What is the difference between consideration and initiating structure?

References

  • Bales, R.F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.),Readings in social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R.F., & Slater, P.E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. In T. Parsons, R.F. Bales, J. Olds, M. Zelditch, Jr., & P.E. Slater (Eds.),Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964).The Managerial grid. Houston, Texas: Gulf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, P. (1972). Leadership role differentiation. In C.G. McClintock (Ed.),Experimental social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, F.E. (1967).A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, F.E., Chemers, M.M., & Mahar, L. (1976).Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match concept. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E.A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman, E.A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E.A. Fleishman & J. Hunt (Eds.),Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman, E.A., & Harris, E.F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover.Personnel Psychology, 15, 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman, E.A., Harris, E.F., & Burtt, H.E. (1955).Leadership and supervision in industry. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foa, U., Mitchell, T., & Fiedler, F. (1971). Differentiation matching.Behavioral Science, 16, 130–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halpin, A.W., & Winer, B.J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R.M. Stogdill & A.E. Coons (Eds.),Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: College of Administrative Science, Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, D. (1978).A critical evaluation of Fiedler’s predictor measures of leadership effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick.

  • Hosking, D. (1979a). A critical evaluation of the “goal hierarchy” interpretation of LPC scores.University of Aston Management Centre Working Paper Series, no. 136.

  • Hosking, D. (1979b). Differentiation matching and Fiedler’s contingency hypothesis: A critique.University of Aston Management Centre Working Paper Series, no. 139.

  • Hosking, D. (1981). A critical evaluation of Fiedler’s contingency hypothesis. In G.M. Stephenson & J.H. Davis (Eds.),Progress in applied social psychology (vol. 1). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosking, D., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1980). Issues and non-issues in group interactions. Unpublished paper, Department of Organizational Behavior, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1974). Consideration, initiating structure and organizational criteria: An update of Korman’s 1966 review.Personnel Psychology, 27, 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C.A., Murphy, C.J., & Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korman, A.K. (1966). “Consideration,” “initiating structure,” and organizational criteria: A review.Personnel Psychology, 19, 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, L.L., Hunt, J.G., & Osborn, R.N. (1976). The great hi-hi leader behavior myth: A lesson from Occam’s razor.Academy of Management Journal, 19, 628–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowin, A., Hrapchak, W.J., & Kavanagh, M.J. (1969). Consideration and initiating structure: An experimental investigation of leadership traits.Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, N.R.F. (1952).Principles of human relations. New York. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reddin, W.J. (1970).Managerial effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C., & Kerr, S. (1974). Psychometric properties of the Ohio State leadership scales.Psychological Bulletin, 81, 756–765.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. (1969).Social psychology. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stogdill, R.E. (1973). Discussant’s comments and general discussion. Reported in E.A. Fleishman & J.G. Hunt (Eds.),Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V.H. (1960).Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissenberg, P., & Kavanagh, M.J. (1972). The independence of initiating structure and consideration: A review of the evidencePersonnel Psychology, 25, 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

What is initiating structure and consideration?

According to the findings of these studies, leaders exhibit two types of behaviors to facilitate goal accomplishment: People-oriented (consideration) Task oriented (initiating structure)

Which of the following is an example of initiating structure?

Assigning tasks to individuals or work groups, letting subordinates know what is expected of them, deciding how work should be done, making schedules, encouraging adherence to rules and regulations, and motivating subordinates to do a good job are all examples of initiating structure.

Are consideration and initiating structure mutually exclusive?

The Ohio State Leadership Studies also showed that initiating structure and consideration are two distinct dimensions and not mutually exclusive.

What are the two main dimensions of the Ohio studies into leadership?

The two dimensions of leadership behavior as per the Ohio state studies are initiating structure and consideration.