .81 ** .82 **
26
TLS*CR .25 † - .11 - .02
27
28 TLS*MBEA .01 .29 * .08
2
29 R .02 .34 ** .35 ** .40 ** .07 .15 † .15 .20 .14 ** .72 ** .83 ** .84 **
2
30 ∆R .11 .01 .06 * .08 † .00 .05 .58 ** .11 ** .01
31 III Leader Gender - .02 .07 .07 .07 - .12 - .17 - .13 - .13 .05 - .05 - .03 - .03
32 Leader Age .00 .11 .09 .08 .12 . 23† .19 .20 .03 .04 .02 .03
33 Employee Gender - .09 - .14 - .12 - .10 .26 † .24 † .23 † .26 * - .12 - .12 - .10 - .09
34 Employee Age .09 .05 .06 .08 .09 .08 .06 .05 .29 * .23 † .25 † .25 †
35 Directing .10 .13 .14 .06 .05 .07 .03 .08 .05
36 Informing .43 ** .47 ** .53 ** .37 ** .34 ** .43 ** .10 .18 .16
37 Structuring - .07 - .09 - .04 - .34 ** - .31 ** - .25 † - .40 ** - .40 ** - .39 **
38 .22 † .25 .04 .10 .25 * .23 †
Consideration
39
Consideration*Directing .15 .16 .10
40
Consideration*Informing .03 .07 - .07
41
Consideration*Structuring - .03 - .05 - .12
42 2
R .02 .23 * .27 ** .29 * .07 .33 ** .33 ** .35 ** .14 ** .31 ** .36 ** .39 **
43 2
44 ∆R .11 ** .04 * .03 .14 ** .00 .02 .17 ** .05 * .03
45 IV Leader Gender - .02 - .01 - .01 - .01 - .12 - .10 - .10 - .10 .05 .08 .08 .08
46 Leader Age .00 .06 .05 .04 .12 .18 .19 .17 .03 - .01 - .02 - .02
47 Employee Gender - .09 - .06 - .05 - .05 .26 † .27 * .26 † .27 * - .12 - .16 * - .15 * - .15 *
48 Employee Age .09 - .12 - .11 - .12 .09 - .02 - .02 - .04 .29 * .07 .08 .08
49 CR .59 ** .58 ** .59 ** .18 .19 .19 .87 ** .86 ** .86 **
50 MBEA .01 .02 .00 .14 .14 .09 - .11 - .10 - .11
51 Consideration .10 .08 - .05 - .09 .11 † .10
52 Consideration*CR .12 .33 * .05
53 Consideration*MBEA - .07 - .08 - .03
54 2
.02 .34 ** .35 ** .36 ** .07 .15 † .16 .23 * .14 * .72 ** .74 ** .74 **
R
55 ∆R
2
.11 ** .01 .01 .08 † .01 .07 † .58 ** .02 † .00
56
57 Note. Standardized regression coefficients are displayed in the table. CR = Contingent Reward; MBEA = Management-
58 By-Exception Active; TLS = Transformational Leadership Style.
59 *p< .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. †p< .05, one-tailed.
60 44

1
2 Figure 2. Figure 3.
3
4 Interaction between the Effect of Leader Directing Interaction between the Effect of Leader
5
6 Behavior and TLS on Leader Effectiveness Informing Behavior and TLS on Leader
7
8
Effectiveness
9
10
11 5 5
12
13 4.5 4.5
14 4 4
Leader effectiveness
15
16
3.5 Moderator 3.5 Moderator
17 3 Low TLS 3 Low TLS
18 2.5 2.5
19 High TLS High TLS
20 2 2
21 1.5 1.5
22
1 1
23 Low Directing High Directing Low Informing High Informing
24
25
26
27
28
Figure 4. Figure 5.
29
30 Interaction between the Effect of Leader Interaction between the Effect of
31
32 Structuring Behavior and TLS on Leader MBEA and TLS on Team Effectiveness
33
34 Effectiveness
35
36
37 5 5
38 4.5
4.5
39
40 4 4
Team effectiveness
41 3.5 Moderator 3.5 Moderator

42
3 Low TLS 3 Low TLS
43
44 2.5 2.5 High TLS
High TLS
45 2
46 2
47 1.5 1.5
48 1
1
49 Low MBE-ActiveHigh
Low MBEA MBE-Active
High MBEA
Low Structuring High Structuring
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 45

JOBHoogeboom&Wilderom - Integrating Two Classic Leadership Models Augmentation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOBHoogeboom&Wilderom - Integrating Two Classic Leadership Models Augmentation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior - For Peer Review Only

Integrating Two Classic Leadership Models: Augmentation

Journal: Journal of Organizational Behavior

Manuscript ID: JOB-15-0378

Wiley - Manuscript type: Research Article

transformational and transactional leadership style, augmentation

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

INTEGRATING TWO LEADERSHIP MODELS

41 3.5 Moderator 3.5 Moderator

You might also like