Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Person-thing orientation within an interactional model of leader behavior Mains, Gordon W. 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A4_6 M33.pdf [ 7.35MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094236.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094236-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094236-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094236-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094236-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094236-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094236-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094236-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094236.ris

Full Text

PERSON-THING ORIENTATION WITHIN AN INTERACTIONAL MODEL OF LEADER BEHAVIOR by GORDON W. MAINS B.A., University of Briti s h Columbia, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION) in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Commerce and Business Administration) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Ap r i l , 1978 © Gordon Wilfred Mains, 19 78 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d tha t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 - i '-ABSTRACT A s i m p l i f i e d i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of leader behavior was t h e o r e t i -c a l l y developed by reviewing the v a r i e t y of approaches to the study of le a d e r s h i p and i n t e g r a t i n g some of the more recent major concerns. The model was conc e p t u a l i z e d as i n c l u d i n g two o r i g i n a l independent v a r i a b l e components - the person (leader) and the s i t u a t i o n - w i t h a continuous r e c i p r o c a l i n f l u e n c e between them so as to produce a t h e o r e t i c a l h y b r i d i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i a b l e . The dependent v a r i a b l e s c o n s i s t e d of the leader behavior dimensions of I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e and Consideration. The per-son component was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by u t i l i z i n g the co n s t r u c t of Person-Thing o r i e n t a t i o n from s p e c i a l i z a t i o n theory and the s i t u a t i o n component by c r e a t i n g and c a t e g o r i z i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n terms of t h e i r people-thing nature. The dependent v a r i a b l e s were measured by a s e l f - r a t i n g behavior c h e c k l i s t . 244 subjects were administered a questionnaire which assessed t h e i r Person-Thing o r i e n t a t i o n , asked f o r t h e i r perceptions of three s i t -uations i n terms of t h e i r nature, and s o l i c i t e d t h e i r responses i n terms of how they would behave as a leader i n each s i t u a t i o n . A n a l y s i s of the data was c a r r i e d out (1) to t e s t f o r the e x i s t -ence of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n between the person and s i t u a t i o n v a r i a -b l e s , (2) to t e s t f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Person o r i e n t a -t i o n and Co n s i d e r a t i o n behavior, and, between Thing o r i e n t a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e behavior, and (3) to tes.t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n behav-i o r a l responses as i n f l u e n c e d by both a person's s p e c i a l i s t o r i e n t a t i o n and the nature of the s i t u a t i o n . - i i -The r e s u l t s tended to support the ex i s t e n c e of a t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t as conceptually defined between the person and the s i t u a t i o n i n that both v a r i a b l e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on leader behavior. Person o r i e n t a t i o n and the nature of the s i t u a t i o n p r e d i c t e d a Consideration behavior p r o f i l e between s p e c i a l t i e s and s i t u a t i o n s but Thing o r i e n t a t i o n was not a p r e d i c t o r f o r I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e responses. Instead, I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e was p a r t i a l l y p r e d i c t e d by Person o r i e n t a -t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the two behavior dimensions were found to be h i g h l y interdependent. Subsequent a n a l y s i s discovered the e x i s t e n c e of three behavior dimensions: I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e , C o n s i d e r a t i o n (Being F r i e n d l y ) , and Consideration (Enhancing P a r t i c i p a t i o n ) . The data supported the hypothesized model but r e s u l t e d i n r e j e c t i n g a connection between Thing o r i e n t a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c -ture. - i i i -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i'and i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES .' v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i i i INTRODUCTION 1 - Leadership' Definitions and Approaches 1 - Theoretical and Empirical Considerations 5 - Interaction and Interactional Psychology 14 - A Proposed Interactional Model of Leader Behavior... 24 - Person Component 28 - Situation Component 40 - Behavioral Response Component 44 - Hypothesis Formulation 47 - Hypotheses 53 METHOD 55 - Instrumentation 55 - Pilot Study 58 - Sample 60 - Administration 61 - Analyses 66 RESULTS 69 - Pilot Study 69 - Situations 70 - Specialist Groups 71 - iv -- Dependent Variables 78 - Hypothesis Testing 86 - Post Hoc Analysis 93 - Summary of Results 100 DISCUSSION 103 - Specialist Group 103 - Situations 107 - Dependent Variables 109 - Conclusion I l l BIBLIOGRAPHY 115 APPENDICES A - Study Questionnaire Contents 124 B - Eighteen I n i t i a l Situations 137 C - Pilot Study Questionnaire Instruction 156 D - Pilot Study Results 161 E - Situation Selection - Ranking Instructions 164 - v -LIST OF TABLES Table Page I People and Non-People Ratings of Situations 72 II Correlations between Person and Thing Orientation Scales 74 III Intercorrelations of Person-Thing Orientation Measures 75 IV Re l i a b i l i t i e s of Frost-Barnowe and L i t t l e Measures of Person-Thing Orientation 76 V Person-Thing Orientation Statistics for L i t t l e and Frost-Barnowe Measures 77 VI Correlation Matrix for Consideration and Initiating Structure 81 VII Correlations between Consideration-Initiating Structure and Person-Thing Orientation 82 VIII Mean Leader Behavior Responses by Specialty and Situation 84 IX Analysis of Variance 87 X T-Tests for Hypotheses 2 and 3 - The Predictability of Behavior Response Intensity by Orientation, Across a l l Situations . ... 89 XI Hypothesis 4 T-Tests - Consideration Predictions for Various Combinations of Specialty and Situations 91 - v i -XII Hypothesis 5 T-Tests - Initiating Structure Predictions for Various Combinations of Specialty and Situation 92 XIII Hypothesis 6 T-Tests - Main Predicted Differences between Consideration and Initiating Structure for Select Specialty-Situation Combinations 94 XIV P-T Items Loading (>.4) on Significant (Eigenvalue > 1.0) Factors 96 XV Dependent Variable Behavior Checklist Items -Factor Analysis Results 98 XVI Revised Initiating Structure Predictions and T-Tests, Based on P Orientation as the Predictor.. 101 - v i i -LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Overall conceptual model of leadership 11 2 Simplified interactional model of leader behavior... 26 3 Schematic representation of the four primary specialist groups 34 4 The basic components of a specialization loop 37 5 Predicted consideration behavior profile 51 6 Predicted i n i t i a t i n g structure behavior profile 52 7 Plots for f i n a l five situations as rated by faculty sample 63 8 Repeated measures research design used for each dependent variable 68 9 Allocation of sample to specialist groups 79 10 Graphical presentation of mean consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure responses by specialty and situation 85 - v i i l -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A t h e s i s of t h i s magnitude and length could not have been com-p l e t e d without a great d e a l of support from both i n d i v i d u a l s and organ-i z a t i o n s . Drs Peter F r o s t and Thad Barnowe were the o r i g i n a l i n s p i r i n g and supporting f o r c e s behind i t . My committee of Drs Merle Ace, Vance M i t c h e l l and Mike Gibbins kept the f i r e s burning warmly w h i l e i t was being w r i t t e n 3000 mile s away. Dr B r i a n L i t t l e even moved 2800 miles i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n to continue h i s r e a s s u r i n g and motiving i n -f l u e n c e s . To balance the academic i n p u t s , the Canadian Armed Forces a l s o d i d more than i t s share. They provided a once i n a l i f e time op-p o r t u n i t y , e x c e p t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support and even the research s u b j e c t s . LCol Herb L a b r i e , Commanding O f f i c e r Canadian Forces O f f i c e r Candidate School, h i s s t a f f and o f f i c e r candidates, were i n s t r u m e n t a l i n p r o v i d i n g the data f o r the study. Mrs Simonne C a r d i n a l and Ms Lu c i e Cousineau of College m i l i t a i r e r o y a l de Saint-Jean a l s o went f a r beyond t h e i r c a l l to duty by producing the f i n a l manuscript. In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , E l a i n e deserves the biggest vote of thanks f o r the p a t i e n c e , understanding and support she provided throughout the whole endeavor. This t h e s i s i s not dedicated to her however, as she understands; i t i s dedicated to Kevin and Andrea who do not yet understand i t or the reason behind i t . In the long run, may they become more "people o r i e n t a t e d " because of i t . INTRODUCTION Leadership remains complex and confusing notwithstanding numerous theoretical and empirical attempts directed towards more adequately explaining this phenomenon. There s t i l l is no truly integrative theory or understanding of leadership and despite numerous pleas for new inte-grations and directions in both theory and research (Stogdill, 1974; Hunt & Larson, 1975; Hunt & Larson, 1973; Fleishman & Hunt, 1973; Gibb, 1969), the attainment of such goals continuously remains elusive. This thesis has as i t s goal the conceptualization and development of an unique and integrative model of leader behavior so as to produce a clearer understanding of the nature of leadership. The model w i l l be partially derived from an interactional psychology framework (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 a, b) and w i l l be operationalized and tested using constructs and measures from specialization theory ( L i t t l e , 1972, 1976) plus a variety of leadership approaches. This undertaking therefore has relevance for clarifying and integrating the disjointed leadership f i e l d coupled with possible practical significance for the selecting and training of prospective leaders. Leadership Definitions and Approaches Definitions of leadership are as varied as the personal orienta-tions and theoretical backgrounds of those who have proposed them. For example, Jacobs (1971) defines leadership in terms of social exchange, Hemphill (1949) as behavior directing group a c t i v i t i e s , and Raven and French (1958) as a differential power relationship. Korman (1971) - 2 -describes the leadership phenomenon as a set of social expectations, set of behaviors, as an interactive phenomenon, as an emergent phenomenon and as a set of decisions. Stogdill (1974) l i s t s eleven categorical types of leadership definitions, some being group oriented (group proc-ess, power relations, goal achievement, roles) and some behavior o r i -ented (inducing compliance, influence, persuasion or structure). Also included however are the categories of "personality" and "effect of interaction". What is particularly interesting from such a l i s t is that leadership quite rightly i s a l l of these things and researchers often use more than one definition at the same time. But perhaps more impor-tant, the majority of definitions specify major components or variables. They suggest there must be a (1) person (role and power of leader) who (2) interacts (interaction) with (3) a group (situation which includes followers) by (4) behaving (leader behavior) so as to (5) influence the group's goal attainment. In an even simpler fashion, Gibb (1969: 273) defines leadership as an interactional phenomenon in which "leadership is a function of personality and of the social situation, and of these two in interaction". At a generalized level leadership definitions therefore suggest at least two major categories of independent variables - the person (leader) and the situation (including the physical and social or group characteristics of the situation), plus some sort of interaction between these categories. The overall effect of these fac-tors has an influence (direct or indirect) on how the leader behaves and on how the group reacts (dependent variables). Theoretical approaches, li k e definitions, focus on particular - 3 -considerations of the leadership phenomenon. A model emphasizing group processes w i l l possibly concentrate on group roles and influences with the group being the unit of analysis and group performance or satisfac-tion being the criterion. On the other hand, a model emphasizing leader behavior might use specific behaviors or the leader himself as the unit of analysis and may or may not consider the consequential effects and influences on the group. Some approaches focus on the emergence of leaders, what creates the conditions for leadership and how people be-come leaders. Other approaches emphasize what happens to a leader and a group once the leadership role i s f i l l e d - the maintenance and continu-ances of leadership. The earliest theoretical formulations for explaining leadership and directing leadership research included the personality or t r a i t theories (often referred to as the "great man" theory) which attempted to explain the leadership phenomenon in terms of heredity, including traits of personality and character (Jennings, 1960; Tead, 1929). At the same time parallel approaches developed sanctioning environmental or situational determinants of leadership behavior (Bogardus, 1918; Murphy, 1941), such behavior being a function of the right "time, place and c i r -cumstances" (Stogdill, 1974: 18). Over the years the above approaches have been reshaped into a number of combined Personality-Situational theories. In their most basic form these approaches explain leadership in terms of individual traits (affective, cognitive and behavioral) plus situational conditions (Westburgh, 1931) often even including the nature of the group and i t s members as separate variables (Case, 1933). A - 4 -variety of such models have been developed emphasizing these major fac-tors and even various interactions or relationships between the leader (his t r a i t s , motivations and roles) and situational variables (follow-ers, task and group goals), (Mills, 1952; Gibb, 1954, 1969; Cattell, 1951; and Hollander, 1964). The newest approaches which also f i t into this general categorization include the motivational and expectation emphasis of Bass (1960), the path-goal approaches by Evans (1970) and House (1970), Fiedler's (1967) contingency theory, the Human Information-Processing Approach by Wynne and Hunsaker (1975) and the Adaptive-Reactive (macro variable) theory of Osborn and Hunt (1975). There has also been a great deal of emphasis on theories which revolve around specific leader behaviors as empirically derived by Carter (1952), Hemphill (1950), Halpin (1956), and Fleishman (1957). Current interest in these approaches is supported by literature which highlights the "consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure" behavior dimen-sions (Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy & Stogdill, 1974; Yukl, 1971). In addition however, there exists a variety of miscellaneous approaches which do not appear to f i t the general categories of the Personality-Situational or Leader Behavior approaches (e.g. Social Exchange theory, Homans, 1958 and Jacobs, 1971). Some of these, like the Argyris ap-proach (1961), the managerial grid of Blake and Mouton (1964), Likert's (1961, 1967) System IV and McGregor's Theory X and Y (1960, 1966), are more humanistic, prescriptive and even normative i n nature, especially Vroom's Decision-Making Model (1973) , rather than being empirically predictive. They are nevertheless important in that they form a large - 5 -part of the literature and data that has been generated in an attempt to explain and understand the phenomenon of leadership. Theoretical and Empirical Considerations There are few indications that leadership i s on the verge of be-coming a comprehensive and integrated area of study. This assumption is based on the variety of definitions, theories, models, units of analy-s i s , variables and c r i t e r i a that abound notwithstanding the fact that a few researchers have suggested more multiple-linkage models (Ashour, 1973 a, b; Yukl, 1971). There i s nevertheless considerable current i n -terest in the leadership phenomenon. This interest and the theoretical development i t is generating is well demonstrated by the Biennial Southern I l l i n o i s University Leadership Symposiums (Fleishman & Hunt, 1973; Hunt & Larson, 1973, 1975, 1977) which have been amplifying cur-rent trends and concerns thereby helping provide "new insights into causality and the processes involved in leadership" (Hunt & Larson, 1975: 210). Prior to examining and integrating some of these insights, i t is appropriate to f i r s t review some i n i t i a l overriding considerations which w i l l help form the basic assumptions upon which to develop the model proposed by this thesis. Any conceptual attempt at explaining leadership should start with clearly defined limits which specify the scope and level of analysis of the explanation. There i s an extreme difference between explaining leadership as a total all-inclusive phenomenon and explaining only part of the phenomenon. Each extreme w i l l employ a different unit of analy-- 6 -sis and possibly different c r i t e r i a measures. Traditionally leadership theory and research have used c r i t e r i a of effectiveness (performance, production, etc.) and/or satisfaction. These are generally c r i t e r i a that focus on the group level, not the individual nor leader level. As stated by Hunt and Larson (1975: 210), "a clear differentiation of the individual versus group level of analysis becomes increasingly important as one broadens the range of contingency variables considered either of these units of analysis is appropriate, depending upon the theoretical framework being employed". Therefore, at the leader or individual level of analysis i t may be far more appropriate to use only c r i t e r i a applicable to this level, i.e. leader effectiveness or satisfaction, not group effectiveness or satis-faction. The level of analysis depends on one's model or framework, whether i t is phenomenonological in nature encompassing the total system or group within the influence of the leader or, more behaviorally de-fined with the emphasis being on specific leader behavior and i t s deter-minants. One must wonder however, why i t is that many models try to relate, even correlate, determinants of leader behavior with c r i t e r i a far removed from the behavior like group consequences (Fiedler, 1967). The possibility of obtaining higher correlations might result from cor-relating possible determinants of behavior directly with behavior, and then as a second phase, specific behaviors plus miscellaneous group variables directly with group consequences. To i l l u s t r a t e the above i t i s worth considering Fiedler's (1967, - 7 -1971) contingency model as an example. Fiedler proposes a model where a leader (person variable identified and quantified by his LPC scale) i n -teracts with a situation (operationalized in terms of situational favor-a b i l i t y for the leader on the bases of leader-member relationship, task structure and leader position power) which determines the degree of leadership effectiveness (criterion) with the dependent variable opera-tionalized as the group's performance on i t s major assigned task (Fiedler, 1971). This contingency model therefore advocates a relation-ship between leadership style (LPC) and group effectiveness as moderated by situational favorability. There appears to be l i t t l e doubt that the leader and the situation w i l l have an effect on the group's effective-ness (and satisfaction) but they w i l l probably effect the group in very complicated and indirect ways and the group w i l l also be subj ect to a variety of other influences and factors. Fiedler's LPC as an abstract