Summary Leadership and Management ‘Article 1; The Forgotten Ones? The validity of
consideration and initiating structure in leadership research (Judge et al.)’
Introduction
1940s was period of great importance to field of leadership -> two behavioural indicators:
Consideration: degree to which a leader shows concern and respect for followers, looks out
for their welfare, and expresses appreciation and support.
Initiating structure: degree to which a leader defines and organizes his role and the roles of
followers, is oriented toward goal attainment, and establishes well-defined patterns and
channels of communication.
Questions raised about generality of the validities and nature of measurements themselves ->
research on consideration and structure has been criticized on both methodological (questions not
answered, reliance on common source data, criteria collected from same source, critic on measures)
and conceptual grounds (emergence of implicit leadership started to question internal validity) -> result
is that consideration and initiating structure are widely believed to be of limited validity and little direct
utility in contemporary leadership thinking and research. Thinking today is that consideration and
structure are historical concepts that, due to various methodological and conceptual deficiencies and
failed efforts at validation, led to other advancements that are of greater current relevance (weak
results, researchers haven’t been able to establish consistent link between task and relationship
behaviours and outcomes, conceptualization has added little knowledge about effective leadership) ->
most researchers consider these leadership behaviours as outmoded.
Researchers argued that way to advance literature is to investigate situational moderators ->
importance of specific forms varies per situation. Situational moderators: subordinate factors (follower
job knowledge), supervisor factors (upward influence), and task factors (autonomy). One of most
popular theories of leadership in 1970s and 1980s was path-goal theory which was based on the
premise that factors moderate and mediate the effect of consideration and structure on outcomes.
Purpose of study is to provide comprehensive examination of validity of consideration and initiating
structure in leadership research.
Review of the literature and hypothesized relations
Consideration correlates more strongly with follower satisfaction. Initiating structure correlates more
strongly with performance of effectiveness. This fits with conceptual nature of constructs -> one would
expect leaders high on initiating structure to be more effective at meeting role expectations, whereas
one would expect followers to prefer and more satisfied by leaders who are considerate. Considerate
leaders are empathic -> should be skilled at sensing and satisfying needs of their followers.
Orientation of structuring leaders is toward the task -> should be more effective at producing
performance outcomes. Hypotheses:
1. Consideration will be positively related to follower satisfaction (leader satisfaction, job
satisfaction) and leader performance or effectiveness (leader job performance, group-
organisation performance, leader effectiveness).
2. Initiating structure will be positively related to follower satisfaction (leader satisfaction, job
satisfaction) and leader performance or effectiveness (leader job performance, group-
organisation performance, leader effectiveness).
3. Compared with initiating structure, consideration will be more strongly related to follower
satisfaction (leader satisfaction, job satisfaction), whereas initiating structure will be more
strongly related to leader performance or effectiveness (leader job performance, group-
organisation performance, leader effectiveness).
4. Validities of consideration and initiating structure will vary by measure.
5. There will be a significant (nonzero) correlation between consideration and initiating structure.
6. The intercorrelation of consideration and initiating structure will vary by measure.
,Two sources for concern with independence between consideration and initiating structure:
Orthogonality (rechthoekigheid) of dimensions was often claimed in literature -> orthogonality
suggests that dimensions are wholly independent.
Managerial grid, which is based on assumption of orthogonality -> two dimensions are not
always empirically independent (relationship depends on measure used).
Method and results
Study consisted of literature search that resulted in 18 articles referenced in literature reviews or meta-
analyses on relevant topics. Three databases to estimate meta-analytic correlations between:
consideration and organisational criteria, initiating structure and organisational criteria, and
consideration and initiating structure. Criteria used in study: follower job satisfaction, follower
satisfaction with the leader, follower motivation, leader job performance, group-organisation
performance, and leader effectiveness.
Results of study:
Both consideration and structure show nonzero correlations across the leadership criteria ->
leadership behaviours have nonzero relations with criteria -> behaviours are significantly
related to the criteria -> hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 supported.
Consideration is more strongly related to follower satisfaction and motivation, whereas
initiating structure is more strongly related to criteria that reflect leader performance ->
consistent with hypothesis 3.
Consideration is more strongly related to leader effectiveness, although both correlations were
moderately strong -> contrary to hypothesis 3.
Moderators of the overall relationships likely exist. Moderators were criteria, measure,
research design (cross-sectional, longitudinal), independence of data sources (same source,
different source), study setting (business, military, public sector), and level of leader
(supervisory, mid- to upper-level leaders). Research design or method variance doesn’t
substantially explain the different validities obtained by measures of consideration and
structure. Validities for both consideration and structure varied significantly by measure ->
hypothesis 4 supported.
