1

Stephanie Simon
Trinity University
Leadership Communication
2/11/2014
Leadership Communication Abstract

Vries, Pieper and Oostenveld (2010) investigated the role of communication in terms
of leadership outcomes for various leadership styles: charismatic leadership, human-oriented
leadership, and task-oriented leadership. They hoped to determine if communication was a
key component in leadership, and if so, what specific communication styles contributed the
most to a leaders success. The researchers hypothesized that charismatic and human-
oriented leadership would be more dependent on communication styles than task-oriented
leadership, and that the communication styles would explain for perceived leader
performance, satisfaction with the leader, followers commitment, and knowledge sharing
between the follower and the leader.
In order to test this hypothesis, Vries Pieper and Oostenveld (2010) surveyed 279
employees of a governmental organization. In the survey, six main communication styles
were operationalized: verbal aggressiveness, expressiveness, preciseness, assuredness,
supportiveness, and argumentativeness. A regression analysis was used to determine the
results. The results supported the hypothesis that charismatic leadership human oriented
leadership styles were grounded in communication styles. Additionally, the results suggested
that task oriented leadership is much less communicative than both charismatic and human
oriented leadership styles, and is considered to be more managerial. However, the study
determined that charismatic leadership and human oriented leadership styles are
characterized by a different communication profile; Human Oriented leadership style is
associated with leaders expressiveness and charismatic leadership is not associated with
2

expressiveness. The study also found that leadership supportiveness was a necessary
communication style for all three leadership styles, and contributed to leadership success.
Finally, leadership preciseness was significantly positively correlated with perceived leader
performance and leader satisfaction.
The study used successful techniques that strengthened the overall article. The
authors successfully proved the originality/value of the study by suggesting that it was the
first study to use a comprehensive communication style instrument in the field of leadership
(Vries, Pieper & Oostenveld, 2010). By demonstrating its originality, the authors were able
to prove the necessity of their study. Vries, Pieper and Oostenvelds article was also
strengthened by its use of empirical research to prove their hypothesis. Because their study
allowed for quantifiable data, the authors could statistically prove if the legitimacy of their
hypothesis. Finally, the authors discussion of real world applications of their results
contributed to the articles success. The authors suggested that results could lend itself useful
for future leadership trainings and team management. Because Vries, Pieper Oostenveld
proved that their article had merits beyond the academic field, the importance of their article
was strengthened.
The study also proved to have limitations that made their overall experiment weaker.
First, the authors suggested that the data was only obtained by one organization, and this
organization was a governmental organization (Vries, Pieper & Oostenveld, 2010). Because the
data was tested on a group that held positions in a singular work environment, the experimenters
cannot be certain that the results would prove significant/ be applicable in diverse work
environments, such as a professional sports team or a restaurant business. Additionally, Vries,
Pieper and Oostenveld only measured the predictor and criteria variables using a singular
3

method. While the authors did note that the use of a single method was due to the impossibility
of using a different measurement form, it none the less lends itself to the possibility of method
bias, or the possibility that the measurement did not properly measure the extent to which
communication styles impact various leadership performances. If the method was indeed biased,
than the results may no longer be statistically significant.
I was personally very impressed and intrigued by the results of the article and the article
in general. As mentioned by the authors, their study was the first to implement a comprehensive
communication style instrument in the field of leadership (Vries, Pieper & Oostenveld, 2010).
Although case studies, logic, and observational analysis has previous confirmed that
communication styles are indeed an important factor in leadership, I really appreciated that the
article was able to empirically test this notion through an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
design. I also thought it was interesting that supportiveness was an important communication
style for all three leadership styles. Traditionally, one may assume that task-oriented leadership a
more production oriented approach, and therefore task-oriented leadership may not be as
concerned with personal support. However, task-oriented leadership still may require supportive
communication, for followers must feel competent in order to produce and complete tasks.
Finally, I was surprised that task-oriented leadership was not grounded more in communication
style. Although task-oriented leadership is very much concerned with production, I assumed that
communication style would impact the quantity/quality of the production. However, the success
of task-oriented leadership, in general, appeared to function independently from various
communication styles.
The results of the article are very much applicable and relevant to our Leadership and
Communication Class. The article supports the idea of the Functional Leadership Model, in that
4

it looks at the various behaviors, or in this case, communication styles that effective leaders use
to achieve success. The results demonstrate that leadership is not an innate trait that you are born
with, but rather something that can be learned and improved by tweaking ones personal
communication style (Vries, Pieper & Oostenveld, 2010). Additionally, the article supports a
situational approach to leadership, in that the effectiveness of a leader is dependent on how the
leader adapts their leadership style to fit the needs of the situation. The results validate that
successful communication styles are not universal for every leadership situation, and depend on
whether the leader is implementing charismatic leadership, human-oriented leadership, or task-
oriented leadership. Finally, the results of the article empirically prove the valuableness of our
class in general. Because Vries, Pieper and Oostenveld (2010) proved that charismatic leadership
human oriented leadership styles are grounded in communication styles, it is crucial to
understand leadership through a communicative approach. Therefore, because our class helps us
gain further insights into the leadership communication, we will be able to implement this
knowledge in our future leadership positions.



Works Cited

De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = Communication?
The Relations of Leaders Communication Styles with Leadership Styles, Knowledge
Sharing and Leadership Outcomes. Journal Of Business & Psychology, 25(3), 367-380.
doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2