measure of leader style i s perhaps an attempt to include behavior in his model but actual behavior measures are missing. LPC as a person varia-ble and situational favorability as a situation variable should f i r s t have direct consequences on how the leader behaves. The connection with group effectiveness is not directly related to these variables although Fiedler's model suggests this. The group i t s e l f acts and behaves (collectively and as individual members) and i t is the consequence of their behavior, not the leader's, that i s assessed as effective or non effective. How the group behaves w i l l depend on an array of personal (individual) and situational variables a l l interacting together with the leader's behavior being only one subset of these variables. It is small - 8 -wonder that correlations between leader personality/situational factors and group effectiveness, even within a contingency framework, have tra-ditionally been limited and disappointing (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler & Weick, 1970). Even Fiedler's results are questionable in terms of their level of significance (Graen, Orris & Alvares, 1971 a, b; Ashour, 1973 a, b). The i n i t i a l determinant variables are just too far removed from the criterion and there may well be an i n f i n i t e number of contaminating variables completely beyond the leader's perception and area of i n f l u -ence. In other words, "the discretion and behavior of the leader are constrained ... and ... leaders can typically affect only a few of the variables that may impact organizational performance" (Pfeffer, 1977: 106). Kerr (1973: 124) also notes that there may be many factors or contaminating variables that limit relationships between predictors of leadership effectiveness and criterion which he calls "substitutes for leadership". These "may provide a partial explanation for the claims of some researchers that leadership does not account for very much c r i t e r i -on variance". The major objection being suggested here therefore concerns lead-ership as a phenomenon. As a phenomenon, leadership might best be ex-plained in phenomenological terms using a phenomenological model. But whether the level of analysis i s phenomenological or behavioral, i t is doubtful that effectiveness of a group w i l l ever be adequately predicted with only basic person-situation variables, notwithstanding the fact that these variables may include countless characteristics and factors. What is therefore being proposed i s a model which focuses on a - 9 -leader's behavior and i t s determinants, a model which could serve as the f i r s t phase of a more comprehensive model which might eventually include the group's behavior and an assessment of i t s effectiveness. This pro-posal i s partially congruent with the multiple-linkage models of Yukl (1971) and Ashour (1973 a) and includes but extends Vroom's (1973: 198) notion of the "Relationship of Variables Used in Leadership Research". The present concentration considers the leader and his behavior as the level and unit of analysis, not the total group and i t s overall behav-ior. The emphasis is therefore to satisfy the statement made by Fleishman (1973: 37): "what we need are theory and data to develop a conceptualization of situational and personality variance as these might relate to the effective operation of consideration and structure and other dimensions of leadership". A potentially complete but abstract model of the leadership phe-nomenon appears i n Figure 1. This thesis i s only concerned with the f i r s t phase, the phase which seeks to explain the determinants of leader behavior, not the determinants of group effectiveness. It is neverthe-less important to note the importance of leader behavior within an over-a l l model and the fact that there are possibly multivariate effects i n -volved within the total leadership phenomenon. The model also suggests that to by-pass leader behavior within a phenomenological model would be to seriously li m i t the total variance to be accounted for. - 10 -Insert Figure 1 about here The above model i s a conceptual attempt to integrate a large num-ber of the leadership definitions and approaches referred to earlier. While i t suggests that at a generalized level the major components can be simplified in number and general content, the model also allows for multiple and complex relationships or interactions that exist between these components. A preponderance of leadership scientists advocate more multidimensional and multivariate a l l encompassing research strate-gies (Stogdill, 1974; Hunt & Larson, 1975; Bass & Valenzi, 1973) while only a few have been more conservative suggesting "progress w i l l best be made using simpler and less multidimensional concepts" (Gibb, 1969: 205). House & Dessler (1973) for example, attempt to identify, manipu-late and measure only a few very specific and select variables. An ob-vious concern is therefore: should researchers concentrate on the i n f i -nite variety and number of possible variables in order to explore a l l possible relationships or should they isolate particular variable con-structs and concepts (and i f so, which ones) in order to make more gen-eralized statements? Inherent in this multivariate vs simple approach controversy is the more recent support for the former view with i t s em-phasis on more encompassing macro and environmental variables (Taylor, 1973; Osborn and Hunt, 1975; Bowens, 1975). Hunt & Larson (1975: 212) applaud such approaches with the optimistic view that broader more i n -/Characteristic \ Variables Consequential Influences Figure 1. Overall conceptual model of leadership - 12 -elusive leadership models might help us account for greater proportions of variance in contrast to "the relatively small proportions of variance typically accounted for by present-day leadership models". But a rebut-t a l to this point of view may be the possible fact that current leader-ship models and existing s t a t i s t i c a l techniques may be totally inade-quate for accounting for significant increases in variance. "There is always going to be unexplained variance. It is not possible or desira-ble to attempt monstrous research designs where a l l the variance sources are isolated" (Hunt & Larson, 1973: 197). Unfortunately, even with the advent of computers, we s t i l l do not have the s t a t i s t i c a l tools and methodology which would allow us to test for the combined effects of the countless variables we are interested in. We can only examine a limited number of variables at any one time and as a result conceptual explana-tions and theories of leadership can only be developed and tested in a piece meal fashion. We therefore tend to pick the most important varia-bles while temporarily discarding the others in order to add empirical support to a theory, piece by piece. Except for the odd isolated attempt (Miner, 1975), few scientists have advocated drastic and innovative changes which might help us get away from these methodological restrictions or the box of 'limited vari-ance'. Perhaps however, we need to pursue new and radically creative concepts, constructs and models. Perhaps an alternative may be to iden-t i f y the overriding, a l l encompassing variables (rather than to isolate very specific variables) and then operationalize these within a concep-tually simplified model. Everyone appears to be going their own way in - 13 -leadership research - some with a micro and some with a macro focus but most emphasizing very specific variables. Perhaps we need a more basic conceptual model, one which would at least hypothetically allow for the testing of micro and macro variables at both a generalized conceptual level and a more specific operational level. The above has already suggested three major components for a sim-p l i f i e d conceptual model of leader behavior: the Person (i.e. the lead-er plus his characteristics and personality), the Situation (i.e. the environmental factors plus the characteristics of the group and i t s mem-bers), and, the Leader's Behavior. Stogdill (1975) has suggested that future research should always include variables within the main catego-ries of leader, follower, group and criterion. Some recent studies have also strongly suggested the inclusion of a greater portion of the envi-ronment (Hunt & Larson, 1973; Osborn & Hunt, 1975) rather than leaving i t as a residual variable. Nevertheless, i t i s s t i l l recognized that there i s an in f i n i t e number of categories or variables conceivable and testable within each of these major components and although some advo-cate more multivariate-multitrait approaches, such attempts should s t i l l be subject to theoretical derivations. An alternative however i s to simplify these components so that i n i t i a l l y a model is more generaliza-ble while s t i l l having the potential for being refined on the bases of later research. The alternatives therefore are to start with every con-ceivable variable and pick a manageable number which are theoretically sound, or, to start with only very broad generalized components which can later be refined. The thrust and goals of this thesis include u t i -- 14 -l i z i n g this latter alternative by conceptualizing, developing and testing a simplified and generalizable model of leader behavior. Interaction and Interactional Psychology It i s one thing to hypothetically identify the major components or factors that in some obtuse manner appear to determine leadership be-havior but something else to conceptually explain how this happens. Further scepticism i s raised by the fact that leadership models have traditionally only accounted for very limited portions of variance as caused by personality and situational variables (Stogdill, 1974; Vroom, 1973; Gibb, 1969). It i s perhaps appropriate therefore to consider a concept which although by no means new, i s receiving renewed emphasis in the literature, the concept of interaction. Interaction between two objects implies a reciprocal action or effect on each other. Within leadership this often implies interperson-a l interactions or relationships as between a leader and his followers (Bass, Dunteman, Frye, Vidulich and Wambach, 1963). "There i s a scarcity of research that tests the interaction of leader personality, values, and behavior with follower's personality, values and behaviors and the effect of such interactions upon the group" (Stogdill, 1974: 421). Many findings "appear to assume a one-way flow of effects from leader to followers much of the leader's behavior i s determined by what his followers do or f a i l to do" (p. 417). In other words, a lead-er's behavior may be subject to continuous interaction (reciprocal) i n -- I n -fluences operating between the leader and his group of followers. At a more theoretical level, the concept of interaction is sug-gestive of reciprocal relationships and influences that exist between variables. While a lot of l i p service is paid to the word interaction, few theorists have attempted to conceptually or empirically explain i t s meaning within a leadership model. Rather, i t i s more often than not used as a mysterious all-inclusive explanatory device without being clearly defined i n order to explain complex and interrelated relation-ships between variables. Notwithstanding this somewhat confusing state of aff a i r s , i t is a commonly used concept. "Most recent theorists main-tain that leader characteristics and situational demands interact to de-termine the extent to which a given leader w i l l prove successful in a group" (Stogdill, 1974: 422). Fleishman in his remarks summarizing the f i r s t I l l i n o i s Leader-ship Symposium (Fleishman & Hunt, 1973) identified a number of important considerations which included emphasis on interactions as supported by evidence of nonlinear relationships, moderator variables and the causal-i t y vs correlation issues. "Interactions may be the rule rather than the exception" (p. 179). Korman (1973) in his overview of the second Symposium cr i t i c i z e d the static nature of leadership models, especially contingency approaches, by emphasizing the dynamic process of leadership as reflected by "cognitive, emotional and attitudinal changes in people as a result of their interactions with different types of environments" (p. 193). He also attacked the concept of contingency variables: "any conceptual differences between the contingency variable and the inde-- 16 -pendent variable is moot at best" (p. 193). Instead he argues, such a distinction should be eliminated and there should be "more theoretical and empirical concerns with the mechanisms by which the contingency var-iable is hypothesized to be having i t s effect" (p. 189). In short, i n -dependent variables have their effect on dependent variables as a result of operating through certain mechanisms. These mechanisms involve rela-tionships between variables which are perhaps contingent, interrelated, correlational and interactional with a l l essentially meaning something similar. The difference may be in how these mechanisms are empirically operationalized. Most current leadership approaches play with varia-tions of person and situation variables and perhaps contingency ap-proaches are one way of operationalizing the concept of interaction be-tween these variables (Hunt & Larson, 1973). In Fiedler's contingency model (1967) for example, interaction is operationalized in terms of a contingent relationship between variables. The concept of contingency implies that a dependent variable i s dependent on one or more independ-ent variables which are related to or contingent on another independent variable. The concept of contingency therefore implies a type of inter-action such that there is a relationship between specified independent variables. For example, leadership style i s a predictor of group effec-tiveness but i t s predictability is contingent on the favorability of the situation. Fiedler uses the terms interaction and contingency quite i n -terchangeably and freely but i s this operationalization of interaction really intuitively valid? In an attempt to provide an answer to this question and more clearly define interaction i t is appropriate to f i r s t - 17 -consider the study of Interactional Psychology. The theoretical bases for interactional psychology originated in the 1920's, about the same time some leadership theorists began agreeing that leadership behavior was determined by both the person-leader (and his traits) and situational factors. It has only been since 1960 howev-er that there has been any systematic research within this area and con-sequently interactional psychology is a relatively newborn approach for explaining behavior. Endler and Magnusson (1976 a, b; Magnusson & Endler, 1976) have been most influential in integrating the interactional approach. Their publications summarize the conceptual bases for the theory while sup-porting i t empirically. Basically, interactional psychology (although i t stems from a personality consideration) seeks to explain the determi-nants of behavior and the mechanisms under which they operate. It pro-vides a logical explanation of how and why behavioral patterns can be either stable or variable across situations by attacking the t r a i t , psy-chodynamic and situational models of personality and behavior. It disa-grees with the assumption that latent t r a i t predispositions are the p r i -mary causal factor for how a person behaves and also takes odds with the assumption that these predispositions w i l l cause people to behave con-sistently across different situations. In i t s simplest form, the theory states that behavior is caused by three main effects or conceptual variables: the person himself (his t r a i t s , characteristics, cognitions, affections, past experiences, etc), the situation (and a l l i t s variable components), and person X situation - 18 -i n t e r a c t i o n (the e f f e c t which develops and e x i s t s on the b a s i s of the continuous interdependency of the person and the s i t u a t i o n ) . I t i s a theory which h y p o t h e t i c a l l y accounts f o r a l l the p o t e n t i a l l y measurable determinants of behavior and th e r e f o r e attempts to tap, i d e n t i f y and ex-p l a i n that l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of varia n c e which i s normally l e f t a f t e r main e f f e c t s have been i s o l a t e d . A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e methods d i f f e r e n -t i a t e types of va r i a n c e but few attempts have been made at c a t e g o r i z i n g a l l the variance using c o n s t r u c t s which f i t i n t o a t h e o r e t i c a l frame-work. The i n t e r a c t i o n a l model attempts to provide such a framework f o r e x p l a i n i n g behavior. T r a i t t h e o r i s t s c l a i m that t r a i t s are d i s p o s i t i o n s that account f o r c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n behavior across s i t u a t i o n s , psychodynamic t h e o r i s t s assume man's behavior i n v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s i s subje c t to p r e d i s p o s i -t i o n a l forces w i t h i n h i s b a s i c p e r s o n a l i t y core, and s i t u a t i o n i s m as-sumes i t i s the s t i m u l i w i t h i n the s i t u a t i o n that determines i n d i v i d u a l behavior. I n t e r a c t i o n i s m challenges these vi e w p o i n t s , e s p e c i a l l y the t r a i t model, and argues that e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s do not support t h e i r as-sumptions but rat h e r lend support to the i n t e r a c t i o n a l model w i t h behav-i o r determined by person and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s plus continuous and m u l t i - d i r e c t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n between these v a r i a b l e s . I n t e r a c t i o n i s m "emphasizes the importance of p e r s o n - s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n s behavior i n v o l v e s an i n d i s p e n s a b l e , continuous i n t e r a c t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s and the s i t u a t i o n s they encounter" (Endler & Magnusson, 1976: 958). The model ther e f o r e recognizes the important r o l e of c o g n i t i v e and a f -f e c t i v e f a c t o r s (people s e l e c t the s i t u a t i o n they act i n and e f f e c t the - 19 -character of these situations) while also recognizing the importance of social learning processes involved in reciprocal interactions. The de-velopment of behavior i s "a social learning process that emphasizes the interaction between psychological situations and social learning variables. The person variables develop ontogenetically in terms of cognitive social learning processes interacting with a given genetic disposition. These social cogni-tive person variables interact with situations in determining behavior" (p. 961). The model therefore takes both psychological-biological factors of the person, and, personalistic-physicalistic factors of the situation into account. The interactional model derives empirical support from "a v a r i -ance components technique derived from analysis of variance (Endler, 1966 b). In this method of data treatment, the variances due to per-sons, situations, reactions, and person-situation interactions are de-termined" (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 b: 962) for a 3-way analysis of variance. Endler and Magnusson (1976 a, b) provide numerous research examples which stress the importance of person-situation interaction variance where generally i t accounts for more behavioral variance than persons and situations combined. The results of these studies also sug-gest that people do not behave exactly the same in different situations, that there i s no 'absolute' consistency in their behavior. This does not negate the possibility that some people behave more consistently than others across situations as interactionism suggests "an individual - 20 -is characterized by his or her specific pattern of both stable and changing behaviors across situations" (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 b: 962). The main features of interactionism include the following: "1. Actual behavior i s a function of a continu-ous multidirectional interaction (feedback) be-tween the individual and the situation that he or she encounters. 2. The individual i s an intentional active agent in the interaction process. 