1. Communication is central to leadership, but few studies have operationalized communication styles used by leaders in daily transactions with subordinates.
2. A lexical study uncovered seven main communication style dimensions: Expressiveness, Preciseness, Niceness, Supportiveness, Verbal Aggressiveness, (Expressed) Emotional Tension (or, reversed, Assuredness), and Argumentativeness.
3. Results suggest that a supportive communication style is associated with higher satisfaction among patients and students, while a dominant style may be associated with less satisfaction and less favorable outcomes. Knowledge sharing may be an intermediate concept affected by communication styles and may determine team performance and satisfaction.
The article "Leadership = Communication? The Relations of Leaders’ Communication Styles with Leadership Styles, Knowledge Sharing and Leadership Outcomes" explores the relationship between communication styles and leadership outcomes. While the article provides a comprehensive overview of the literature on communication styles, it suffers from several biases and limitations.
One of the main biases in the article is its focus on a limited set of communication styles. The authors rely heavily on De Vries et al.'s (2009) lexical study to identify seven main communication style dimensions. However, this approach overlooks other important dimensions of communication styles that have been identified in previous research. For example, Gudykunst et al. (1996) identified eight factors that were not covered by De Vries et al.'s study.
Another limitation of the article is its narrow focus on certain types of leadership outcomes. The authors primarily examine the relationship between communication styles and satisfaction among patients, students, and family members. While these outcomes are important, they do not provide a comprehensive picture of how communication styles affect leadership outcomes more broadly.
Moreover, the article does not adequately address potential confounding variables that may affect the relationship between communication styles and leadership outcomes. For example, it is possible that leaders who use dominant communication styles are more likely to be successful in certain contexts because they are more assertive or confident, rather than because their communication style is inherently effective.
Finally, the article suffers from a lack of exploration of counterarguments or alternative perspectives. The authors present their findings as if they are definitive without acknowledging potential limitations or alternative explanations for their results.
Overall, while "Leadership = Communication?" provides a useful overview of research on communication styles and leadership outcomes, it would benefit from a more nuanced approach that considers a broader range of communication style dimensions and examines a wider range of leadership outcomes while also addressing potential confounding variables and exploring alternative perspectives.