low on people-oriented leadership as well. The most important conclusion to be drawn from this first
observation, is that from the leader point of view, task- and people-oriented leadership do not
represent mutually exclusive categories, as was opted in the chapter four. However, this result does
not imply that the leader actually performs both functions equally well. This would require
observations from others.
A second observation is the overlap between behaviors. Transactional and task-oriented leadership
showed a strong overlap, to the extent that they seemed to represent a same factor. Transformational
leadership partly overlapped with people-oriented leadership, yet it was distinct to the extent that
transformational leadership included a long term focus and a focus on innovation. This seemed to be a
separate factor, distinct from task- or people-oriented leadership. This factor requires further analysis
and further theoretical analysis. This topic is elaborated in the main text of this dissertation.
A third point of discussion deals with the primary tensions that were identified in the answers to the
open question, ³do you feel there are tensions underlying your role as a leader? If so, can you shortly
describe the tension? ́ The answers to this question could be clustered around two opposite tensions,
i.e. an internal tension between task- and people-oriented leadership and a tension dealing with the
interaction of the organization with its environment, between short-term and long-term oriented
leadership. The latter seems to deal with was has been called strategic leadership. The notion has not
been operationalized yet. This is one of the aims of the dissertation and is taken up in the main text of
the dissertation.
Limitations
An important limitation of this pilot study is that it did not include all items of the different previous
measurement instruments, i.e. the LBDQ (for measuring initiating structure and consideration) and the
MLQ (transformational and transactional). Another limitation concerns the fact that it is a self-
assessment. As has been seen in terms of the discrepancies betweeQ RQH¶V VHOI-view and the
observations of others. Self-ratings tend to be inflated, suffering from leniency and social desirability
biases (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Second, self-ratings are less highly related to ratings by others (i.e.
peers, supervisors, or subRUGLQDWHV WKDQSHHUV¶VXSHUYLVRUV¶DQGVXERUGLQDWHV¶UDWLQJVDUHZLWKRQH
another (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). This may also have implications for the relationship between
opposite leader behaviors. As mentioned earlier, the self-assessment of initiating structure and
consideration and the assessment by subordinates on the same dimensions resulted in different
outcomes in terms of the independence of the two dimensions (Weissenberg & Kavanagh, 1972).