3. On the person side of the interaction, cog-nitive factors are the essential determinants of behavior, although emotional factors do play a role. 4. On the situation side, the psychological meaning of the situation for the individual i s the important determining factor". (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 b: 968). The concept of interaction may well reflect the real world with the normally accepted linear relationship models of behavior only being a f i r s t approximation. To really confirm this however we are either going to have to redefine or create new constructs of the presently used variables, in order to eliminate or reduce interaction variance, or de-velop theoretical models which account for interaction effects. "It may even be possible to redefine t r a i t (person characteristics) so that i t takes situations into account" (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 b: 965). To summarize, the interactional model says that "actual behavior i s determined by a continuous process in which person and situation factors - 21 -interact i n a multidirectional (feedback) man-ner. This interaction provides a multivariate, two-dimensional (Situation X Response reaction) pattern of behavioral va r i a b i l i t y across situa-tions for each person. This behavior pattern is to some extent idio-graphic, that i s , i t is characteristic for the individual". (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 b: 969). It is important to note however, that in view of the goal to develop a simplified conceptual model of leader behavior, i t may be possible to describe these behavior patterns at a more generalized level rather than at the idio-graphic individual level. Interactional psychology therefore provides a rationale for pre-dicting and explaining behavior by suggesting that behavior i s not mere-ly a function of the main effects as caused by person and situational variables but rather that in addition "there is a continuous interde-pendency between persons and situational factors (feedback), and this interaction is a prime determinant of behavior (e.g. Levin, 1935, 1936)" (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 a: 12). This person X situation interaction i s akin to and stems from the two way interaction effect within a two factor analysis of variance design of persons and situations. It i s not however restricted to analysis of variance designs as regression analy-sis i s also quite capable of handling interaction effects (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973). Regardless of the technique, a variable identified as having a significant interaction or joint effect on another variable suggests a purely additive model may not be adequate as a predictive model. Interaction between two levels of a treatment (independent va r i -able) suggests the criterion measure for treatment combinations cannot - 22 -be predicted from the sum of the corresponding main effects — the total effects are nonadditive (Winer, 1962). When significant interactions occur i t i s therefore necessary to include them as product values of the interacting variables in order to s t i l l have a predictive equation. It is also desirable to "distinguish between ordinal and disordinal inter-actions. An ordinal interaction is one in which the 'rank order of treatment is constant', whereas a disordinal interaction is one in which the 'rank order of the treatment changes' (Lubin, 1961: 808)" (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973: 245). Interaction can easily be illustrated graphically. An independ-ent variable with two treatment effects, plotted across another inde-pendent variable and the dependent variable, should produce parallel lines i f there is no interaction, converging lines i f the interaction is ordinal and crossing lines i f the interaction is disordinal. Treatment effects that neither cross nor are parallel (ordinal) therefore suggest that one treatment i s consistently superior to the other and that the differences in superiority changes for different values of the other i n -dependent variable. For treatment effects that cross one another (dis-ordinal) , each treatment w i l l be superior to the other at times but for different values of the other independent value. Disordinal interaction i s therefore more complex to explain conceptually. Interactional Psychology suggests that the person and situational independent variables are close to being meaningless as predictors of behavior when they are considered by themselves. It can even be argued that these variables do not even exist independently. They only exist - 23 -when considered i n relation to one another because of their continuous and reciprocal interacting influences. Situations only exist in that a person perceives them, chooses them and affects them; "situations are as much a function of the person as the person's behavior is a function of the situation" (Bowers, 1973: 327). Both components continuously i n -teract with one another to the point where i t only makes sense to con-sider their real effect as an interaction effect. If the person and situation variables are continuous, i t is possible to create a new " i n -teraction" variable which i s the product of these two variables for each observation (Anderson, 1970; Cronbach, 1968; Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973). A similar procedure could also be used i f the variables are cat-egorical with quantifiable values, or, by using a technique li k e Multi-ple Classification Analysis (Andrews, Morgan & Sonquist, 1969) where the categorical variables are not quantifiable. The person and situation variables by themselves may well have their own independent effects but i t also appears quite possible that there w i l l be a significant effect which comes from their influence as a joint-interaction-multirelated variable. The ultimate interactional model of behavior would be organismic in nature where causality would be transactional (reciprocal interaction between dependent and independent variables) but because present methodology and technology i s not ade-quate to examine the nature of such dynamic interactions, current inter-actional models of behavior must be restricted to unidirectional causal-i t y and a mechanistic or reactive model. The concept of interaction as i t i s applied here therefore only refers to the interaction between the - 24 -two main independent v a r i a b l e s of the person and s i t u a t i o n . This i n t e r -a c t i o n can a l s o be c a l l e d feedback where the person feeds back informa-t i o n to the s i t u a t i o n so as to a f f e c t or change i t and the s i t u a t i o n feeds i n f o r m a t i o n to the person as he perceives i t . There i s t h e r e f o r e a continuous interdependency between these two v a r i a b l e s . As a r e s u l t P X S i n t e r a c t i o n may c o n c e p t u a l l y become a h y b r i d v a r i a b l e w i t h an i -d e n t i t y of i t s own as a prime determinant of behavior and as a h y b r i d v a r i a b l e i t may be p o s s i b l e to exceed the sum of the v a r i a n c e a t t r i b u t e d to the o r i g i n a l main e f f e c t s so as to help account f o r s i g n i f i c a n t l y more variance than has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been accounted f o r i n the past. F i n a l l y , i t i s recognized that t r u l y accurate statements concern-in g the determinants of behavior might have to i n c l u d e a l l the i n t e r a c -t i o n s that occur between a l l p o s s i b l e p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s . The concern here however, i s w i t h a h i g h l y s i m p l i f i e d i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of leader behavior where the emphasis i s on the f i r s t order person X s i t u a t i o n i n -t e r a c t i o n . The c u r r e n t o b j e c t i v e i s only a p r e l i m i n a r y attempt to ex-p l a i n why people w i t h c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s behave d i f f e r e n t l y than people w i t h other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the presence of the same s t i m u l i (McGuigan, 1968). A Proposed I n t e r a c t i o n a l Model of Leader Behavior The above d i s c u s s i o n forms a background framework f o r the d e v e l -opment of a b a s i c but o p e r a t i o n a l model of leader behavior. Although the u t i l i t y of t h i s framework i s l i m i t e d i n that i t cannot i n i t i a l l y i n -clude the t o t a l l e a d e r s h i p phenomenon where group consequences are the - 25 -important c r i t e r i a , ( i . e . i n the proposed model the leader and h i s be-havior comprise the u n i t of a n a l y s i s ) , the i n t e r a c t i o n a l framework i s suggested as being a most l o g i c a l and necessary s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r even-t u a l l y e x p l a i n i n g the t o t a l phenomenon ( i . e . phase I of a two phase mod-e l ) . As i n t e r a c t i o n a l psychology and some p e r s o n - s i t u a t i o n models of l e a d e r s h i p might suggest, t h i s framework c o n s i s t s of three major concep-t u a l independent components: the person, the s i t u a t i o n , and the i n t e r -a c t i o n between these. The dependent component or c r i t e r i o n i s leader behavior i t s e l f . In i t s most b a s i c form, the p o t e n t i a l model i s pres-ented i n Figure 2. I n s e r t Figure 2 about here This i n i t i a l framework i m p l i e s u n i d i r e c t i o n a l c a u s a l i t y of leader behavior but on the b a s i s of r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n between the two o-r i g i n a l c a t e g o r i e s of person and s i t u a t i o n . Most l e a d e r s h i p models of behavior attempt to account f o r c a u s a l i t y on the b a s i s of v a r i a b l e s se-l e c t e d from the two primary components but the f a c t that s e l e c t e d v a r i a -b l e s have never accounted f o r more than f o r t y percent of the t o t a l v a r i -ance (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 a, b; Vroom, 1973) suggests that c a u s a l i -ty i s n e i t h e r d i r e c t nor p o s s i b l y even a d d i t i v e . I n t u i t i v e l y , the r e a -son must be one or a combination of the f o l l o w i n g : (1) the wrong v a r i -able (independent and/or dependent) c o n s t r u c t s are being used, (2) the v a r i a b l e s have yet to be p r o p e r l y o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d and are therefore i n -Figure 2 . Simplified interactional model of leader behavior - 27 -adequately measured, or (3) i n t e r a c t i o n i t s e l f i s a c a u s a l f a c t o r even though i t has not been adequately explained t h e o r e t i c a l l y or o p e r a t i o n -a l l y . The proposed model i s suggested as an i n i t i a l s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r a t t a c k i n g a l l of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s . In i t s s i m p l e s t form i t i s sug-gested as being at l e a s t p o t e n t i a l l y capable of e x p l a i n i n g more v a r i -ance, e s p e c i a l l y i f leader behavior i t s e l f i s the goal of p r e d i c t i o n r a t h e r than a more e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i o n . Some t h i n g or things cause peo-p l e to behave and these things or f a c t o r s must come from w i t h i n the i n -d i v i d u a l h i m s e l f , from the s i t u a t i o n (at l e a s t as he perceives i t ) o r , from a combination of both ( i . e . r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n ) . This t h e s i s i s an attempt to more c l e a r l y o p e r a t i o n a l i z e t h i s r a t i o n a l e at a gener-a l i z e d l e v e l by b u i l d i n g on the assumption that much of the unexplained v a r i a n c e i s hidden e i t h e r i n the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the two o r i g i n a l components, or, i n person X s i t u a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n as a conceptual v a r i a -b l e . While t h i s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y new, the s p e c u l a t i o n that such i n t e r a c t i o n might conceivably be catego-r i z e d as a v a r i a b l e i n i t s own r i g h t , such as to f i t i n t o an i n t e r a c -t i o n a l model of leader behavior and thereby t h e o r e t i c a l l y account f o r more v a r i a n c e , i s new. The most b a s i c assumption of t h i s t o t a l approach i s t h e r e f o r e t h a t man's behavior i s p o t e n t i a l l y e x p l a i n a b l e i n terms of an i n t e r a c t i o n a l theory of behavior. The above has l a i d the groundwork f o r an i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of leader behavior and developed the r a t i o n a l e f o r the p o s s i b l e e x p l a nation of P X S i n t e r a c t i o n as being a h y b r i d independent v a r i a b l e . Consider-i n g the i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y of p o t e n t i a l l y r e l e v a n t and t e s t a b l e v a r i a b l e s - 28 -within the original main components, i t i s now appropriate to direct specific attention to each of these areas: the person, situation and leader behavior. Person Component The person or leader component of the model potentially includes every type of variable which i s primarily attributed to existing within the leader. This therefore includes a variety of leader characteristics from physical and personality traits (including age, sex, a b i l i t y , i n -telligence, orientation, attitudes) through to the more abstract con-cepts of cognitions, affections, expectations and motivations. Notwith-standing the fact that many leader characteristics have avoided the leadership research lime-light during recent years, especially personal-i t y factors, this area has recently been the subject of renewed concern. Stogdill (1974) reviews over 160 studies done between 1948 and 1970 that attempted to identify and isolate significant characteristics of leaders. Major variable types were categorized under physical char-acteristics, social background, intelligence and a b i l i t y , personality, task-related characteristics, and social characteristics. Those specif-i c variables for which there were at least 20 studies suggesting a posi-tive relationship with leadership included activity, energy; i n t e l l i -gence; ascendance, dominance; self-confidence; achievement drive, desire to excel; and sociability, interpersonal s k i l l s . Stogdill concluded that most characteristics or traits have very limited predictive signif-icance in isolation while in combination they are subject to complicated - 29 -i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . A major c o n c l u s i o n was that p e r s o n a l i t y broadly defined i s a f a c t o r i n l e a d e r s h i p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and w h i l e t h i s does not provide c o n s t r u c t i v e support f o r the o l d e r leader t r a i t t h e o r i e s , i t does r e j e c t a t o t a l l y s i t u a t i o n a l approach. More important though, i t s t r o n g l y supports the P e r s o n a l i t y - S i t u a t i o n l e a d e r s h i p t h e o r i e s and i n p a r t i c u l a r an I n t e r a c t i o n theory of l e a d e r s h i p . As p r e v i o u s l y s i g h t e d , S t o g d i l l views the i n t e r a c t i o n of the leader's and f o l l o w e r ' s p e r s o n a l i t i e s as worthy of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , "What range of leader p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s w i l l be acceptable to a group that i s h i g h l y homogeneous w i t h respect to a given p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t ? " ( S t o g d i l l , 1974: 424). What w i l l be "the e f f e c t s of member homogeneity versus heterogeneity on acceptance of a leader w i t h a given p a t t e r n of behavior, p e r s o n a l i t y or v a l u e s " (p. 421)? In other words, how w i l l the p e r s o n a l i t y of a leader a f f e c t a group and w i l l the p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c -t u r e of the group a f f e c t the behavior of a leader and the consequences of h i s behavior? Fleishman (1973) has made a very strong case f o r r e c o n s i d e r i n g p e r s o n a l i t y as an important v a r i a b l e , e s p e c i a l l y as i t might a f f e c t leader-group r e l a t i o n s . In p a r t i c u l a r he questions the con s t r u c t v a l i d -i t y of the Least P r e f e r r e d Co-worker (LPC) s c a l e and suggests that we need new conceptual frameworks f o r developing and measuring p e r s o n a l i t y and i n t e r p e r s o n a l value c o n s t r u c t s . The LPC has been the subject of considerable controversy s i n c e i t s development (Kerr, 1973; M i t c h e l l , 1970; Graen, A l v a r e s , O r r i s & M a r t e l l a , 1970) and i t i s s t i l l u n c e r t a i n whether i t i s a type of p e r s o n a l i t y c o n s t r u c t , a t t i t u d e , m o t i v a t i o n a l - 30 -measure or a cognitive-complexity concept (Fleishman, 1971; Chemers & Rice, 1973). The fact that such confusion s t i l l exists concerning this concept, i t s development, meaning and rationale, should deter i t s con-tinued use in newer models and future research, notwithstanding the fact there are indications i t does correlate with group effectiveness and to a lesser extent with leader behaviors (Fiedler, 1973). These correla-tions have not however been unequivocally replicated nor theoretically explained to everyone's satisfaction (Graem et a l , 1970) and in a very large number of cases have not even been significant (Ashour, 1973 a). High LPC scores have generally conveyed the idea of relationship-moti-vated attitudes, low LPC scores of task-motivated attitudes (Fiedler, 1971) but even Fiedler says this i s a misinterpretation. Fiedler ap-pears to interpret LPC i n whichever light appears most appropriate for the question being considered. For example, he points out (1971: 58) that low LPC persons describe themselves as more interaction orientated than high LPC's who describe themselves as more self orientated (Bass, Fiedler & Krueger, 1964). To a certain extent this is a contradiction of earlier explanations. Perhaps LPC is only a person interaction pref-erence scale, not a people-task continuum and not a personality varia-ble. Korman (1973) also feels personality i s important, or at least i t s effect on behavior and group effectiveness, but he points out the limited r e l i a b i l i t y of personality constructs over time and over situa-tions (Mischel, 1968). Personality variables have traditionally been poor in predicting behavior, generally accounting for less than 10% of - 31 -the variance (Endler & Magnusson, 1976 a, b). Korman suggests that the problem with our present personality constructs i s either (a) they are the wrong constructs, (b) they are meaningful and significant but we cannot adequately measure them or, (c) we measure them well but person-a l i t y i s just not an important determinant in leadership. Without an answer to the above, personality as a variable w i l l probably continue to have limited predictability. Korman favors an answer in accordance with (a) and/or (b) and feels that personality constructs should be more or-ganizational and work relevant and therefore perhaps more situationally defined. The lack of this has been a serious limitation to Fiedler's model - "the u t i l i z a t i o n of personality constructs as contingency varia-bles w i l l have to be redirected" (Korman, 1973: 191). More recently however, i t appears that at least one new model has attempted to empha-size the possible importance of an original and conceptually different personality construct, namely, the concept of cognitive style in the Hu-man Information Processing Approach (Wynne & Hunsaker, 1975). The person component of the proposed model could u t i l i z e any one of a number of possible constructs. But considering the above c r i t i -cisms and the limitations of most variables previously operationalized in leadership models, especially the LPC measure, what kind of person or personality construct should be used? Such a construct w i l l perhaps be original but i t must also have theoretical relevance, empirical sound-ness and make intuitive sense within an interactional model of leader behavior. One r e a l i s t i c possibility stems from the theory of 'speciali-zation' as developed by L i t t l e (1972, 1976 a, b). - 32 -Specialization theory is a newly developing perspective flowing out of a consideration of personality theory within an environmental psychology framework. To a certain extent i t is a unification of the opposing points of view advocated by personalists and physicalists. Es-sentially, i t "is an attempt to integrate information of cog-nitive, affective and behavioral responses to the environment by focusing upon a typological analysis of different "specialists" Inte-gration i s also sought by developing the concept of the specialization loop, which predicts rela-tionships between the three components of human action" ( L i t t l e , 1976 a: 83). L i t t l e u t i l i z e s the concept of specialization process as a linking func-tion which links the "specialist" (person) and his "specialty" (the or-ganism in i t s environment) while implying "the selective channeling of dispositions and a b i l i t i e s " (p. 84). Specialization theory runs counter to traditional personality ap-proaches that focus on typologies (introversion-extroversion; internal vs external locus of control, f i e l d dependence-independence) which f a i l to make assumptions about the kinds of objects i n the environment. Spe-cialization theory i s concerned with "the primary objects of environmen-t a l encounters" ( L i t t l e , 1976 a: 86)-; "those objects that are selectively attended to by psychological man the largest and most substantive division - the provisional assump-tion that persons and things comprise the prima-ry objects in our environment" ( L i t t l e , 1976 b: 113). - 33 -L i t t l e (1972 a) has developed a Person-Thing measurement scale, based on a 24 response questionnaire which has good evidence of r e l i a -b i l i t y (around .80) and convergent validity. This instrument supports the concept of individuals having separate generalized dispositions or orientations towards persons and towards things. There is also growing evidence that these two orientations are independent and orthogonal: "that some people w i l l focus on one primary ob-ject domain to the exclusion of the other; that some w i l l , relative to others manifest interest in both domains; and that s t i l l others w i l l ex-press comparatively l i t t l e interest in either persons or things" ( L i t t l e , 1976 a: 88). This orthogonality allows for the construction of a person-thing orien-tation paradigm of specialist types as shown in Figure 3, ( L i t t l e , 1976 a: 90). These specialist types, as measured by the Person-Thing Scale, and their characteristics have been described i n detail by L i t t l e on the basis of a variety of studies which have attempted to determine how they perceive and construe their environment. "The most consistent finding to emerge has been that person-specialists as assessed by the T-P scale predictably experience their environment personalistically while thing specialists expe-rience i t via a more physicalistic mode" (L i t t l e , 1976 a: 92). Insert Figure 3 about here - 34 -Environment Self Figure 3. Schematic representation of the four primary specialist groups (Reproduced from L i t t l e , 1976 a: 90) - 35 -The above ideas have developed out of environmental psychology where emphasis has been placed on developing measures of environmental dispositions, measures based on the assumption that people respond and relate to their environment in relatively stable ways ( L i t t l e , 1976 b). If a situation can be considered an immediate subset of the environment, then these stable ways of relating and responding should also hold to a certain extent, for situations as well. Eysenck's (1953, 1970) research on introversion-extroversion suggests one way of looking at environmen-ta l dispositions except that i t contrasts orientation with one's inner self with orientation to the environment. Person-Thing orientation on the other hand portions the environment into primary objects. The concepts of specialization and specialist imply connotations similar to those associated with occupational specialists: competence, expertise, selectively, etc. While i t is a rather novel concept within the study of personality and behavior, a person as a specialist implies "(a) that he i s interested in and positively o-rientated towards a set of objectives or events (his speciality), (b) that he spends a compara-tively large portion of his available time in activities involving his specialty, and (c) that his way of thinking about these objects, ideas, or events is comparatively advanced. The con-cept of specialist then seems to translate quite readily into affective, behavioral and cognitive terms" ( L i t t l e , 1972: 111). The concern then i s with specific observable differences between people in terms of how selective people are to objects of the environment. - 36 -"It i s a major assumption of the specialization model that assessment of an individual's primary orientation toward the environment w i l l f a c i l i -tate predictions about his encounters with non primary objects Phrased differently, we be-lieve that a great range of behavior w i l l be re-flected i n a person's basic orientation towards persons and things" ( L i t t l e , 1976 a: 114). The connection between cognitive, affective and behavioral compo-nents of the model is explained in terms of specialization loops (Figure 4) which convey the idea of an individual's personal system ( L i t t l e , 1976 a: 95). In an abstract sense an individual can be described in terms of his two potential primary specialization loops (as a person, thing, generalist or non specialist). These loops are not isolated do-mains as there w i l l be interaction between the two primary (person and thing) loops for each individual. The orientation effect of one primary loop may moderate the effect of the other primary loop thereby influenc-ing and moderating one's behavior. While L i t t l e (1976 a: 110) only of-fers limited evidence of this i t is interesting to speculate that a leader might require f a i r l y high degrees of both kinds of primary orien-tation in order to be consistently effective across situations. Insert Figure 4 about here The following is quoted directly from L i t t l e (1977 a: 94-96) in an attempt to more clearly i l l u s t r a t e the meaning of specialization loops. - 37 -COGNITIVE SYSTEM Content and Structure of, "Constructs Subsuming Domain** PERSONAL SYSTEM BEHAVIORAL SYSTEM AFFECTIVE SYSTEM Frequency and Intensity of Activities in the Domain Interest in and Positive Arousal vis-S-vis Object Domain Figure 4. The basic components of a specialization loop (Reproduced from L i t t l e 1976 a: 95) - 38 -"...an i n d i v i d u a l . . . begins the s e l e c t i v e chan-n e l i z a t i o n of i n t e r e s t and a b i l i t y that c o n s t i -tutes s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . B e h a v i o r a l l y , s p e c i a l i z a -t i o n i n v o l v e s greater frequency and/or i n t e n s i t y of encounters w i t h the s p e c i a l i t y ; c o g n i t i v e l y , i t i n v o l v e s the development of h i g h l y i n t e r r e -l a t e d c o n s t r u c t s subsuming the domain; a f f e c -t i v e l y , s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n -t e r e s t i n and pleasure w i t h the s p e c i a l i z e d do-main The three components of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n are r e c i p r o c a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g an increase i n any component, we hypothesize, w i l l i n c r e a s e the p r o b a b i l i t y of adjacent components t a k i n g on higher v a l u e s . We assume that s p e c i a l i z a t i o n loops are b i d i r e c t i o n a l . Thus an increase i n the a f f e c t i v e components of a domain w i l l l i k e l y i n c r e a s e the frequency b e h a v i o r a l encounters w i t h i n that domain (clockwise l o o p i n g ) , as w e l l as increase the l e v e l of c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n the domain (counter-clockwise looping) A l -though c e r t a i n ] v a r i a b l e s can conceivably i n t e r -vene as b a r r i e r s to be completion of the l o o p . " The idea of v a r i a b l e s p o s s i b l y b l o c k i n g the completion of a loop pro-v i d e s the r a t i o n a l f o r e x p l a i n i n g how and why c o r r e l a t i o n s between the components may vary c o n s i d e r a b l y . For example, an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h very p e r s o n a l i s t i c a f f e c t i o n s and c o g n i t i o n s may on occasion behave i n a very p h y s i c a l i s t i c manner, p o s s i b l y because of the i n f l u e n c e and e f f e c t of strong e x t e r i o r v a r i a b l e s ( i . e . the demands, norms, e t c . of a s i t u a -t i o n ) . The concept of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n l o o p s , i t would appear, has some s i m i l a r i t y to what might be described as a continuum of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e w i t h the continuum ranging from s t y l e as an a t t i t u d e w i t h c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e components through s t y l e as a more manifest i n t e n t to behave ( i . e . i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n ) to s t y l e as an observable and s p e c i f -i c p a t t e r n of a c t u a l behavior. An i n i t i a l assumption i n common w i t h the - 39 -concept of specialization loop and concept of leader style continuum i s that we should originally expect a strong thread of person and/or thing orientation between the affective, cognitive and behavioral components and styles. Each concept w i l l nevertheless be affected by barriers or moderating variables which w i l l limit orientation relationships. We may also find however that our measuring instruments are inadequate and not directly comparable between different components and between different styles (i.e. correlations between attitudinal style and behavioral style may be insignificant). What i s being said here, for example, i s that a thing specialist should have an attitudinal leadership style which i s connected to and related to his behavioral leadership style, providing we measure these styles properly and account for barrier and moderator effects. "If the relative importance of the domain to an individual i s assessed i t i s then possible to weigh that response accordingly - the more basic a dimension is to an individual, the more readi-ly should that person's overt behavior be pre-dicted by the attitudinal measures" ( L i t t l e , 1976 b: 29). The prediction then i s that the T-P scale should be predictive of behav-ior. "In general i t i s expected that the T-P scale person orientation measure w i l l predict the ex-pression of positive affect through both verbal and non verbal channels during social interac-tion, and the evidence to date i s not inconsis-tent with that expectation. It can also be pre-dicted that thing-orientation measures w i l l cor-relate with the use of more task-orientated - 40 -strategies during social interaction. This area has not been explored with the T-P scale as yet" ( L i t t l e , 1972: 31). This clearly i s the challenge which might be testable within the proposed interactional model of leader behavior. In addition, i t pro-vides an appealing rationale for using Person-Thing orientation in oper-ationalizing the person variable, a construct which appears to be more inclusive and encompassing than most of the personality and characteris-t i c constructs previously used in leadership research. It should be particularly more inclusive and theoretically sound than Fiedler's LPC measure which only seems to tap the interpersonal dimension. Person-thing orientation as a variable i s also attractive because of i t s rela-tionship to other parallel concepts i n the leadership literature such as concern for production vs concern for people (Blake & Mouton, 1961), i n -terpersonal vs task ( H i l l , 1973) and consideration vs i n i t i a t i n g struc-ture (Fleishman, 1973). But the most important reason of a l l for using person-thing orientation as the person component variable i s the fact that the construct recognizes an interactional relationship between the person and the primary objects of his environment. Situation Component The choice or development of a construct which can serve as the base for a comprehensive and generalizable situation variable and also f i t into the interactional model of leader behavior i s not i n i t i a l l y ap-parent. While there are countless possible concepts to choose from, some important concerns should f i r s t be c l a r i f i e d . Should the construct - 41 -have a macro or micro emphasis? Should i t be personalistic (group and follower characteristics) or physicalistic (characteristics of the task, structure, organization and environment) or both in focus. A majority of research has focused on the situation in terms of group and/or task characteristics (Stogdill, 1974; Gibb, 1969; House, 1971; H i l l , 1973) but few attempts have been made at u t i l i z i n g more totally inclusive s i t -uational characteristics or dimensions. Bass and Valenzi (1973), Yukl (1969) and Wofford (1971) studied and identified a number of specific organizational and work group variables, Rambo (1958) was concerned with organizational level and department differences, H i l l and Hughes (1974) with structured vs unstructured tasks, and Larsen (1973) contrasted stress vs non-stress situations. Such studies confirm a concern with specific variables but s t i l l leave open the question about more general-ized concepts. Fiedler (1967) provides one good example of a more inclusive s i t -uational construct, that of situational favorability. But while this dimension is defined i n terms of how the situation gives the leader pow-er and influence i t f a i l s to include other variables which can also i n -fluence favorability. Examples of such variables include stress, l i n -guistic or cultural heterogeneity, training, experience, leader status and organizational climate (Chemers & Rice, 1973). Nevertheless, Fiedler s t i l l uses his variables on the bases that "the leaders poten-t i a l for influence and control i s the most important aspect of the s i t u -ation" (p. 107). Additional criticisms of this construct concern the post hoc assessment of leader relations after the task via a group at-- 42 -mosphere scale (Mitchell, 1970), the confounding incomparability of the group atmosphere scale across studies, the problem of dimensionality and anchoring of the situational favorableness dimension ( i t i s a ranking of eight different combinations rather than a true continuum), plus, the method and rationale for weighting the three variables of the situation favorability dimension (Chemers & Rice, 1973). It appears that a con-struct more theoretically sound and generalizable than situational fa-vorability should therefore be found. Cartier (1953) and Gibb (1949, 1969) throw some light on this problem. Factor analyses on the results obtained in their studies has suggested situational-task families which set the stage for generalized leadership demands. Two major families included intellectual task s i t u -ations and manipulation of objects situations. They also suggest i t i s possible to arrange task-situations along a categorical continuum. The problem is in deciding on the construct to use for defining the continu-um. One way might be to relate the categories to major leader behavior dimensions (e.g. consideration vs i n i t i a t i n g structure) while another might be to relate i t to major person variable dimensions (e.g. person vs thing). Vroom and Yetton (1973) for example have argued that as we often define leaders i n terms of them being autocratic or participative, i t makes a lot of sense to describe situations as autocratic and partic-ipative. A combination of the above two possibilities may provide a reasonable alternative. A situation could be possibly described i n terms of i t s nature, i.e. how i t relates to personal and behavioral fac-tors or dimensions as a leader would actually perceive i t . For example, - 43 -Heller and Yukl (1969) found significant differences in decision-making behavior depending on the nature of the problem (task problems vs group maintenance problems). In another study, Yukl (1969) identified six situation dimensions of which three could easily be categorized as f i t -ting into task (physiological) or interpersonal (personalistic) catego-ries. Maier (1965), Blake and Mouton (1964) and Vroom (1973) have a l l identified two similar dimensions which appear applicable for describing and categorizing situations - concern for acceptance (people) and con-cern for quality (production or task). In addition, Rosenberg (1972) has described situations as behavior units based on their subject mat-ter, context and expression while also incorporating L i t t l e ' s T-P scale as a predictor variable. The above is therefore suggestive of viewing situations in terms of two dimensions: a people dimension (personalistic) where the concern is with interpersonal relationships and, a non-person or physicalistic dimension where the concern is with things and tasks. These dimensions correspond to the primary objects of the environment as suggested by L i t t l e as well as being parallel concepts of the dimensions tapped by the T-P orientation scales. Hypothetically at least, i t may also be possible to view these situational dimensions as orthogonal which allows for the creation of at least three generalized situational categories: person orientated; non-person, thing or task orientated and combined-person- thing orientated. - 44 -Behavioral Response Component A variety of empirical techniques have produced a substantial number of possible leader behavior variables or dimensions. Most re-search in this area has been an attempt to accurately describe what leaders do in behavioral terms. For example, the U.S. Army adopted e-leven leadership principles or behaviors for rating performance which were derived through an analysis of the outstanding leadership behaviors displayed by successful leaders (Carter, 1952). In the Canadian M i l i -tary, junior officers are evaluated during the Basic Officer Training Course on thirteen scales which were originally generated by a variation of the c r i t i c a l incident technique (Otke, 1964). Another technique i n -volved the determination of leader behavior categories on the basis of direct observation and recording of leader's and group member's behavior (Carter, 1953) which when factor analyzed produce specific dimensions including group goal f a c i l i t a t i o n , individual prominence and group so-c i a b i l i t y . "The most notable, and the most complete re-search directed towards the determination of d i -mensions of leader behavior has been that of Hemphill and his colleagues in the Ohio State University Leadership Studies (1950 a). These studies began by defining leadership tentatively as 'behavior of an individual when he is d i -recting the activities of a group towards a shared goal' (Halpin & Winer, 1952: 6)" (Gibb, 1969: 230). These studies produced up to ten a p r i o r i dimensions, (Hemphill, 1950; Halpin & Winer, 1952) which when later measured by questionnaires and - 45 -correlated, produced the following four major leader behavior dimensions with percentages of variance show in brackets: (1) Consideration (49.6%) (2) Initiating structure (33.6%) (3) Production emphasis (9.8%) (4) Sensitivity (social awareness) (7.0%) The f i r s t two dimensions accounted for 83% of the variance while the re-maining two dimensions appear to overlap with the f i r s t two (3 with 2 and 4 with 1). These results as a generalized finding suggesting the existence of two major behavior dimensions have consistently been sup-ported over the years as perhaps the most prevalent and important (Fleishman, Harris & Burtt, 1955; Halpin, 1955; Fleishman, 1971; Stogdill, 1974; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Halpin & Winer, 1957). Although a variety of definitions exist concerning these two dimensions there is a very high degree of agreement about their nature. Yukl (1971: 415) provides one abbreviated but clear definition: "Consideration refers to the degree to which a leader acts in a warm and supportive manner and shows concern and respect for his subordinates. Initiating Structure refers to the degree to which a leader defines and structures his own role and those of his subordinates towards goal attainment." Much of the support for these two dimensions originates from the use of the Supervisory Behavior Description (Fleishman, 1953) which ob-tains descriptions of a supervisor by his subordinates, and the Leader-ship Opinion Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1953, 1960, 1969) on which lead-- 46 -ers describe their own perceptions of their leadership attitudes and be-havior. Of particular importance is the fact that a tremendous amount of research in the leadership f i e l d has focused directly on these two dimensions of leader behavior or at least included them as variables (Bass, 1954; Lowin, Hrapchak & Kavanagh, 1969; Sheridan, Downey & Slocum, 1975; Ilgen & F u j i , 1976). This does not mean there are no oth-er important dimensions for there are indeed many and a number of o r i g i -nal dimensions have been recently identified (Yukl, 1971). However, the empirical and theoretical grounding upon which these two dimensions are based makes them most appealing for future research endeavours. They are relatively easy to isolate and there is evidence to suggest that a l -though they may interact, depending on situational characteristics (Weissenberg & Kavanage, 1972), they