The Leadership Behavior of the Administrators of La Consolacion University Philippines:
Basis for an Action Plan for Professional Development
Mark Rey C. Santos
Mariefe B. Cruz
Patrick Bryan Teodoro
Joanna Marie Sanchez
La Consolacion University Philippines
ABSTRACT
The study used the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) as a lens to examine leadership behavior at La Consolacion University Philippines. The LBDQ is a widely used instrument for assessing leadership styles through the lens of two core dimensions: the initiating structure (IS) and the consideration (C). The survey was conducted in SY 2024-2025 with 25 administrators who were asked to self-assess their leadership behavior. The survey results were organized and analyzed, leading to the development of an action plan, which may be recommended to them to reach a good balance between the dimensions. It was found that there is no significant difference between the self-ratings of the university administrators in terms of their consideration and initiating leadership behaviors. The study identified several key areas for development based on the least-rated indicators of both the consideration and initiation leadership behaviors that directly focus on task management and clarity. It is recommended that advanced training on strategic planning and innovation management be explored. This study's findings can inform administrators' professional development programs, ensuring they can negotiate the intricacies of contemporary education.
keywords: lbdq, leadership behavior, la consolacion university philippines, leadership style
INTRODUCTION
The ever-changing global economy challenges leadership, notably in the educational sector (Hinkin & Newman, 2019). Leadership styles must adapt to keep pace with an increasingly complicated and competitive society. This is particularly true in today's unstable educational environment, where the ability of administrators to motivate teachers and accomplish institutional objectives is critical.
With this, the significance of effective leadership is emphasized even more. Recent studies like that of Leithwood et al. (2020) highlight the role of leaders in fostering a positive school culture, ultimately leading to stronger collaborations among peers and influencing student achievement. The study of Pont et. al (2018) further highlights this significance by discussing educational leaders’ critical roles in navigating the ever-changing academic landscape, especially in its intersections with technological advancements and societal demands amongst educational institutions.
The concept of flexible leadership, where leaders modify their approach to best suit the environment, has gained ground in recent years (Avolio et al., 2019). This study uses the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) as a lens to examine leadership behavior at La Consolacion University Philippines.
The research included all available administrators during the conduct of the study, including the president, vice presidents, department heads/directors, deans, principal, assistant principals, subject area coordinators, and program heads. The focus is identifying the dominant leadership style between initiating structure (task orientation) and consideration (relationship-building).
By thoroughly understanding their leadership behavior, administrators can identify areas for growth, best practices, and strengths. This study's findings can inform administrators' professional development programs, ensuring they can negotiate the intricacies of contemporary education.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The LBDQ offers a valuable theoretical framework for understanding leadership behavior through its focus on Initiating Structure and Consideration. This framework can be applied for leadership style identification, development, and exploring leadership effectiveness. While limitations exist, the LBDQ remains a foundational tool for leadership research and is relevant in today's dynamic organizational landscape.
The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) provides a framework for understanding leadership style through the lens of two core dimensions: the initiating structure and the consideration. The initiating structure assesses a leader's task orientation. Leaders high in IS focus on defining roles, setting clear goals, and planning activities effectively (Avolio et al., 2019). They provide structure and ensure team members understand their responsibilities and how their work contributes to organizational goals. On the other hand, the consideration measures a leader's focus on fostering positive relationships with team members. Leaders who are high in consideration show empathy and respect for ideas and create a supportive work environment (Judge et al., 2004, cited by Liao et al., 2019). They prioritize building trust and psychological safety, encouraging open communication and collaboration.
The LBDQ framework can be applied in various ways to understand leadership behavior. The LBDQ can identify a leader's dominant style (high IS, high C, balanced, etc.) by analyzing scores on the IS and C scales. Understanding leadership style through the LBDQ can inform development programs. Leaders can identify strengths and weaknesses, focusing on areas for improvement, such as enhancing consideration skills or becoming more adept at initiating structure. Leadership style, as measured by the LBDQ, can be linked to various organizational outcomes. Research suggests that a balanced approach with both high IS and high C is often associated with positive employee outcomes like job satisfaction and performance (Wang et al., 2019). Additionally, recent studies explore the connection between Consideration and leader effectiveness in fostering team innovation (Zhang et al., 2019).
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Figure 1. The Research Process
The framework shows the different stages that the research underwent. The 1st frame is the preliminary stage, which includes the instrument's preparation from the downloading to its reproduction. The 2nd frame is the evaluation stage, where the instrument was given to all the administrators to answer. The 3rd frame is the presentation and analysis of data. This is where the survey results were organized and analyzed, leading to the development of an action plan for LCUP admin.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The study focused on determining whether the leadership behavior of the administrators of La Consolacion University Philippines is more of consideration or initiation, whether they strike a good balance, and what professional development topics may need reinforcement to improve their leadership skills.