Average correlation between consideration and initiating structure is weak -> mixed support
hypothesis 5.
The correlation between consideration and initiating structure does vary depending on the
measure used to assess these constructs -> hypothesis 6 supported.
Discussion
Consideration and initiating structure have long been dismissed as important influences on leadership
effectiveness. Results of study revealed that both consideration and initiating structure have important
main effects on numerous criteria that most would argue are fundamental indicators of effective
leadership. Results suggest that these behaviours (consideration, initiating structure) are important
pieces in leadership puzzle.
Possible argument is that correlations should be corrected for range restriction, because it’s likely that
individuals are selected to leadership positions on the basis of the degree to which they are
considerate and structuring.
The results are not new -> the correlations were always there, but they were overlooked -> examine
history of other areas. It’s possible that conclusions in past qualitative reviews weren’t tested meta-
analytically, because the literature has already pronounced as dead before the advent of meta-
analysis in industrial-organisational psychology.
Consideration and initiating structure are far from obsolete (they have significant main effects) doesn’t
deny the possibility that these effects are moderated by other variables. Moderator analysis reveals
several factors that appear to affect the validity of consideration and initiating structure, but there may
be other moderators.
,The results also don’t fully address concerns that have been expressed about the measures of
consideration and initiating structure (measures likely suffer from many of same limitations as
transformational leadership literature -> common-source limitations).
Consideration shows stronger relationships with the criteria (follower satisfaction) than initiating
structure, and initiating structure shows stronger relationships with group-organisation performance.
So, hypothesis that followers prefer considerate leaders but will perform more effectively for structuring
leaders was supported to some extent. On the other hand, consideration was linked to leader job
performance and group-organizational performance, and initiating structure was linked to leader
satisfaction. Both behaviours were also linked to follower motivation and leader effectiveness.
It’s possible that there is a higher social desirably component to consideration -> explanation why
same-source and cross-sectional validities were higher, and consideration correlates are strong with
leader satisfaction.
Future research
Two general directions for future research:
Research should address some questions that were unanswered in past research.
Consideration and structure have virtually disappeared in contemporary research -> concepts
should be integrated with more recent theorizing in leadership research specifically and
organisational behaviour research more generally.
Suggestions for future research:
Mediators of consideration and structure effects: future research should explore mediators that
explain why consideration and structure have their effects on the outcomes. Three
organisational justice dimensions:
o Distributive: equity principle that outcomes should be distributed according to
contributions -> leaders high on initiating structure, because they define rules
regarding work duties, maintain standards, and determine the consequences of goal
attainment. Followers of such leaders should feel that their rewards are distributed
according to the equity rule.
o Procedural -> both consideration and structure are relevant to procedural justice, but
in different ways.
o Interactional: degree to which individuals are treated with dignity, respect, and
sensitivity by authority figures -> leaders high on consideration.
Further mediating mechanisms and integration with other literatures. It’s possible that
mediating variable explains why considerate leaders are more satisfying to followers, and
structuring leaders are more effective because they are more likely to set hard and specific
goals for their followers. Also, beliefs about their performance abilities can mediate
relationship between consideration, structure, and follower performance. Further research
should investigate mediating mechanisms.
Integration with transformational leadership: there is little discussion of relationship of leader
behaviours to transformational leadership.
Causal ordering: it’s not possible to ascertain whether leadership is a cause, consequence, or
coincidence of group effectiveness, satisfaction, or other valued outcomes.
Construct validity of measures: different measures reflect same construct -> more construct
validity work is needed.
Causes of consideration and structure. Leaders high on consideration have high scores on
benevolence (agreeableness) and charm (which could be associated with extraverts).
Ascendancy (conscientiousness) is related to initiating structure. However, further research
would be worthwhile.
Nonlinear relations: there may be interactions between consideration and structure
(considerate leaders could increase structure with little or no negative consequences, which is
not true for less considerate leaders), and effects of consideration and structure may be
curvilinear.
, Additional outcomes: validity of consideration and structure might be more impressive if
additional criteria were studied. Structuring leaders might result in greater team efficacy and
performance, and considerate leaders might produce greater team cohesiveness.
Levels of analysis: in future research it might not be the case that analyses were at individual
leader level -> multilevel framework in investigating effects of consideration and structure.
Limitations
Limitations findings:
From a conceptual perspective, moderator analyses were limited by nature of primary studies
in that it wasn’t possible to investigate the effects of theoretically relevant moderators
(uncertainty, predictability, interdependence).
Methodological limitation from fact that number of correlations for some of moderator analyses
is relatively small.
Results are summary of extant literature and therefore reflect more correlations relating the
behaviours to some criteria than to others.
Conclusion
It’s inadvisable to abandon consideration and initiating structure in leadership research.