can at least be considered inde-pendent in a conceptual/theoretical way (Fleishman, 1971). The congru-ency of these dimensions with other organizational behavior concepts (Bales' (1953) differentiation of task and social-emotional leadership, Likert's (1961) job-centered vs employee-centered supervision and Blake & Monton's (1964) managerial grid with the concern for people and concern for production scales), plus their relationship to the pre-viously defined concepts for the person and situational components, appears to suggest much potential. Leader behavior w i l l therefore be conceptualized in terms of these two measurable dimensions of consider-ation and i n i t i a t i n g structure. - 47 -Hypothesis Formulation The proposed interactional model of leader behavior stems from the point of view which argues that behavior i s neither a function of person characteristics nor situational characteristics alone but rather a function of these factors as they interact. It therefore casts aside the pseudo issue revolving around the question of whether leaders vary their behavior in accordance with situational factors or maintain a consistent pattern or style of behavioral responses across situations. Rather, some people exhibit consistent or r i g i d behavioral patterns on some behavioral dimensions, some of the time, while other people appear to modify their behavior in accordance with situational factors. H i l l (1973) for example obtained results on managerial style as perceived by subordinates indicating that approximately half the managers sampled varied their behavior in accordance with situational factors but that the other half did not, at least for interpersonal and technical types of problems. In addition, the results of a great deal of recent research "suggest that the traits and a b i l i t i e s required of a leader tend to vary from one situation to another, a previously successful leader may f a i l when placed in a situation that imposes demands incompatible with his personality or stabilized pattern of interaction and perform-ance" (Stogdill, 1974: 411-412). A particular combination of tr a i t s may help a leader be successful in one situation, but not necessarily in another. This clearly suggests some people are more inclined to vary their behavior in accordance with - 48 -situational factors (variable or flexible leadership style) while others are less inclined to do so (fixed or r i g i d leadership style). An important question therefore i s , what kind of leaders w i l l have persistent styles and what kinds w i l l have changeable styles? Fiedler 1973: 43) suggests a partial answer as either: "(a) the tendency to behave in a considerate, employee-centered manner i s an attribute of the leader's personality, and therefore properly considered to be his leadership style (trait theory]: or (b) the leader's personality and the situation interact, and the person who is considerate under one condition tends to be relatively less considerate under other con- ^ ditions... [consistency or interaction theory]". He summarizes: "the problem, then, i s to identify the relevant personality attributes as well as the situation-a l factors which determine how individuals in leadership positions w i l l behave." While Fiedler certainly appears to be in the right b a l l park, he may be playing the wrong game. It appears quite possible that both of his answers are partially right. He f a i l s to consider however, the possi-b i l i t y that some people may behave consistently over situations while others may not. The proposed model is concerned with leader behavior plus the variables and mechanisms which determine this behavior. It i s concerned 1. Words i n brackets added by author. - 49 -with how a person behaves when he is placed, appointed, elected or has naturally evolved into a leadership position and role. A major assump-tion of the model i s that consistency and va r i a b i l i t y of behavioral responses w i l l depend on both personal (leader) and situational factors plus the interaction between them. A prime concern is therefore with identifying and operationalizing the appropriate constructs, including the construct of interaction, which might help improve the predict-a b i l i t y of leader behavior styles. The preceding review of the literature and resulting theoretical development of a simplified interactional model of leader behavior suggest i t i s possible to make generalized behavior response predictions for leaders of a particular specialty orientation who find themselves in a specified situation. U t i l i z i n g the three person-thing orientation groupings of the person specialist, thing specialist and generalist (omitting the less predictable non-specialist category) in combination with three categories of situations (person, thing and combined person-thing) , i t i s possible to predict the relative strength of response for each possible combination for each leader behavior dimension of Con-sideration and Initiating Structure. It may also be possible to predict differences between the two dependent variables, given specific special-ties and/or situations. Possible combinations of specialty and situation showing the predicted differences for the two leader behavior dimensions are portrayed in Figures 5 and 6. The hypotheses that follow are based on the rationale developed earlier and are associated with the predictions - 50 -presented i n these figures. To a large extent, these predictions are also derived from the specialization loop concept which suggests there w i l l be continuity across the affective, cognitive and behavioral components of a loop, but the predictions do not take account of the blocking that may occur because of significant barrier or moderator variables. It must be kept in mind that the interactional model of leader behavior i s only a generalized conceptual model which may eventually be refined for a variety of more specific predictions which take such possible influences into account. At i t s current level of development, i t i s primarily an attempt to validate differences in leader behavior response intensity between different combinations of specialty and situation, plus, an endeavour to provide support for an original conceptualization of an interaction component in the model. Insert Figures 5 and 6 about here The requirement for i n i t i a l validation of the simplified inter-actional model of leader behavior (Figure 2) as developed and described above suggests hypotheses based upon the a p r i o r i assumption that support for the theoretical construct of interaction can be s t a t i s t i c a l l y demonstrated by significant effects for both the person and situation variables (each only exists as a result of reciprocal influences on the other and their separate effects must conceptually be viewed together) or, by a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant interaction effect. Further support - 51 -P - Person S p e c i a l i s t G - G e n e r a l i s t T - Thing S p e c i a l i s t Behavior I n t e n s i t y + P S i t u a t i o n C S i t u a t i o n T S i t u a t i o n F i g ure 5. P r e d i c t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n behavior p r o f i l e - 52 -Behavior I n t e n s i t y P - Person S p e c i a l i s t G - G e n e r a l i s t T - Thing S p e c i a l i s t P S i t u a t i o n C S i t u a t i o n T S i t u a t i o n Figure 6. P r e d i c t e d i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e behavior p r o f i l e - 53 -f o r t h i s concept of i n t e r a c t i o n would be provided by v e r i f y i n g d i f f e r -ences i n b e h a v i o r a l response i n t e n s i t y f o r v a r i o u s combinations of s p e c i a l t y and s i t u a t i o n as suggested by the p r e d i c t i o n s of Figures 5 and 6. Hypotheses 1. The t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t of i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l be supported by: a. s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r "both" the independent person and s i t u a t i o n v a r i a b l e s i n p r e d i c t i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e responses; or b. a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i n p r e d i c t i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e responses; or c. both a and b. 2. Person o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l be p r e d i c t i v e of Consideration responses i n that high person o r i e n t a t i o n people (Person s p e c i a l i s t s and gener a l -i s t s ) w i l l emit more Con s i d e r a t i o n behavior than low person o r i e n t a t i o n people'(Thing s p e c i a l i s t s and n o n - s p e c i a l i s t s ) when a l l s i t u a t i o n s are considered together. 3. Thing o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l be p r e d i c t i v e of I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e responses i n that high t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n people (Thing s p e c i a l i s t s and g e n e r a l i s t s ) w i l l emit more I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e behavior than low th i n g o r i e n t a t i o n people (People s p e c i a l i s t s and n o n - s p e c i a l i s t s ) when a l l s i t u a t i o n s are considered together. - 54 -4. In accordance with the obvious main differences suggested by Figure 5, there w i l l be significant differences in Consideration response intensity for various specialty-situation combinations. 5. In accordance with the obvious main differences suggested by Figure 6, there w i l l be significant differences in Initiating Structure response intensity for various specialty-situation combinations. 6. There w i l l be significant differences between the two dependent variables of Consideration and Initiating Structure for certain select and obvious specialty-situation combinations as suggested by a compari-son of Figures 5 and 6. - 55 -METHOD A survey methodology incorporating predeveloped measures along with hypothetical behavioral responses was used to collect data r e l -evant to the proposed leader behavior model. Two samples of Canadian Armed Forces personnel were used in the study, the f i r s t for an ex-ploratory pilot study. Instrumentation The three major components of the Simplified Interactional Model of Leader Behavior as amplified i n the introduction and diagramed in Figure 2 include the Person and Situation components as independent variables and the Leader Behavior Response as a dependent variable. Operationalization of each of these components, whether as continuous or categorical variables, could be achieved u t i l i z i n g any number of different instruments. The actual instruments that were selected for use in this study stem from the rationale previously developed i n defining these components as constructs. The Leader Behavior Response component consists of two dependent variable categories: Consideration and Initiating Structure. In an attempt to provide a short and easily administered rating form, a slightly modified Behavioral Checklist (Bass, 1954; Ilgen & F u j i i , 1976) was used. The original checklist consisted of fourteen behavioral items. Seven items load the Consideration behavior scale: (1) Engaged in friendly jokes and comments, (2) Helped others, (3) Made others feel at ease, (4) Complimented others, (5) Encouraged others to express their - 56 -ideas and opinions, (6) Had others share in making decisions with him, and (7) Helped settle conflicts. The remaining seven items load the Initiating Structure scale: (1) Showed i n i t i a t i v e , (2) Was effective i n saying what he wanted to say, (3) Clearly defined or outlined problems, (4) Motivated others to participate, (5) Influenced others, (6) Offered good solutions to problems, and (7) Led discussions. Each behavioral item can be scored between 0 and 4 depending on the extent to which the behavior has been observed: (0) not at a l l , (1) compara-tively l i t t l e , (2) to some degree, (3) f a i r l y much, and (4) a great deal. The Behavior Checklist was used in a manner different from i t s previous use. Rather than being an assessment of actual observed behavior, i t was used for a respondent to record how he f e l t he would have been rated by an observor had he actually taken steps and carried out actions to deal with a proposed situational problem. Only very slight modifications were made to the original checklist: three items were changed slightly for grammatical reasons and three assessment categories were reworded for c l a r i t y and simplicity. The items were also rearranged in a random order. The modified Checklist as used throughout the study is shown in the study questionnaire (Appendix A). The Person component of the model was operationalized u t i l i z i n g L i t t l e ' s (1972a) construct of Person-Thing orientation. Two separate preference inventories were administered, each consisting of twelve "person" orientation and twelve "thing" orientation items. Each item on L i t t l e ' s (1972a) T-P Interest Questionnaire asks respondents to show how much they would like to be in a situation or involved in an activity by - 57 -rating each item as: (0) Not at a l l , (1) Slightly, (2) Moderately so, (3) Quite a l o t , or (4) Extremely so. The other inventory, as developed by Barnowe, Frost and Jamal (1977), ut i l i z e s 24 items drawn from the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory. This newer T-P inventory asks the respondent to indicate the extent to which he would like or dislike each item (a particular job/occupation, activity or amusement) with ratings of: (5) Strongly Like, (4) Somewhat Like, (3) Indifferent, (2) Somewhat Dislike, and (1) Strongly Dislike. Recent research (Barnowe, Frost & Jamal, 1977; Frost & Barnowe, 1977) reports that the person and thing orientation scales on each of these inventories correlate well with one another. In addition, there is strong evidence to support the notion that the P and T scales are relatively orthogonal and independent within each inventory. This evidence w i l l be reported and compared later in the Results section. The i n i t i a l rationale for administering both inventories was simply to provide the option of using either or even both for obtaining a measure of Person-Thing orientation and dividing the subjects into specialist categories. Both inventories are included i n Appendix A. The Situation component of" the model was also operationalized in accordance with the rationale developed in the introduction. Eighteen possible situations (Appendix B) were produced; seven were refined from examples used i n Vroom's Decision Making Model (1972, 1973, 1974) with the remaining eleven being created primarily from the experimenter's own creativity and experience, plus his exposure to role play situations used in learning exercises. The objective was to select three hypo-- 58 -thetical situations which would be most parallel or equivalent, i n terms of their nature and composition, to the Person Component cate-gories of Person Specialist, Generalist and Thing Specialist. The fi n a l goal was to have a "People" situation where the nature of the situation was primarily with people and not things, a "Combined" situation where the nature of the situation was mixed - both people and non-people (things), and a "Non-people" situation primarily concerned with non-people or things. As w i l l be explained in the administration sub-section, the three situations categorized as L, M and P in Appendix B were selected. These situations also appear i n Appendix A. One additional rating form was also included in the administered instrumentation. This form was primarily included for future analysis not directly related to the hypotheses by serving as a mechanism for checking the categorizing of the three situations i n accordance with their nature or orientation. This form asked each respondent to rate each of the three situations on two 10 point scales, one scale being the dimension of People Orientation and the other Non-people Orienta-tion. This form and the instructions for i t s use are reproduced in Appendix A. Pilot Study A preliminary study was f i r s t carried out using a sample of 56 Officer Cadets who were in their f i f t h week of basic officer training at the Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School at Canadian Forces Base - 59 -Chilliwack. This pilot study had as objectives the testing of the instructions, the determining of the time required to complete the questionnaire and the detection of any significant problems in terms of format or content. In addition, although the N was relatively small, a mini-analysis was carried out on the obtained responses to help get a feel for the data and i t s relationship to the hypotheses. The subjects in the pi l o t sample were a l l Anglophone males who had just joined the Forces. 96% of the sample was being allocated to operational classifications (Armour, A r t i l l e r y , Infantry, Maritime Surface, Navigator or P i l o t ) ; approximately three quarters of them joined under the terms of the Officer Candidate Training Plan which requires a minimum of Junior Matriculation while the other quarter were Direct Entry Officers having completed a university degree or technical institute diploma. 55% of the sample had at least completed Senior Matriculation, 45% had completed one or more years of university. Only seven of the 56 were married and although their age ranged from 18 to 29, the mean age was 21.2. The sample was administered the above described instrumentation in accordance with the instructions included in Appendix C. Only Part 1 of the questionnaire was given at the f i r s t meeting. This included the i n i t i a l instructions, biographic information form and the two Person-Thing preference inventories. It was planned to administer Part 2 some days later but a change i n the availability of the subjects necessitated that Part 2 be given the day after Part 1. Part 2 i n -structions requested that the respondent place themselves in each of - 60 -the three randomly presented situations (one at a time) and then de-scribe in a separate blank booklet what he would do, what steps or actions he would take, in order to resolve or deal with the described problem. After describing how he would have acted in each situation, the respondent went on to Section 2 of Part 2 where he had to rate him-self as he f e l t an observer would have rated him on each situation using the 14 behavior dimensions on the Behavior Checklist. On com-pletion, the f i n a l page of the questionnaire required the respondent to rate each situation on the 10 point People and Non-People orientation (nature of situation) dimensions. Although a detailed analysis was not carried out on the pilot sample data, some very minor analytical checks were made. The results of these are reported in Appendix D and amplified in the Results section. The resulting changes that were carried out for the main study are specified later i n this section under Administration. Sample The main study was carried out with a sample somewhat similar to the one used in the pilot study. A l l 244 subjects were in the Canadian Armed Forces undergoing the Basic Officer Training Course but at the Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School Detachment at Canadian Forces Base Borden (Ontario). The subjects were a l l male, 98% were Anglophones and 89% were single. A main difference from the pilot sample was that 90% of them were enrolled i n academic subsidized plans in which the Department of National Defence fu l l y subsidizes their - 61 -university education. 78% of the total sample consisted of Officer Cadets from the three Canadian Military Colleges and 87% of the total sample had completed either Senior Matriculation or f i r s t year univer-sity when sampled. Their mean age was a l i t t l e lower than the pilot sample: 20.2 with 81% of the sample being under 21. Only 9% of the sample had more than a year of service, but approximately 90% had enrolled close to nine months earlier prior to attending Military College or university. In contrast to the p i l o t sample, only 62% were allocated to operational classification groups with the remaining 38% allocated to engineering or support classifications, generally in accordance with their academic programs and personal preferences. 85% of the respondents were in their 4th week of the course while 15% (37) had only completed the f i r s t training day. Administration Situation Selection. The data used for the selection of the three situations which would represent the Situation Component of the model was obtained by requesting eight faculty members from three separate divisions of the University of Briti s h Columbia Commerce and Business Administration Faculty to complete Appendix E. Basically, this required each respondent to read each situation in Appendix B (presented in a different random order for each rater) and then rate i t on two 10 point scales representing People and Non-people Orientation. Selection of the three most appropriate situations, one for each desired type (People, Thing and Combined), was then made on the basis - 62 -of goodness of f i t . Each two-dimensional response was plotted on a graph for each situation. The horizontal axis represented People Orientation, the vertical axis Non-people or Thing Orientation. The i n i t i a l selection criterion was that not more than one of the eight two-dimensional responses could be outside the desired areas: for the People situation, the desired area included a People Orientation score of 5 or better and a Non-people Orientation score of 5 or less; for the Thing situation, the opposite; and for the Combined situation, a P and T score each of 5 or more. Only five of the situations met this i n i t i a l criterion. These situations are plotted i n Figure 7. M was selected as the Combined situation as i t was the only one out of the five for which the plots f i l l e d the desired area. L was selected over N for the People situation as a l l plots for L were i n the desired area whereas N had one outside. P was selected over E for the Thing situation on the basis of a higher T score and lower standard deviations. The three selected situations were later presented to every subject sampled i n the pilot and main study. Insert Figure 7 about here Questionnaire. Administration of a l l the instructions and instruments making up the questionnaire (Appendix A) was carried out at Canadian Forces Base Borden over a four-day period. The complete ques-tionnaire was administered to the subjects by platoon. Four companies 0 2 People S i t u a t i o n 1 0 , 10 T 8 .. 6 .. 4 2 M t i i— f -x X x 2 X -X—X-X - f — I — I — I — » 0 2 4 p 6 8 10 Combined S i t u a t i o n 1 6.-T . r 4-. 2«. X X3 X Thing S i t u a t i o n X 0 H — I — » h X 4 P 6 4—I—I—I—I 8 10 ON CO gure 7. P l o t s f o r f i n a l f i v e s i t u a t i o n s as r a t e d by f a c u l t y sample - 64 -were represented, two with three platoons each and two (mixed anglo-franco companies) with one platoon each. The number of subjects in each platoon ranged from 27 to 37 and they took from 28 to 65 minutes to com-plete the questionnaire. The experimenter re-emphasized the points made on the f i r s t page of the questionnaire and c l a r i f i e d instructions when-ever they were questioned. Actual administration of the questionnaire was similar to that described for the pilot sample except that a l l parts were given together as one questionnaire at one si t t i n g and subjects were instructed to write out their written responses to the situations right on the pages describing the situations. The two Person-Thing inventories and the f i n a l rating form for the orientation (nature) of each situation re-mained virtual l y the same as in the pilot study. Three of the Behavior Checklist items were changed very slightly for grammatical and c l a r i -fying reasons as explained earlier. The f i n a l paragraph at the conclu-sion of each situation was also slightly changed from the pilot study in an attempt to get respondents more involved i n the situation by f i r s t expressing their feelings and thoughts about i t , followed by how they would act or behave i n order to deal with the problem posed in the s i t u -ation. The major change to the questionnaire involved the complete re-writing of the questionnaire instructions from those shown i n Appendix C to those shown in Appendix A. This was done in an attempt to streamline and simplify the solicitating of responses from the respondents, par-- 65 -t i a l l y as a r e s u l t of comments made by the p i l o t sample^- and p a r t i a l l y because of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s which might have l i m i t e d the time the subjects had a v a i l a b l e f o r responding. In a d d i t i o n , the newer i n s t r u c -t i o n s were t r y i n g to ensure that both of the lea d e r behavior dimensions (Consideration and I n i t i a t i n g S tructure) were being adequately tapped without o v e r l y i n f l u e n c i n g one over the other as appeared to happen dur-i n g the p i l o t study. (See Appendix D and the Res u l t s s e c t i o n ) . The i n -s t r u c t i o n s t h e r e f o r e t r i e d to ensure that both the people and the task i n the s i t u a t i o n s would be d e a l t w i t h i n terms of how the respondent would behave. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r r a t i n g the items on the Behavior Check-l i s t a l s o t r i e d to emphasize that the r a t i n g s were not e v a l u a t i v e i n order to reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y of a d e s i r a b i l i t y e f f e c t i n the r e -sponses . To r e i t e r a t e , each respondent completed two P-T i n v e n t o r i e s , made w r i t t e n responses to each of the three s i t u a t i o n s , r a t ed himself on each s i t u a t i o n using the Behavior C h e c k l i s t , and rated each s i t u a t i o n i n terms of i t s People and Non-people o r i e n t a t i o n . Only some of the ques-t i o n n a i r e s f o llowed t h i s p a r t i c u l a r order however, as the order f o r a l l qu e s t i o n n a i r e s was a l t e r e d i n a random manner. The P-T i n v e n t o r i e s a l -ways appeared together but w i t h one or the other being f i r s t , e i t h e r a t 1. A number of p i l o t study respondents experienced d i f f i c u l t y r e l a t i n g the Behavior C h e c k l i s t items to the s i t u a t i o n s w i t h confusion steming from how t h i s r e l a t e d to what they wrote concerning a s i t u a t i o n . Some were a l s o too concerned w i t h s o l v i n g the s i t u a t i o n a l problem and not wi t h how they would behave i n the s i t u a t i o n . The new i n s t r u c t i o n s t r i e d to emphasis the use of a c t i o n verbs/words. - 66 -the beginning of the questionnaire before the situations or at the end just prior to the orientation ratings of the situations, for a total of 2 X 2 = 4 variations. The situations themselves were also varied in or-der with 3 X 2 X 1 = 6 different combinations. In total, the randomiza-tion of these factors created 6 X 4 = 24 different orders of the ques-tionnaire and the questionnaires were randomly distributed to the sub-jects at the time of administration. Analyses The development of a Simplified Interactional Model of Leader Behavior and the derived hypotheses, plus the resulting operationaliza-tion of the major components, dictated that the analysis and hypothesis testing would be carried out by correlational analysis, analysis of var-iance, and the comparison of means by t tests. Correlational analysis was used to select the Person-Thing measure used for dividing the sample into specialist groups. It was also used to examine and explain trends and relationships between variables. A majority of the hypotheses were testable by carrying out t tests to determine significant differences between means. The Stati s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975) was used for processing a l l the data with particular emphasis being given to the subprograms BREAK-DOWN, ANOVA and T-TEST. The overall research design can be described as a repeated meas-ures two factor 4 X 3 design. One factor, specialist group, consists of the four person-thing orientation groupings. The other, situation, con-- 67 -sists of the three situations. Keeping i n mind that the study included two dependent variables, there were actually two identical designs, one for each dependent variable. Figure 8 shows the specified design for one dependent variable with to X^ a l l indicating different but stable N's. Therefore, within each specialist category, each subject responded to a l l three situations. The c e l l frequencies were not equal across specialist categories and hence a within group analysis of variance was employed. Although the majority of hypotheses were only concerned with the three specialist groups of primary interest, the i n i t i a l analysis of variance included the Non specialist category so that the overall sig-nificance of main and interaction effects could be more accurately de-termined and Hypothesis 1 tested. This analysis used the UBC ANOVAR (Greig, 1976) program with the following model: CON, 1ST = A + B + AB + C(A) + E where CON and 1ST represent the two dependent variables, A represents the specialty main effect, B represents the situation main effect, AB represents the specialty X situation interaction effect, C(A) represents the effect of subjects (individual differences) nested within A, and E represents the error. The model assumes mixed effects: A and B are assumed to be fixed with C(A) being a random effect. Insert Figure 8 about here - 68 -S p e c i a l i s t Group 6 P N T p x i 65 X 2 59 X 3 57 X 4 58 S i t u a t i o n C x i 65 X 2 59 X 3 57 X 4 58 T x i 65 X 2 59 X 3 57 X 4 58 F i g u r e 8. Repeated measures research design used f o r each dependent v a r i a b l e . ( A c t u a l N i n d i c a t e d f o r each c e l l ) . - 69 -RESULTS Pilot Study For the p i l o t study sample (N = 56) each subject's Person and Thing orientation score was calculated using L i t t l e ' s (1972 a) T-P In-ventory. These scores were plotted on a graph and the subjects were as-signed to specialist groups by cutting each dimension at the mean/median point (29 for the person dimension, 28 for the thing dimension). After eliminating four subjects who scored at these points, the sample was l e f t with 18 Generalists, 8 People Specialists, 7 Thing Specialists and 19 Non Specialists. These results suggested that a f a i r l y large N might be required to get enough Person and Thing Specialists for the main study. They also suggested that Officer Cadets as a group appear to score significantly higher on both dimensions than did L i t t l e ' s norma-tive group (P « 24.7 and T = 22.9) with the result that 35% of the sam-ple i s categorized as Generalist. It is interesting to note that had L i t t l e ' s norms been used, 35 subjects (67%) would have been categorized as Generalists. Mean Consideration and Initiating Structure scores for each si t u -ation for the three specialist groups of primary interest are reported in Appendix D. These means, although calculated on a very small, dis-proportionate and therefore unreliable sample, suggested that the Person Specialist and Generalist groups were exhibiting more Consideration be-havior than the Thing Specialist group as expected, but that they were also giving off much more Initiating Structure behavior than was ex-- 70 -pected, e s p e c i a l l y the Person S p e c i a l i s t s . The r e s u l t s a l s o suggested that the People s i t u a t i o n , r e g a r d l e s s of s p e c i a l i s t group, tended to r e -ce i v e more Cons i d e r a t i o n behavior as expected but that t h i s same s i t u a -t i o n a l s o tended to r e c e i v e more I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e behavior than the other s i t u a t i o n s , again, c o n t r a r y to expectations. As a r e s u l t of these u n d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t s f o r the I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e dimension, the ques-t i o n n a i r e i n s t r u c t i o n s were changed to t r y to counteract t h i s . A very b a s i c two f a c t o r 3 X 3 a n a l y s i s of vari a n c e was a l s o c a r r i e d out to determine whether or not i t appeared that the main e f -f e c t s and/or t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n would be s i g n i f i c a n t . For t h i s a n a l y s i s s i x subjects were chosen at random from each s p e c i a l i s t group i n order to have equal c e l l N's. Re s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s of variance f o r each dependent v a r i a b l e are in c l u d e d i n Appendix D. Although the main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s are not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h i s l i m i t e d sample, i t appeared that given a l a r g e enough N, they might be. S i t u a t i o n s The procedure used to s e l e c t the three s i t u a t i o n s f o r use i n the study was explained i n the Method s e c t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l data was however c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e to v e r i f y whether or not the sample perceived the s i t u a t i o n s as being of the same nature (combination of person and t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n ) as intended by the experimenter. The f i n a l page of the questionnaire therefore asked each respondent to r a t e each of the three s i t u a t i o n s on the 10 p o i n t People and Non people dimensions. Table I shows how the t o t a l sample perceived - 71 -each s i t u a t i o n and compares these o v e r a l l perceptions w i t h the r a t i n g s obtained by the f a c u l t y sample (used to i n i t i a l l y s e l e c t and c a t e g o r i z e the three s i t u a t i o n s ) and the p i l o t study sample. The three s i t u a t i o n s were chosen on the bases of the o r i g i n a l f a c u l t y sample r a t i n g s as those three s i t u a t i o n s out of the o r i g i n a l 18 that best represented the three kinds of d e s i r e d s i t u a t i o n s . S t a t i s t i c s obtained from the subjects i n the sample g e n e r a l l y compare f a v o r a b l y to the o r i g i n a l s t a t i s t i c s . Nev-e r t h e l e s s , some r a t i n g s and t h e i r range (each dimension f o r each s i t u a -t i o n had a range of 10 except f o r the People dimension i n the People s i t u a t i o n where the range was 8) are not completely i n the d e s i r e d quad-r e n t , e s p e c i a l l y the Non-people dimension scores i n the People and Com-bined s i t u a t i o n s and the People dimension score i n the Thing s i t u a t i o n . I n s e r t Table I about here S p e c i a l i s t Groups C o r r e l a t i o n s between the L i t t l e and Frost-Barnowe Person-Thing o r i e n t a t i o n measures were obtained f o r the sample and are compared w i t h those obtained i n other s t u d i e s i n Tables I I and I I I . S p l i t h a l f (odd-even) r e l i a b i l i t i e s were a l s o c a l c u l a t e d f o r the data. This i s compared w i t h r e l i a b i l i t i e s obtained f o r each instrument w i t h other samples i n Table IV. Table I People and Non-People Ratings of Situations Situation Dimens ion Research Sample (N - 240) Faculty Sample (N = 8) Pilo t Sample (N = 30) Median Mean S.D.. Mean S.D. Mean People, 9.09 8.84 1.31 9.00 1.00 9.30 People Non-People (Things) 2.34 3.17 2.65 2.38 1.22 3.43 People 7.83 7.47 2.04 7.75 0.97 7.73 Combined Non-People (Things) 5.35 5.37 2.44 5.88 1.76 5.70 People 3.70 4.03 2.24 3.50 1.87 3.56 Thing Non-People (Things) 7.81 7.41 1.91 8.00 1.87 8.23 - 73 -Insert Tables I I , III and IV about here For the military sample, the person and thing scales appeared to be more independent and orthogonal for the Frost-Barnowe measure (.05) than for the L i t t l e measure (.17). The P scales from both measures overlap or correlate well (.69) but the T scales less well (.50). Nev-ertheless these coefficients compare favorably with previous findings (Tables II and I I I ) . There i s also some indication that the Frost-Barnowe measures for each scale are more reliable (Table IV) than the L i t t l e measures, at least for the military sample. Because of this, and the more orthogonal nature of the Frost-Barnowe measure, i t was decided to use this measure to allocate the sample to the four specialist groups. Table V shows the means, medians, standard deviations and cut-off points for each scale on both the L i t t l e and Frost-Barnowe measures along with previously developed norms. Insert Table V about here The Cut-off Points specified in Table V mark the point on each dimension where the sample would be s p l i t into specialized groups, a point which very closely approximates both the mean and median of each dimension. Both L i t t l e and Frost-Barnowe have used such a procedure - 74 -Table II Correlations between Person and Thing Orientation Scales Sample Frost-Barnowe Scales L i t t l e Scales Present Study (N = 244) .05 .17 Canadian Business School Students (N = 444) .16 males .00 males & females .16 males .11 males & females Other Misc Studies .05 to .13 -.10 to .11 Li t t l e ' s Norm Groups Males (N= 284) Females (N = 224) .02 .07 - 75 -Table III Intercorrelations of Person-Thing Orientation Measures Measure 1 2 3 1. People (Little) — 2. Things (Little) .17 (.10) — 3. People (Frost-Barnowe) .69 (.64) -.02 (-.02) — 4. Things (Frost-Barnowe) .02 (-.02) .50 (.52) .05 (.01) Note. Correlations in brackets from a Frost & Barnowe (1977) sample with N = 396. - 76 -Table IV Rel i a b i l i t i e s of Frost-Barnowe and L i t t l e Measures of Person-Thing Orientation (Split Half, odd-even) Sample N Frost-Barnowe L i t t l e P T P T Canadian Military Officer Cadets 244 .71 .68 .59 .59 Canadian Business School Students 480 .64 .69 .56 .57 Misc. Brit i s h and Canadian Samples 120 — — .77 .83 Table V Person-Thing Orientation S t a t i s t i c s f o r L i t t l e and Frost-Barnowe Measures Measure M i l i t a r y O f f i c e r Sample Sample Cut-off Point Normative Sample N X Median SD N X SD L i t t l e P 244 25.6 25.9 6.5 25/26 284 24.7 7.3 T 244 28.3 28.2 6.8 28/29 284 22.9 7.6 Frost-Barnowe P 239 37.4 37.8 7.9 37/38 485 38.0 -T 239 39.7 40.1 6.8 39/40 485 36.7 -Note. The Frost-Barnowe Normative sample includes males and females. The other samples are a l l male - 78 -for allocating subjects to specialties. Figure 9 shows the percentage of the sample that f e l l within each specialty using the Frost-Barnowe measure with the actual number of subjects allocated to each specialty indicated i n the center of the paradym. The bracketed F-B and L figures show how the Frost and Barnowe (1977) sample compared in distribution. Had L i t t l e ' s T-P measure been used with the present sample, the special-i s t allocations would have been: Generalists 26%, Thing Specialists 22%, Non Specialists 25% and People Specialist 27%, an allocation which would have been f a i r l y consistent with previously reported breakdowns. Insert Figure 9 about here Dependent Variables Correlations between the two dependent variables of Consideration and Initiating Structure, as measured by responses to the Behavior Checklist, are presented in Table VI. Correlations within each of the three situations range from .45 to .60 with an overall correlation for a l l situations of .62. These findings are therefore contrary to one of the basic assumptions of the model: that the two leader behavior dimen-sions are relatively independent. The correlations actually suggest the opposite; the two dimensions are highly related and therefore overlap considerably. Because of this high degree of relationship the results obtained by testing for differences between the two dimensions may be of limited u t i l i t y . The dependent variables are just too interdependent. Figure 9. A l l o c a t i o n of sample to s p e c i a l i s t groups (N-239) - 80 -This should not however detract from testing for differences within each dimension, providing one keeps in mind that the dimensions are related. Insert Table VI about here Correlations between each of the dependent variables and the inde-pendent variable dimensions of Person-thing orientation are also of particular interest. Table VII shows these correlations for each depen-dent variable. L i t t l e ' s P-T measure was not used for placing subjects in specialties but correlations for his measure are also shown. Both person scales indicate some correlation with Consideration with L i t t l e ' s people scale having slightly higher coefficients. However, both thing scales show very l i t t l e correlation with the Initiating Structure dimen-sion. L i t t l e ' s thing scale even correlates better with Consideration than with Initiating Structure. In addition, both people scales corre-late better with Initiating Structure than do the thing scales. The data at this point therefore suggests that people orientation might be a better predictor than thing orientation, albeit a poor predictor, for Initiating Structure. Insert Table VII about here Table VI C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x f o r Consideration and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e Dependent V a r i a b l e S i t u a t i o n s ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C o n s. X d e r a t . X o n 1. People S i t u a t i o n 1 2. Combined S i t u a t i o n .38 1 3. Thing S i t u a t i o n .19 .38 1 4. T o t a l S i t u a t i o n s .69 .79 .73 1 I n. V X r u C t u r e 5. People S i t u a t i o n .51 .28 .26 .47 1 6. Combined S i t u a t i o n .33 .60 .30 .55 .53 1 7. Thing S i t u a t i o n .32 .30 .45 .49 .48 .48 1 8. T o t a l S i t u a t i o n s .47 .49 .42 .62 .80 .83 .81 1 Table V I I C o r r e l a t i o n s between C o n s i d e r a t i o n - I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e and Person-Thing O r i e n t a t i o n Measure Consideration I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e P S i t C S i t T S i t T o t a l S i t P S i t C S i t T S i t T o t a l S i t L i t t l e P .24 .24 .22 .32 .16 .21 .18 .22 T .05 .16 .14 .16 .07 .04 .08 .08 Frost-Barnowe P • 21 .15 .15 .23 .15 .14 .15 .18 T .07 .04 .004 .05 .12 .01 .06 .07 - 83 -Table VIII arranges the data obtained from the responses to the Behavior Ch e c k l i s t for both dependent variables i n accordance with the Repeated Measures Design previously presented i n Figure 8. Each c e l l shows the mean obtained by analysis of variance. Figure 10 i s a Insert Table VIII about here gra p h i c a l presentation of the above data f o r comparison purposes. For the Consideration dimension, there are some d e f i n i t e trends: the Generalist group c o n s i s t e n t l y gave o f f more Consideration behavior f o r each s i t u a t i o n followed by the Person s p e c i a l i s t s , and, a l l groups con-s i s t e n t l y gave o f f more Consideration behavior i n the People s i t u a t i o n than i n the other two s i t u a t i o n s . For the I n i t i a t i n g Structure dimen-Insert Figure 10 about here sion, the Generalists followed by the Person s p e c i a l i s t s gave o f f more I n i t i a t i n g Structure behavior f o r a l l s i t u a t i o n s but the v a r i a t i o n s between s i t u a t i o n s are l e s s extreme than f o r the Consideration dimen-sio n . Although most I n i t i a t i n g Structure differences are r e l a t i v e l y minor between s i t u a t i o n s , the suggested trend i s that the People and Thing s i t u a t i o n s obtained s l i g h t l y more responses than the Combined s i t u a t i o n . In addition, f o r each behavior dimension, the Non s p e c i a l -Table V I I I Mean Leader Behavior Responses by S p e c i a l t y and S i t u a t i o n S i t u a t i o n Consideration I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e S p e c i a l t y Average A l l S p e c i a l t i e s S p e c i a l t y Average A l l S p e c i a l t i e s G P N T G P N T People 17.015 15.932 14.930 15.500 15.883 19.215 17.746 17.421 17.379 17.979 Combined 14.200 13.136 12.316 12.086 12.975 17.831 16.983 17.105 15.793 16.954 Thing 13.754 13.034 12.509 11.224 12.665 19.108 17.729 16.386 16.690 17.531 Average A l l S i t u a t i o n s 14.990 14.034 13.251 12.937 13.841 18.718 17.486 16.971 16.621 17.488 G - G e n e r a l i s t P - Person S p e c i a l i s t N - Non S p e c i a l i s t T - Thing S p e c i a l i s t 19 18 17 16 15 14 .. 