Specifically, the study sought answers to the following questions:
How may the self-rating of the university administrators on their Consideration Leadership Behavior be described?
How may the self-rating of the university administrators on their Initiating Leadership Behavior be described?
Is there a significant difference in the university administrators’ self-rating in terms of their consideration and initiating leadership behavior?
What action plan may be proposed based on the findings of this study?
HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
There is no significant difference between the self-rating of the university administrators in terms of their consideration and initiating leadership behavior.
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION
The study surveyed all the available administrators of La Consolacion University Philippines using the LBDQ instrument. The intention is to assess the leadership behavior of the administrators in the university and determine which dimension is more prominent in them to develop an action plan that may be recommended to them to reach a good balance between the dimensions. The study was conducted in SY 2024-2025 with 25 administrators who were asked to self-assess their leadership behavior by answering the LBDQ. This study did not include implementing the action plan and is only limited to the development of the plan based on the study results.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study used a descriptive design. A descriptive research design aims to systematically gather information about the characteristics of a population or phenomenon (Punch et al., 2017). It focuses on answering "who," "what," "where," "when," and "how" questions, providing a detailed picture of the current state of a situation. This research design often collects data from surveys, interviews, or observations. A descriptive research design with a survey instrument aligns with describing the Admin's leadership behavior through data collection and analysis.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents are the 25 administrators of LCUP for SY 2024-2025 who were available and willing to participate in the study. There are 3 from the senior leadership and 22 from the middle leadership, for a total of 25.
Instrument/s of the Study
The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) is a widely used instrument for assessing leadership styles through two core dimensions: Initiating Structure (IS) and Consideration (C). IS measures a leader's task orientation, while Consideration assesses their focus on building positive relationships with team members.
The LBDQ boasts strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable and valid tool for leadership research. Reliability refers to the consistency of the measure, and studies have shown the LBDQ to have high test-retest reliability coefficients, typically exceeding .80 for both IS and C (Halpin, 1957; Bass, 1990). This indicates that scores are stable over time if the leader's behavior hasn't changed significantly. Validity refers to whether the LBDQ measures what it claims to measure. Convergent validity evidence comes from studies showing correlations between LBDQ scores and other leadership measures (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1974). Additionally, discriminant validity is supported by findings that LBDQ dimensions are distinct from other personality traits (Judge et al., 2004).
More recent leadership research often builds upon the LBDQ's framework, focusing on how Consideration and Initiating Structure relate to leadership effectiveness in various contexts (e.g., Wang et al., 2019). These studies might not explicitly re-evaluate the LBDQ's reliability and validity but rely on its established reputation.
Data Collection and Analysis
The following steps were followed in the collection and analysis of the data:
The researcher sought permission from the university president to conduct the study.
Upon receiving the permission, all the administrators who were available and were willing to participate were asked to answer the LBDQ.
The questionnaire was retrieved.
The results were summarized. The average rating for each element in the consideration and initiating dimensions was computed.
The data were subjected to hypothesis testing using the student's t-test
Ethical Considerations
Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, objectives, and procedures and provided with a detailed explanation. They were assured that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without consequences.
The survey instrument was designed to ensure anonymity by not collecting any personal or identifiable information. This guaranteed that responses could not be traced back to individual participants.
All collected data were securely stored and accessible only to authorized personnel involved in the study. This ensured that confidentiality was maintained throughout the research process.
The study complied with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 to protect participants' personal data. All data handling procedures, including collection, processing, and storage, followed the law’s provisions.
Participants were explicitly informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. They were assured there would be no repercussions for choosing to discontinue participation.
Researchers ensured transparency by explaining the ethical safeguards of the study. All actions were guided by respect for participants' rights and adherence to ethical research standards.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Self-rating of the University Administrators of their Consideration Leadership Behavior
Table 1 presents the self-ratings of administrators on their Consideration Leadership Behavior, highlighting their self-perception in various leadership aspects. The highest-rated behaviors include finding time to listen to group members (4.76), treating all group members as equals (4.64), and being friendly and approachable (4.60). These scores suggest that administrators prioritize accessibility, equality, and approachability in their leadership style. Other behaviors, such as being willing to make changes (4.44), looking out for the personal welfare of individual group members (4.52), and backing up members in their actions (4.28), are also rated relatively high, indicating a supportive and adaptable approach. Conversely, the lowest ratings were given to doing personal favors for group members (2.72) and doing little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group (3.28), suggesting these behaviors are less emphasized or viewed as less critical by the administrators. Overall, the high rankings for listening to group members, treating them as equals, and being approachable highlight a leadership style focused on open communication and equitable treatment, whereas lower ratings in doing personal favors and creating a pleasant environment indicate potential areas for improvement. These findings align with recent studies highlighting the importance of considerate leadership in fostering employee satisfaction and organizational commitment. For example, Zhang et. al. (2019) discussed that leaders who exhibit high levels of consideration create psychologically safe environments, which in turn encourage innovation and collaboration among team members. Similarly, Wang et al. (2020) also emphasized that supportive leadership behaviors positively impact team morale and enhance their productivity. These studies further support the value of considerate leadership behavior in achieving effectiveness in the workplace.
