Advancing the Transformational–Transactional Model of Effective Leadership: Integrating two Classic Leadership Models with a Video‐Based Method

Celeste P.M Wilderom,Marcella A.M.G Hoogeboom

doi:10.1002/jls.21655

Abstract

The presented empirical study demonstrates that the predictive validity of Bass' “transformational‐transactional” model of leadership can be enhanced by incorporating certain aspects of the older Ohio State “initiating structure‐consideration” model of leadership. A precise, fine‐grained video‐based method shows that “initiating structure” behaviors (e.g., directing, informing, structuring) explained the variance in leader and team effectiveness better than “transactional behavior.” Thus, a refined version of Bass' augmentation thesis is supported: initiating structure behaviors (and not transactional behaviors, as originally posed) plus transformational leader behaviors are associated with high leader effectiveness. Another moderation effect of transformational leadership is established: between management‐by‐exception active and team effectiveness. The resulting expanded version of the transformational–transactional model calls for further video‐based research of effective (team) leadership behaviors.

Highlights

The transformational–transactional model has been the dominant model for explaining leader effectiveness
The present study examined whether (a) the effects of both classic leadership models might be dependent on each other, (b) extending Bass’ model with the usual task behavior is viable, and (c) the newly integrated model can explain most of the variance between the frequently used outcome criteria (Meuser et al, 2016): see, Figure 1
contingent reward (CR) is significantly related to team effectiveness (r = .27, p < .05)

Summary

Introduction

The transformational–transactional model has been the dominant model for explaining leader effectiveness. The Ohio State model had been dominating the leadership field much longer. Numerous leadership scholars have voiced the need to integrate both models (e.g., Avolio, 2007; Behrendt, Matz, & Göritz, 2017; Dansereau, Seitz, Chiu, Shaughnessy, & Yammarino, 2013; DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Most studies examined both models in isolation (i.e., compartmentalization: Glynn & Raffaelli, 2010) even though both of them comprise task- as well as relation-oriented leader behaviors (DeRue et al, 2011). The correspondence between both behavioral metacategories and the two leadership models has been imprecise (Behrendt et al, 2017; DeRue et al, 2011). A simultaneous re-examination of both models would need to overcome several other criticisms

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion