Leadership behaviors and follower performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms

• Author: Herman Aguinis,Ryan K. Gottfredson
• Published date: 01 May 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2152
• Date: 01 May 2017

Leadership behaviors and follower performance:

Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical

rationales and underlying mechanisms

†

RYAN K. GOTTFREDSON

1

*AND HERMAN AGUINIS

2

1

Department of Management, Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton, &

Gallup, Inc., California, U.S.A.

2

Department of Management, School of Business, GeorgeWashington University, Washington,District of Columbia, U.S.A.

Summary There are competing theoretical rationales and mechanisms used to explain the relation between leadership

behaviors (e.g., consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards, and transformational leadership) and

follower performance (e.g., task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors). We conducted two

studies to critically examine and clarify the leadership behaviors–follower performance relation by pitting

the various theoretical rationales and mechanisms against each other. We first engaged in deductive

(Study 1) and then inductive (Study 2) theorizing and relied upon 35 meta-analyses involving 3327

primary-level studies and 930 349 observations as input for meta-analytic structural equation modeling.

Results of our dual deductive–inductive approach revealed an unexpected yet surprisingly consistent

explanation for why leadership behaviors affect follower performance. Specifically, leader–member

exchange is a mediating mechanism that was empirically determined to be involved in the largest indirect

relations between the four major leadership behaviors and follower performance. This result represents a

departure from current conceptualizations and points to a common underlying mechanism that parsimoni-

ously explains how leadership behaviors relate to follower performance. Also, results lead to a shift in

terms of recommendations for what leaders should focus on to bring about improved follower perfor-

mance. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: consideration; initiating structure; contingent rewards; transformational leadership; leader–

member exchange; employee performance

The relation between leadership behaviors and follower performance is one of the oldest and most widely

researched topics in organizational behavior (e.g., Stogdill, 1950; Yukl, 2012). In fact, as of the writing of

our manuscript, there are 19 published meta-analyses on leadership behaviors–follower performance relations

(e.g., DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012;

Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004). Historically, the focus has been on whether leader behaviors enhance follower

performance and the degree to which they do so across different types of leadership behaviors and follower

performance. However, a key question in terms of advancing our understanding of this relation is the following:

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 31 July 2015

Revised 1 June 2016, Accepted 31 August 2016

*Correspondence to: Ryan Gottfredson, Department of Management, California State University, Fullerton, and Gallup, Inc. E-mail:

ryangottfredson1@gmail.com

Portions of this manuscript are based on Ryan K. Gottfredson’s doctoral dissertation, which was conducted at the Kelley School of Business,

Indiana University, under the supervision of Herman Aguinis. We thank committee members Timothy T. Baldwin, Jeffery S. McMullen, and

Edward R. Hirt for constructive feedback on previous drafts. Additionally, we thank Journal of Organizational Behavior Associate Editor, Mark

Martinko and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions for improvement. A previous version of this manuscript was presented at

the meetings of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA, August 2014.

†

A Video Abstract to accompany this article is available at https://youtu.be/FlUQy0dBZG8.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 558–591 (2017)

Published online 5 October 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2152

Research Article

Why do positive leadership behaviors improve various types of follower performance? This question is critically

important for theoretical progression in the leadership domain because if we do not understand why these

specific relations occur, we do not have a solid theory (Bacharach, 1989; Dubin, 1978; Sutton & Staw, 1995;

Whetten, 1989). Additionally, if we do not clearly understand why leadership behaviors–follower performance

relations occur, we will be limited in our ability to provide accurate and actionable recommendations for leaders

that will result in the most favorable performance outcomes.

While the question above is critically important for theoretical and practical reasons, results to date have led

to multiple answers across the various leadership behaviors–follower performance relations. For example,

consider one of the most well-researched leadership behavior–follower performance relation: transformational

leadership and task performance. An examination of the literature reveals that there are at least eight empirically

supported mediators explaining this relation, including self-congruence, empowerment, positive effect, trust,

person/job fit, core job characteristics, leader–member exchange (LMX), and work engagement (Aryee,

Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012; Chi & Pan, 2012; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; van Knippenberg & Sitkin,

2013; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). Similar observations can be made for other often-researched

leadership behaviors. For consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards, and transformational leadership

(i.e., the four most frequently studied leadership behaviors), the presence of multiple mediating mechanisms –

oftentimes more than 10 –serving as explanations for their relations with follower performance suggests that

a critical challenge in terms of advancing this domain is not a lack of theory, but the existence of too many

theories. Thus, there is an opportunity to clarify and advance theory in this domain by seeking to identify

one or several mediating mechanisms that may outperform others in explaining specific leadership behavior–

follower performance relations.