Table 1
Self-rating of the University Administrators on their Consideration Leadership Behavior
Self-rating of the University Administrators of their Initiation Leadership Behavior
The results of Table 2 reveal the self-ratings of University Administrators regarding their Initiation Leadership Behavior, with an overall average rating of 4.11. This indicates a generally positive self-assessment of their ability to direct their respective teams effectively. The highest-rated behavior is “letting group members know what is expected of them”, with an average rating of 4.64. This reflects a strong ability for direction-setting, which may foster accountability and transparency amongst their members. Similarly, there were also high average ratings for “scheduling work to be done” and “making sure that one’s part in the organization is understood by group members”, both having an average rating of 4.60. Both indicators show possible strengths in organizational and communication skills, which are both vital in the effective and efficient day-to-day and long-term operations of their respective units. Conversely, the lowest rated indicators were “rules with an iron hand” with a rating of 2.28, followed by “criticizes poor work” with a rating of 2.64, and “speaks in a manner not to be questioned” with a rating of 2.84. These lowest-rated indicators suggest that university administrators tend to avoid acts emanating from authoritarian leadership styles, favoring more collaborative, democratic approaches. While this democratic style promotes trust and boosts morale, the low score of providing critical feedback may indicate a potential area for growth, as constructive criticism may be seen as a vital tool for the improvement of operations and individual performances. This table highlights the university administrators’ strengths in clear communication and coordination, aligning with research emphasizing clear communication and structured leadership as key factors that build trust and foster productive and collaborative work environments (Hurley, 2020). Conversely, the indicators that show low ratings reflect a shift towards more collaborative and democratic styles of leadership, instead of authoritarian strategies. Research done by Wadham et al. (2024) supports this approach, showing that democratic styles of leadership, as characterized by participation and shared decision-making, promote trust and morale, essential for creating and cultivating inclusive and effective organizational environments.
Table 2
Self-rating of the University Administrators on their Initiation Leadership Behavior
Test of Significant Difference Between the Self-rating of the University Administrators in Terms of Their Consideration and Initiation Leadership Behavior
Table 3 presents the results of a t-test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the consideration and initiation leadership behaviors of the university administrators. The mean scores for consideration and initiation behaviors are 4.18 and 4.11, respectively, with standard deviations of 0.82 and 0.71. The t-value is 0.24108, and the p-value is 0.811252. Since the p-value is greater than alpha (0.05), the null hypothesis (Ho) is not rejected, leading to the conclusion that there is no significant difference between the consideration and initiation leadership behaviors of the university administrators. This suggests that the administrators exhibit similar levels of both types of leadership behaviors.
Table 3
The Test of Significant Difference (t-test) between the Consideration and Initiation Leadership Behavior of the University Administrators
Recommended Action Plan for Professional Development to the University Administrators Based on the Findings of the Study
The least rated indicators from both the consideration and initiation leadership behavior were identified and were used as a basis in determining the topics that will be recommended for further development of the university administrators.
Items in the questionnaire that were rated low:
Does personal favors for group members.
Do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group.
Can easily be understood.
Refuses to explain one’s actions.
Acts without consulting the group.
Makes one’s attitude clear to the group.
Tries out new ideas with the group.
Rules with an iron hand.
Criticizes poor work.
Speaks in a manner not to be questioned
Recommended Topics for Professional Development of University Administrators:
Effective Communication
Effective communication involves actively listening to others, expressing oneself clearly, and resolving conflicts constructively. By developing these skills, leaders can build stronger relationships, improve teamwork, and achieve better outcomes.
Collaborative Leadership
Collaborative leadership emphasizes teamwork, delegation, and shared decision-making. By fostering a collaborative environment, leaders can empower team members, increase motivation, and promote innovation.
Ethical Leadership
Ethical leadership involves demonstrating honesty, integrity, and fairness in all interactions. Ethical leaders prioritize the well-being of their team members and uphold high standards of conduct.
Self-Awareness and Emotional Intelligence
Self-awareness and emotional intelligence involve understanding one's own emotions and the emotions of others. By developing these skills, leaders can build stronger relationships, manage stress effectively, and make sound decisions.
Action Plan for Improving the Leadership Behavior of LCUP Admin
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were derived:
The university administrators exhibit a high level of Consideration Leadership behavior, emphasizing values such as inclusivity, open communication, and relational support. Their strongest traits include being approachable, listening to group members, and treating team members equitably. However, certain areas, such as performing personal favors and fostering a pleasant work atmosphere through small gestures, received lower ratings. These findings suggest potential opportunities for consideration in fostering a more engaging and supportive environment.
The university administrators display strong initiating leadership behaviors, focusing on clarity, organization, and effective task management. High ratings in indicators like defining expectations, scheduling tasks, and ensuring clarity of roles underscore their ability to manage and direct their teams efficiently. Lower ratings in authoritarian traits, such as ruling with an iron hand and criticizing poor work, suggest a preference for collaborative and democratic leadership styles.
It was found that there is no significant difference between the self-ratings of university administrators in their consideration and initiating leadership behaviors. Both leadership behaviors are well-developed, possibly indicating that the university administrators strive to balance out task-oriented and relations-oriented leadership styles in their respective teams.
The study identified several key areas for development based on the least-rated indicators of both the consideration and initiating leadership behaviors. Recommended topics include “Effective Communication”, to enhance clarity, especially in terms of direction-setting and foster an open dialogue amongst team members; “Collaborative Leadership”, to strengthen teamwork, shared decision-making, and shared accountability; “Ethical Leadership”, to provide strategies in prioritizing the well-being of their team members and upholding the highest standards of conduct; and “Self-awareness and Emotional Intelligence”, to improve interpersonal understanding and adaptability. These key areas for development aim to further foster balanced and effective administrative practices.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions derived from the findings, the following are hereby recommended:
For the high level of consideration leadership behavior demonstrated by the university administrators, it is recommended to further reinforce these strengths through workshops that center on enhancing inclusivity, open communication, and relational support. Additionally, programs that aim to create more engaging and supportive spaces in the workplace should also be considered.
Given the university administrators’ strong initiating leadership behaviors that directly focus on task management and clarity, it is recommended that advanced training on strategic planning and innovation management be explored. This may enable university administrators to build upon their organizational traits and introduce more innovative approaches in crafting solutions for challenges that may be faced.
To address the balance observed between consideration and initiating leadership behaviors, professional development programs should aim to integrate these styles further, especially during In-Service Training and Executive Courses on School Leadership. Topics such as adaptive leadership and decision-making in complex environments can help administrators effectively blend relational and task-oriented leadership.
Based on the identified development areas, specific training should include effective communication, collaborative leadership, ethical decision-making, and emotional intelligence. These topics will help administrators address gaps, such as providing constructive feedback and fostering a collegial and supportive atmosphere.
Additional recommendations for further studies may be pursued in terms of exploring the impact of these leadership behaviors on employee satisfaction, particularly with the younger generation, or in a wider scope, the overall institutional effectiveness. Additionally, studying the role of cultural and contextual factors in shaping these kinds of leadership behaviors may offer valuable insights in understanding the leadership behaviors of key university administrators, and may also serve as a basis for determining their best practices and most cherished values as leaders.
References
Avolio, B. J., Erdogan, B., & Hofmann, D. A. (2019). Leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 45(1), 324–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318814326
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (Vol. 1). Free Press.
Halpin, A. W. (1957). The Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire. Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.
Hinkin, T. R., & Newman, J. A. (2019). A review of the cross-level leadership literature: Integration, questions, directions. Journal of Management, 45(1), 22–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318808028
Ingersoll, R., Sirinides, P., & Dougherty, P. (2019). Teachers' roles in leadership and school performance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1038828.pdf
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). The dispositional mind in context: The role of conscientiousness and agreeableness in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.165
Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Coleman, B. (2020). Leading for equity in schools: A review of what we know. School Leadership & Management, 40(1–2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1574964
Liao, H., Liu, M., Wayne, S. J., & Francesco, A. M. (2017). How leader consideration fosters knowledge sharing via team psychological safety: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2), 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000169
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Hopkins, D. (2018). Enhancing school leadership: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(5), 789–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18761341
Punch, K., Bryant, P., & Collinson, D. (2017). Research methods in education. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Schriesheim, J. E., & Kerr, S. (1974). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(2), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(74)90013-6
Wadham, R., et al. (2024). Democratic education as expressed in practice. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1430345.pdf
Wang, Y., Zhou, J., & Zhu, W. (2019). Servant leadership, employee psychological safety, and employee voice: Examining the mediating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 56(7), 1203–1224. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12429
Zhang, J., Waldman, D. A., & Liu, N. (2019). Servant leadership, team psychological safety, and knowledge sharing: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3799-3