The purpose of our research is to identify the mechanisms, and their respective theories, that provide the best

explanations for leadership behaviors–follower performance relations across four different types of leadership

behaviors (consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards, and transformational leadership) and two types

of follower performance (task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors). To achieve our goal, we

know that a single study or even several primary studies would be inadequate. Accordingly, we used meta-

analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM; Bergh et al., 2016), and relied on a total of 35 meta-analyses

(i.e., 26 already published and an additional nine that we conducted for this study), comprising a total of

3327 primary-level studies and 930 349 observations. MASEM allowed us to move beyond the traditional

meta-analytic approach focusing on bivariate relations and investigate a more complete representation of leader-

ship behaviors–follower performance phenomena by including as many potential mediating mechanisms in the

leadership behaviors–follower performance relations as possible (Bergh et al., 2016). Specifically, in Study 1,

we adopted a deductive approach and in Study 2 we adopted an inductive approach that was informed by results

from Study 1. Together, these studies allowed us to examine the vast majority of data collected thus far in the

leadership domain to prune and refine the theoretical rationales and mechanisms. Our two-study research

program allowed us to identify a single best explanation for why leadership behaviors lead to follower perfor-

mance across four different leadership behaviors and two types of follower performance. This concise and

parsimonious result across the leadership behaviors–follower performance relations not only enhances theoretical

precision but also provides leaders with a clearer idea of what they should focus on in order to ensure their

leadership behaviors bring about high levels of follower performance.

While we believe our study enhances both theoretical and practical precision, we recognize that it is a step in

the right direction, but not likely a “final”answer on this topic. Although we identified a single best explanation,

it is based upon a comparison of mediating mechanisms that have been studied frequently enough to be examined

meta-analytically. This means that while theory guided our inclusion of constructs in our models, what we could

actually include in the models was limited to what could be tested meta-analytically. Despite this constraint, our

results help advance our knowledge from the current situation involving multiple and competing theoretical

explanations to the identification of a single theoretical rationale that is the best explanation based on an

examination of the empirical evidence accumulated to date.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 558–591 (2017)

DOI: 10.1002/job

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS AND FOLLOWER PERFORMANCE 559

Study 1

Theory and hypotheses

There are four types of leadership behaviors that have historically dominated leadership research, as evidenced by

meta-analyses associated with these behaviors. They include consideration, initiating structure, contingent rewards,

and transformational leadership. Because these leadership behaviors are considered to be conceptually distinct and

developed from different theoretical perspectives, researchers have relied upon different theoretical mechanisms

when explaining the relation between each behavior and follower performance. Because the theoretical mediating

mechanisms vary across leadership behaviors, we investigate each leadership behavior separately.

In an effort to prune and refine the theoretical rationales and mechanisms involved in the leadership behaviors–

follower performance relations, we first identified the theories and theoretical mechanisms that are most prevalent.

As noted earlier, there are a few mediating mechanisms and theories that we did not include in our MASEM

because of the lack of sufficient empirical research. While this does leave out potential mediating mechanisms

and respective theories, the lack of empirical research on those mechanisms is an initial indication that perhaps they

are not as theoretically strong or interesting as those mediating mechanisms and theories that we were able to

include in our study. Further, if a particular mediating mechanism or theory not heavily researched and conse-

quently not included in our study is believed to be a valid competing explanation for why leadership behaviors lead

to follower performance, our results are informative because they serve as a benchmark and baseline against which

to compare those alternative explanations in the future.

Consideration and initiating structure

In the 1950s and 1960s a series of studies identified two factors related to leader effectiveness (i.e., Ohio State lead-

ership behaviors): consideration and initiating structure (see Stogdill, 1950). Consideration is the degree to which a

leader emphasizes relationships by showing concern and respect for followers, looking out for their welfare, and

expressing appreciation and support (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006; Judge et al., 2004).

Initiating structure is the degree to which a leader organizes his role and the roles of his followers, is oriented toward

the accomplishment of task objectives, and establishes well defined patterns and channels of communication (Burke

et al., 2006; Judge et al., 2004).

Consideration and initiating structure were the focus of much of the research in the leadership domain from the

time of their creation through the early 1970s. A significant portion of this research used these two leadership

behaviors to examine path-goal theory (Judge et al., 2004; Wofford & Liska, 1993), which identified followers’

satisfaction and motivation as important theoretical mechanisms involved in the relation between leadership and

follower performance (Wofford & Liska, 1993). More specifically, it has been common for leadership researchers

to suggest that relationship-oriented leadership (which historically included consideration) creates positive affect,

usually measured in the form of follower job satisfaction and/or satisfaction with the leader, which in turn leads

to increased performance (House, 1971). Additionally, in explaining why task-oriented leadership (which

historically included initiating structure) was related to follower performance, researchers have sugge sted that

task-oriented leadership increases motivation, commonly measured as a reduction in role ambiguity and role

conflict, which in turn leads to increased performance (House, 1971)

Additionally, strong relations between (i) these leadership behaviors and commitment (Luthans, Baack, & Taylor,

1987; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Wofford & Liska, 1993) and (ii) commitment and follower performance (Meyer,

Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) identifies commitment and commitment theory as an alternative

explanation for why the two Ohio State leadership behaviors relate to follower performance. This rationale suggests

that consideration and initiating structure should enhance followers’desire to remain members of the organization,

which in turn should lead to improved performance.

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 38, 558–591 (2017)

DOI: 10.1002/job

560 R. K. GOTTFREDSON AND H. AGUINIS