13.. 12-. 11 Consideration G P N T People S i t u a t i o n F N Combined S i t u a t i o n G P N T Thing S i t u a t i o n 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e . G P N T People S i t u a t i o n G P N T Combined S i t u a t i o n G P N T Thing S i t u a t i o n Figure 10. Graphical p r e s e n t a t i o n of mean c o n s i d e r a t i o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e responses by s p e c i a l t y and s i t u a t i o n (Source - Table V I I I ) - 86 -i s t s score even higher than the Thing specialists in the Combined and Thing situations, the only difference being i n the People situation. Hypothesis Testing The results of the within groups' analysis of variance are reported i n Table IX. Because of the nature of the Repeated Measures Experimental Design, a third factor, subjects (individual differences) was included in the model and the effect of this factor i s also reported in Table IX. Only the interaction term for specialist X situation inter-action i s reported, this being the only interaction of current concern. Insert Table IX about here Table IX shows that the main effects for Specialist and Situation, for both dependent variables, are significant. These findings, along with the data presented i n Table VIII and Figure 10 support the notion that there are significant differences across specialties and situations for the Consideration and Initiating Structure responses. For the Consideration variable, there are very obvious visual differences between situations. The differences between situations for the Initiating struc-ture variable, although much less obvious, are also s t a t i s t i c a l l y sig-nificant, as are the differences between specialties for each situation. Hypothesis 1 i s therefore supported by the data i n that the main effects for each dependent variable are significant thus supporting the notion - 87 -Table IX A n a l y s i s of Variance C o n s i d e r a t i o n Source SS Df Mean Square F Prob S p e c i a l i s t 465.607 3 155.202 4.666 .004 S i t u a t i o n 1506.084 2 753.042 49.715 .000 S X S I n t e r a c t i o n 54.726 6 9.121 0.602 .731 Subjects 7816.268 235 33.261 2.196 .000 Er r o r 7119.191 470 15.147 T o t a l 16961.875 716 I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e Source SS Df Mean Square F Prob S p e c i a l i s t 471.628 3 157.209 5.553 .001 S i t u a t i o n 126.246 2 63.123 7.929 .001 S X S I n t e r a c t i o n 78.718 6 13.120 1.648 .131 Subjects 6652.855 235 28.310 3.556 .000 Er r o r 3741.703 470 7.961 T o t a l 11071.149 716 - 88 -of theoretical interaction. There were however no s t a t i s t i c a l l y signif-icant Specialty X Situation interaction effects and therefore the sup-port for Hypothesis 1 i s not as strong as had been hoped for. Two t-tests were carried out for each of Hypotheses 2 and 3 with the results presented in Table X. These hypotheses basically stated Insert Table X about here high Person orientation people would give off more Consideration behav-ior for a l l situations summed together than would low Person orientation people (Hypothesis 2) and high Thing orientation people would give off more Initiating Structure behavior for a l l situations summed together than low Thing orientation people (Hypothesis 3). Hypothesis 2 was sup-ported by the two tests - high Person orientation did predict s i g n i f i -cantly more Consideration behavior. Hypothesis 3 however, was not sup-ported - high Thing orientation did not predict more Initiating Struc-ture behavior. Hypotheses 4 and 5 are parallel hypotheses like Hypotheses 2 and 3. Each i s concerned with the expected differences i n behavior re-sponses for each dependent variable for various specialty-situation combinations. Hypothesis 4 includes predicted differences in Considera-tion behavior as suggested by Figure 5. Hypothesis 5 includes predicted differences in Initiating Structure behavior as suggested by Figure 6. Each hypothesis was tested by predicting differences for 13 different Table X T-Tests for Hypotheses 2 and 3 The Predictability of Behavior Response Intensity by Orientation, Across a l l Situations Test Predicted Relationship Difference (Mean) T-Value Probability 1-Tailed Support Hypothesis 2 Consideration #1 High P Orientation Greater than Low P Orientation (P + G) > (T +• N) 4.23 3.26 .001 Yes #2 P Spec > T Spec 3.10 1.77 .04 Yes Hypothesis 3 Initiating Structure #1 High T Orientation Greater than Low T Orientation (G + T) > (P + N) 1.49 1.23 .11 No #2 T Spec > P Spec -2.60 -1.66 .05 No (wrong direction) - 90 -combinations of specialty and situation and subjecting these differences to t-tests. The results as presented in Tables XI and XII provide strong support for the Consideration predictions (11 out of 13 tests were significant at the>.05 level with the other two being in the right direction) but no real support for the Initiating Structure predictions (only one of the 13 tests was significant and 11 of the 13 are not even in the right direction). Consequently, the Consideration hypotheses (2 and 4) are supported; the Initiating Structure hypotheses (3 and 5) are not supported. Person orientation and the nature of the situation play roles i n solicitating Consideration responses. On the other hand, Thing orientation does not have a relationship with Initiating Structure re-sponses . Insert Tables XI and XII about here Notwithstanding that the two dependent variables are neither inde-pendent nor equivalent, i t was decided to test a few major predicted differences between them based on obvious visual differences between Figures 5 and 6. To make each variable comparable - i t is obvious from Table VIII and Figure 10 that a l l specialties consistently gave off more Initiating Structure responses than Consideration responses but this i s not different from previous findings (Bass, 1954) - both variables were f i r s t standardized and then t-tests were carried out for the four most expected differences. From the results shown in Table XIII, i t can be Table XI Hypothesis 4 T-Tests Consideration Predictions for Various Combinations of Specialty and Situations (Source: Figure 5) Type of Combination Predicted Relationship Mean Difference T Value .05 Significant 1 Tailed Test P Situation P > T 0.432 0.56 No Same Situation & Different Specialty G > T 1.515 1.95 Yes Situation P > T 0.837 1.26 No C G > T 1.902 2.25 Yes Situation P> T 1.810 2.14 Yes T G> T 2.530 2.77 Yes Different Situation P Sit > T Sit (P Specialist) 2.898 4.28 Yes P Sit > C Sit (P Specialist) 2.797 4.65 Yes & Same P Sit > T Sit (Generalist) 3.262 4.43 Yes Specialty P Sit> T Sit (Thing Specialist) 4.276 5.17 Yes Different Situation & Different Specialty P Sp (P Sit) > T Sp (T Sit) 4.708 5.56 Yes P Sp (P Sit)> G (T Sit) 2.178 2.58 Yes G (P Sit)> T Sp (T Sit) 5.791 6.80 Yes Table XII Hypothesis 5 T-Tests Initiating Structure Predictions for Various Combinations of Specialty and Situation (Source: Figure 6) Type of Combination Predicted Relationship Mean Difference T Value .05 Significant 1 Tailed Test Same Situation & Different Specialty T > P -0.367 -0.63 No P Situation T > G -1.836 -2.85 No T> P -1.190 -1.69 No C Situation T> G -2.04 -2.54 No T> P -1.039 -1.46 No T Situation T > G -2.418 -3.11 No Different Situation & Same Specialty T Sit> P Sit (P Specialist) -0.017 -0.03 No T Sit > P Sit (Generalist) -0.108 -0.20 No T Sit>C Sit (T Specialist) 0.897 1.51 No T Sit> P Sit (T Specialist) -0.690 -1.46 No Different Situation & Different Specialty T Sp (T Sit)> P Sp (P Sit) -1.056 -1.58 No T Sp (T Sit)> G (P Sit) -2.526 -3.50 No G (T Sit)> P Sp (P Sit) 1.362 1.89 Yes - 93 -concluded that Hypothesis 6 is supported. Insert Table XIII about here Post Hoc Analysis The results presented thus far have provided support for the d i -mension of Person orientation as i t is influenced by the situation vari-able in determining Consideration responses within an interactional mod-el of behavior. The predictions made by Figure 5 have been verified. The relationship between Thing orientation and Initiating Structure re-sponses as predicted by Figure 6 however, has not been supported (Hy-potheses 3 and 5). One obvious explanation for this i s the lack of orthogonality and independence of the two dependent variables as indi-cated by the correlation coefficients of Table VI. Another explanation involves the very marginal correlations between Thing orientation and Initiating Structure (Table VII). In order to more f u l l y understand why the Thing orientation-Initiating Structure part of the model has failed i t was necessary to carry out further analysis. The possibility existed that specialist groups might perceive the same situations differently and that this could have an effect on how they rated their behavioral responses. From the data collected on the situation rating form (Appendix A) i t was possible to compare and test for differences between specialist groups on how they assessed each s i t -uation on the two dimensions. 18 tests were carried out with the result Table XIII Hypothesis 6 T-Tests Main Predicted Differences between Consideration and Initiating Structure for Select Specialty-Situation Combinations (Source: Figures 5 and 6) Specialty-Situation Combination Predicted Relationship Mean Difference (Standard-ized) T-Value Probability Support Pers Specialist i n Person Situation Consideration >Initiating Structure .3645 3.21 .001 Yes Thing Specialist in Thing Situation Initiating Structure> Consideration .3335 2.54 .007 Yes Generalist in Person Situation Consideration) Initiating Structure .2130 2.05 .023 Yes Generalist i n Thing Situation Initiating Structure) Consideration .4293 3.22 .001 Yes - 95 -that there were no significant differences. Consequently, this alterna-tive was not a viable explanation for the lack of a relationship between Thing orientation and Initiating Structure. Factor analysis and a comparison of correlations between factors was then carried out for both the Frost-Barnowe Person-Thing inventory and the Behavior Checklist. Forcing a two factor orthogonal solution for the P-T instrument (Your Interests, Appendix A), a l l 12 person items loaded at greater than .44 on the f i r s t factor and a l l 12 thing items loaded the second factor, although three had loadings below .40 (items 1, 9 and 18). Correlation between the two factors was .05, the same as reported in Table I I . When a second factor analysis was carried out on the same items where the number of factors extracted was dependent on a minimum eigen value of 1.0, six clear factors emerged. Three factors were completely made up of the original 12 person items and three factors from 10 of the original 12 person items (items 1 and 18 did not load). The results of both factor analyses are highly congruent with those obtained by Frost and Barnowe (1977) except for two additional items not loading and slightly different combinations of items on the three Thing factors. Insert Table XIV about here A forced two factor analysis was also carried out for the 14 items making up the Behavior Checklist (Appendix A). As the correlation coef-Table XIV P-T Items Loading (>.4) on Significant (Eigenvalue>1.0) Factors (Frost-Barnowe Instrument) Factor & Orientation (a) I (P) II (T) III (T) IV (T) V (P) VI (P) 13 4 11 3 5 2 14 9 12 6 7 22 P-T Items (b) 17 15 23 21 8 19 16 10 20 -a. Factors I, V and VI are completely People-orientated. Factors I I , I I I and IV are completely Thing-orientated. b. Items 1 and 18 failed to load. - 97 -ficients reported earlier might have suggested, there were some distinct relationships between the two factors for some items. Five I S items (2, 4, 5, 10, 11) clearly loaded the f i r s t factor and four C items (1, 6, 9, 13) loaded the second factor. However, three C items (3, 7, 8) loaded on both factors, item 12 failed to load at the .4 level on either factor, and, item 14, an I S item, loaded on the second.factor. The two behavioral dimensions are clearly neither independent nor orthogonal with a correlation of .67 between the two factors. Insert Table XV about here An additional factor analysis was carried out to extract factors on the bases of a minimum eigen value of 1.0. Three factors emerged. The f i r s t included six of the original I S items plus one of the C items (# 3 - Helped Others). The second factor consisted of four of the orig-inal C items. The third factor included two C items plus one of the I S items (# 14 - Motivated others to participate). Factor 1 i s , except for one changed item (# 3), the same as the original I S dimension. Factors 2 and 3, except for the loss of item # 3 and additional item 14, i n -cludes a l l the C dimension items. Factor 2 appears to be a Considera-tion "being friendly" dimension while Factor 3 i s a Consideration "enhancing participation" dimension. The above factor analyses along with the correlations previously reported between Thing orientation and Initiating Structure (approxi-Table XV Dependent Variable Behavior Checklist Items - Factor Analysis Results Intended Dimension Item No. Forced Two Factors Three Factor Solution ^ Major Dimension Loaded Factor I Factor II Factor I Factor II Factor III C 1 .094 .643 .108 .219 .644 C IS 2 .709 .074 .668 .215 .001 IS C 3 .478 .455 .429 .387 .307 IS (C) IS 4 .658 .229 .602 .317 .111 IS IS 5 .628 .131 .560 .328 -.023 IS C 6 .260 .523 .072 .752 .200 C C 7 .427 .511 .302 .635 .223 C C 8 .448 .426 .381 .423 .250 C (IS) C 9 -.012 .645 .006 .174 .684 C IS 10 .441 .308 .476 .120 .314 IS IS 11 .637 .168 .716 .030 .210 IS IS 12 .392 .372 .430 .117 .398 IS (C) C 13 .392 .521 .283 .576 .268 C IS 14 .353 .550 .358 .270 .498 C a. Orthogonal (Varimax) Rotated. b. Minimum Eigenvalue 1.0. c. Three items were s p l i t loaded. Item 3, an original C item, loaded higher on IS. Item 14, an original IS item, loaded higher on C. - 99 -mately .06), plus, Consideration and Initiating Structure (.62), help explain why Thing orientation does not predict Initiating Structure be-havior as suggested by Figure 6. The correlation coefficients between the different factors also help explain this. The three Person orienta-tion factors correlate reasonably well between one another (.37, .42, .53) as do the three Thing orientation factors (.19, .24, .46). In ad-dition, the two Consideration factors correlate well with one another (.50) but they also correlate highly with the Initiating Structure fac-tor (.59, .47). From this finding alone i t i s hard to consider the be-havior dimensions as being separate identities - they a l l overlap. If a l l behavior responses are totalled together and the three behavior fac-tors are correlated with this total, the correlation coefficients are .89 (Factor 1), .84 (Factor 2), .74 (Factor 3). But also of interest is the fact that correlations between the Person orientation factors and Consideration factors range from .13 to .17 but between the Thing orien-tation factors and Initiating Structure factor are only .01 to .05. The most important confirmation however, was that Person orientation factors appear to predict Initiating Structure with coefficients between the different factors of .06 to .19. Or put another way, a l l three behavior factors totalled together correlate with People orientation at .23, but with Thing orientation at only .07. The above analyses invalidate the predictions made by Figure 6 (Hypotheses 3 and 5 could not be supported because the predictions were based on an invalid assumption) and provide strong evidence that Thing orientation has no relationship with Initiating Structure behavior. On - 100 -the c o n t r a r y , Person o r i e n t a t i o n appears to have p r e d i c t i v e power f o r I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e behavior. To t e s t t h i s r e v i s e d assumption, a num-ber of t - t e s t s were run u s i n g Figure 5 i n l i e u of Fi g u r e 6 as a p r e d i c -t i v e p r o f i l e f o r the I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e dimension. The new p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the t e s t i n g of these are presented i n Table XVI. In s e r t Table XVI about here The above r e s u l t s provide support f o r the r e v i s e d assumption and the r e s u l t i n g p r e d i c t i o n s . High Person o r i e n t a t i o n p r e d i c t s more I n i t i -a t i n g S t r u c t u r e behavior than does low Person o r i e n t a t i o n , across a l l s i t u a t i o n s (Tests 1 and 2). The p r e d i c t i o n s made f o r " d i f f e r e n t spe-c i a l i s t s " w i t h i n the same s i t u a t i o n are a l s o g e n e r a l l y supported w i t h the two n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t t e s t s being i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n (Tests 3 to 8). The remaining p r e d i c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s are mainly not supported (Tests 9 to 15) which i n d i c a t e s that d i f f e r e n c e s f o r I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e be-tween s i t u a t i o n s f o r s p e c i a l i s t s groups are not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r s p e c i f i c t e s t s . This l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n c e was suggested by Figure 10, even though the a n a l y s i s of variance produced a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r S i t u a -t i o n s (Table I X ) . Summary of Re s u l t s The r e s u l t s reported i n t h i s s e c t i o n provide evidence that the two P-T instruments measure the same co n s t r u c t and that Person and Thing Table XVI Revised Initiating Structure Predictions and T-Tests, Based on P Orientation as the Predictor Combination Test No. Predicted Relationship Mean Difference T-Value .05 Significance 1 Ta-flpH Total IS Across a l l Situations 1 2 High P orientation > Low P orientation (G > P) (T + N) P Spec > T Spec 4.013 2.596 3.36 1.66 Yes Yes Same 3 4 P Situation P > T G > T 0.367 1.836 0.63 2.85 No Yes Situation & Different Specialty 5 6 C Situation P > T G > T 1.190 2.04 1.69 2.54 Yes Yes 7 8 T Situation P > T G > T 1.039 2.418 1.46 3.11 No Yes Different Situation o 9 P Sit > T Sit (P Specialists) 0.017 0.03 No 10 P Sit > T Sit (Generalists) 0.108 0.20 No Ct Same Specialty 11 C Sit> T Sit (T Specialists) -0.897 -1.51 No 12 P Sit> T Sit (T Specialists) 0.690 1.46 No Different Situation & Different Specialty 13 P Sp (P Sit)> T Sp (T Sit) 1.056 1.58 No 14 G (P Sit)> T Sp (T Sit) 2.526 3.50 Yes 15 P Sp (P Sit)> G (T Sit) -1.362 -1.89 • No - 102 -o r i e n t a t i o n are r e l a t i v e l y independent dimensions. The two le a d e r be-h a v i o r dimensions of Con s i d e r a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e were not found to be independent but r a t h e r were h i g h l y i n t e r r e l a t e d . There were s i g n i f i c a n t person and s i t u a t i o n main e f f e c t s f o r both dependent v a r i a -b l e s . Person o r i e n t a t i o n and the nature of the s i t u a t i o n were p r e d i c -t i v e of Co n s i d e r a t i o n responses but Thing o r i e n t a t i o n and the nature of the s i t u a t i o n were not p r e d i c t i v e of I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e responses. A post hoc a n a l y s i s found that contrary to exp e c t a t i o n s , Person o r i e n t a -t i o n p r e d i c t e d I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e behavior. - 103 -DISCUSSION The results presented in the preceding section allow for a number of interpretations, especially considering that two hypotheses were originally not supported. In order to discuss these results in a logical order, each variable w i l l f i r s t be discussed independently with special emphasis to their effect and limitations. This w i l l then be followed by an overall interpretive conclusion so that the limitations of the present study can be more clearly understood in terms of their implications for future research. Specialist Group The correlations in Table III compare very favorably with earlier research and support both P-T instruments as tapping the same constructs. The construct of Person orientation i s the best supported (r = .69) and i t also appears to have better internal r e l i a b i l i t y (Table IV) within the present study. Nevertheless, the correlation coefficient for the Thing orientation scales i s at least high enough to conclude that there is a distinct element of commonality between the two instruments. Additionally, and what makes the P-T instruments most appealing, there i s confirming evidence that person and thing orienta-tion are orthogonal and independent (Tables II and XIV). Because of this, i t intuitively makes sense to categorize subjects on the basis of their P-T orientation scores and place them into the four specialist groups. The problem is the selection of a criterion for determining how subjects w i l l be placed in specialist groups. While the L i t t l e and - 104 -Frost-Barnowe studies have traditionally used a combination of the sample mean and median (which have always been very close together) for determining the cut-off points on each dimension and this criterion was used with the present sample, there are other c r i t e r i a which might be even more valid. For example, one might assign the Generalist category to subjects who scored between the 60 and 90 percentile (even using a smaller random sample of such subjects) on both dimensions. Such a procedure would eliminate subjects at the high and low extremes on each scale and also ensure that there is a definite distinction between in d i -viduals who score very close to the mean and median thereby creating more purely distinct categories. By using a mean/median cut-off score, a subject i s either on one side or the other of each dimension - there is no i n between area. Consequently, the subject may be assigned to a category but be very close in terms of his scores to another category. For example, had the norms established by either L i t t l e or Frost-Barnowe been used instead of the sample combination of mean/median, a large number of person specialists would have become generalists and a large number of non-specialists would have become thing specialists. It i s possible however, that even i f this procedure was carried out, the dependent variable responses may not be significantly different in that the Generalist and Person specialists are the two highest, and the Non and Thing specialists the two lowest, response intensity groups (Figure 10). As the present study was carried out using a very select sample, i t i s worth comparing the mean P-T scores with other samples. For - 105 -Li t t l e ' s measure, the present sample was only slightly higher than L i t t l e ' s normative group on the Person orientation scale (25.6 vs 24.7) while for the Thing orientation scale, there i s a larger difference (28.3 vs 22.9) (Table V). I t should be noted however that these norms were developed over eight years ago and possibly with a culturally different group (British). The Frost-Barnowe normative sample compares much more favorably with the present sample. For L i t t l e ' s P-T measure, their means were P = 25.4 and T = 24.3 but this was for a mixed male and female sample. Previous evidence ( L i t t l e 1972a) suggests that by adding the effect of females to a sample one can expect the mean for P to increase and the mean for T to decrease. This would also appear to be true for the Frost-Barnowe sample on their own measure where the means are even closer to the military sample (P = 37.4 vs 38.0 and T = 39.7 vs 36.7). Nevertheless, i t i s not surprising that the present sample is higher on T orientation when one recognizes that the majority of subjects are enrolled in engineering or science courses. It i s also interesting to note that on the L i t t l e T scale, the three items with the highest means were adventurous items highly associated with military type activities (Items 4, 7 and 21). In keeping with the goal of developing and testing a very basic and simplified model of leader behavior, i t appeared convenient to u t i l i z e categorical variables such as specialist groups. One alterna-tive would have been to convert the P-T scores into composite or P-T proportion scores (e.g. ) thereby making P-T orientation a continuous P+-T - 106 -v a r i a b l e so that the c r i t e r i o n problem of a s s i g n i n g subjects to c a t e g o r i e s would have been avoided. While such a procedure would not have changed the o r i g i n a l model, i t would have changed the format of the hypotheses and perhaps streamlined the a n a l y s i s . This might have a l s o avoided p o s s i b l e contamination caused by the c r i t e r i o n problem of a l l o c a t i n g s u bjects to groups. One f i n a l comment should be made concerning s p e c i a l i s t c a t e g o r i e s and the o v e r a l l r e s u l t s . As the numbers i n Table V I I I and the p r o f i l e s i n Figure 10 show, the G e n e r a l i s t group c o n s i s t e n t l y emited more behav-i o r responses on both dimensions than any other group, r e g a r d l e s s of the s i t u a t i o n . The G e n e r a l i s t s were c o n s i s t e n t l y f o llowed by the Person s p e c i a l i s t s , and, except f o r the Consideration v a r i a b l e i n the Person s i t u a t i o n , they were i n t u r n always followed by the N o n - s p e c i a l i s t s and then the Thing s p e c i a l i s t s . These r e s u l t s suggest that P o r i e n t a t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c a l f o r p r e d i c t i n g h i g h l e a d e r behavior response r a t e s , but the question which has not been answered i s why are the G e n e r a l i s t s c o n s i s t e n t l y the h i g h e s t . The G e n e r a l i s t s load high on both Person and T h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n but there i s no obvious i n d i c a t i o n that Thing o r i e n t a t i o n i s a ca u s a l f a c t o r or i f i t i n t e r a c t s w i t h Person o r i e n t a t i o n . The f i n d i n g s t h e r e f o r e suggest that a leader may e x h i b i t a higher i n t e n s i t y of C o n s i d e r a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e responses i f he i s high on both person and t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n . I f he l a c k s t h i n g o r i e n t a t i o n ( i . e . i s a person s p e c i a l i s t ) , the i n t e n s i t y can be expected to decrease, but only s l i g h t l y . However, i f he l a c k s person o r i e n t a t i o n ( i . e . a t h i n g s p e c i a l i s t ) , the response i n t e n s i t y - 107 -might decrease s u b s t a n t i a l l y . High P o r i e n t a t i o n appears to be much more c r i t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to a l l l eader behavior dimensions than does high T o r i e n t a t i o n which i s only p o s s i b l y important by merit of the f a c t that G e n e r a l i s t s have h i g h T o r i e n t a t i o n . S i t u a t i o n s The s i t u a t i o n component of the Leader Behavior Model was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d using con s t r u c t s which p a r a l l e l the person component of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n - people and non-people (thing) o r i e n t a t i o n . This p a r a l l e l i s m a l s o r e q u i r e d that the s i t u a t i o n v a r i a b l e be c a t e g o r i c a l and l i k e the s p e c i a l i s t c a t e g o r i e s , r e s u l t e d i n a s i m i l a r c r i t e r i o n problem. What c u t - o f f scores should one use on each dimension i n order to a s s i g n a s i t u a t i o n to a category? The method used f o r c l a s s i f y i n g and s e l e c t i n g the three s i t u -a t i o n s was explained e a r l i e r . Table I shows that n e i t h e r the study sample nor the c r i t e r i o n ( f a c u l t y ) sample perceived each s i t u a t i o n as f a l l i n g p e r f e c t l y i n t o an assigned category. The study sample rated each dimension f o r each s i t u a t i o n over a range of 0 to 10 except f o r the people dimension of the people s i t u a t i o n which was 2 to 10. The P dimensions f o r the P and C s i t u a t i o n s and the Non-P dimension f o r the T s i t u a t i o n have the most agreement i n terms of how the experimenter wanted the respondents to perceive them. However, the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the Non-P dimensions (P s i t u a t i o n and C s i t u a -t i o n ) and f o r the P dimension (T s i t u a t i o n ) i n d i c a t e that a f a i r pro-p o r t i o n of the sample d i d not p e r c e i v e each s i t u a t i o n e x a c t l y the way - 108 -the- experimenter expected they would. This means that for a number of subjects, a l l three situations were clearly not representative of the respective categories as perceived by the subjects. The research methodology simply failed to take this into account. Nevertheless, i t is interesting that there were no significant differences between specialists group in terms of how they rated the situations. But regard-less of how an experimenter sees a situation or categorizes i t , this may not have the same effect on an individual subject unless he also per-ceives the situation the exact same way. Any revised model of leader behavior which intends to come to grips with this point should therefore ensure that the categorizing of a situation depends on how each subject individually perceives i t . The fact that only three situations (which attempted to represent the three categories) were used in the present research was the result of the developed constructs and experimental design as opposed to any assumption that these are the only kinds of situational categories that exist. As is evident by the varied, although limited, research i n this area (Carter, 1953; Gibb, 1969; Osborn & Hunt, 1975; Yukl, 1969; Rosenberg, 1972), there are many methods for categorizing situations. Within the proposed model however, i t is s t i l l suggested that the dimensions used to develop the three categories have strong empirical support. But i t must also be noted that within each category, situa-tions can vary on each dimension considerably. A l l thing situations are not equivalent. There w i l l s t i l l be relative differences between any number of situations assigned to any one category. For this reason, - 109 -i t may be more e m p i r i c a l l y sound to make the s i t u a t i o n v a r i a b l e a continuous one so as to r e f l e c t these d i f f e r e n c e s , at l e a s t i n terms of the people and non-people dimensions. This step, along w i t h a methodology which i n c o r p o r a t e s the s u b j e c t s ' i n d i v i d u a l perceptions of each s i t u a t i o n i n t o the model, would modify but strengthen the e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s of any f u t u r e research endeavour. Although there were s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r the s i t u a t i o n v a r i -a ble f o r both dependent v a r i a b l e s , Table V I I I and Figure 10 i n d i c a t e that the s i t u a t i o n v a r i a b l e only p r e d i c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s f o r Considera-t i o n behavior. For i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e , the subjects h a r d l y v a r i e d t h e i r t o t a l response r a t e between s i t u a t i o n s . Dependent V a r i a b l e s From c o r r e l a t i o n s obtained between C o n s i d e r a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e and the r e s u l t s obtained by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , i t i s c l e a r that these two behavior dimensions, based on the Behavior C h e c k l i s t , cannot be considered orthogonal nor independent. Each dimension c o n s i s t e d of seven items but the dimensions are a l s o n e i t h e r e q u i v a l e n t nor d i r e c t l y comparable. Although the evidence concerning the independence of Con s i d e r a t i o n and I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e i s vague ( S t o g d i l l , 1974; Lowin, Hrapchak and Kavanagh, 1969), r e a l independence f o r these v a r i a b l e s only appears to have been obtained i n i s o l a t e d cases. Interdependence i s perhaps more the r u l e w i t h the degree of c o r r e l a t i o n depending on many i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s , e s p e c i a l l y the instrument being used, the s i t u a t i o n and the sample. The r e s u l t s obtained i n the current study - 110 -support such a statement. In addition, i t has to be noted that the original Behavior Checklist was intended as a rating form of actual behavior, to be used by independent observors. The current study used i t for subjects to rate how they f e l t they would have been observed had they actually reacted to a particular situation. The dependent variables were therefore much more attitudinal than behavioral in nature. They were indications of how a subject " f e l t " he would have been rated on the behavior he " f e l t " he would have exhibited. Had the study provided for independent observation of actual behavior using the Behavior Checklist, correlations between the dependent variables may have been much lower. In addition, real behavior may have produced more significant effects, including possibly significant interaction effects. A most important result was the discovery of the three leader behavior dimensions: Initiating Structure, Consideration (Being Friendly), and Consideration (Enhancing Participation) which the Behavior Checklist produced. The fact that these dimensions were also highly interrelated helped reject the assumption that Thing orientation has a direct relationship with Initiating Structure behavior. This rejection was further supported by a definite lack of predictive power and correlation between Thing orientation and Initiating Structure and the failure to obtain results which would support Hypotheses 3 and 5. The most striking result of the study was therefore that both Person orientation and the nature of the situation have an influence on the intensity of leader behavior responses, whether the dimension i s a Consideration one, Initiating Structure, or even total leader behavior. - I l l -I n t u i t i v e l y , t h i s f i n d i n g makes sense. Leadership a c t i o n s , behaviors, and involvements imply by d e f i n i t i o n a s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h people and t h e r e f o r e Person o r i e n t a t i o n and the person component of a s i t u a -t i o n should be important f o r a l l leader behavior dimensions. This i s not to say that Thing o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l not have an e f f e c t on behavior as suggested by L i t t l e (1972, 1976a), but r a t h e r that Thing o r i e n t a t i o n does not appear to be a f a c t o r i n determining " l e a d e r s h i p " behaviors. An examination of the Thing s c a l e items lends f u r t h e r support to t h i s -none of the items imply any s o r t of s o c i a l - i n t e r p e r s o n a l involvement. F i n a l l y , as p r e v i o u s l y pointed out, i t i s important to note that G e n e r a l i s t s c o n s i s t e n t l y had the highest response r a t e s (Figure 10). The p o s s i b i l i t y t h e r e f o r e e x i s t s that h i g h Thing o r i e n t a t i o n may have a hidden or i n d i r e c t e f f e c t when coupled w i t h h i g h Person o r i e n t a t i o n . I t may be, f o r example, that G e n e r a l i s t s are more a c t i v e and s o c i a l l y responsive j u s t because they have a greater d i v e r s i t y of i n t e r e s t s than do the other s p e c i a l i s t groups. This p o s s i b i l i t y was not addressed i n the present study but could be the subj e c t of f u t u r e research. Conclusion This t h e s i s had as i t s goal the development of a s i m p l i f i e d i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of leader behavior so as to help i n t e g r a t e the study of l e a d e r s h i p . Some degree of support has been obtained f o r the developed model but i t i s subject to a number of l i m i t a t i o n s and there-f o r e r i p e f o r f u r t h e r development and refinements. The concept of i n t e r a c t i o n as a h y b r i d v a r i a b l e s t i l l l a c k s adequate o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n - 112 -but the data does support the t h e o r e t i c a l concept of i n t e r a c t i o n as p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d , i . e . the e x i s t e n c e of s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r r e c i p r o c a l l y i n f l u e n c i n g v a r i a b l e s . Refinement of the main v a r i a b l e s and the use of more s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n a l y t i c techniques may e v e n t u a l l y help c l a r i f y t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n process. For example, a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e d i d not produce s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . I t may be however that s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n as detected by a n a l y s i s of variance i s not a ppropriate f o r the conceptual i n t e r a c t i o n of i n t e r e s t -t h e o r e t i c a l and s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n are not n e c e s s a r i l y the same. Nevertheless, t h i s does not r u l e out the p o s s i b i l i t y that a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e might help i d e n t i f y i n t e r a c t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i f r e a l behavior i s being s t u d i e d . Person-Thing o r i e n t a t i o n as a c o n s t r u c t does play a r o l e i n an i n t e r a c t i o n a l leader behavior model but i t appears that only the person dimension i s d i r e c t l y important. Contrary to what was expected, the Person dimension might have some s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h F i e d l e r ' s LPC s c a l e and t h i s might be one i n t e r e s t i n g area f o r f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the s i t u a t i o n component of the model was found to have a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e . In terms of the r i g i d vs f l e x i b l e l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e question i t appears that s ubjects v a r i e d t h e i r behavior i n accord-ance w i t h the s i t u a t i o n f o r the C o n s i d e r a t i o n dimension but not f o r the I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e dimension. These f i n d i n g s i n themselves provide support f o r an i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of behavior (Hypotheses 2 and 4) and e q u a l l y important i s the f a c t that Person o r i e n t a t i o n d i d not c o r r e -l a t e too h i g h l y w i t h behavior (Table VII) - i f i t accounted f o r most of - 113 -the v a r i a n c e and the s i t u a t i o n was not a p r e d i c t o r , there would probably be no conceptual i n t e r a c t i o n . The r e j e c t i o n of Hypotheses 3 and 5 was a l s o an important f i n d i n g i n that i t showed Thing o r i e n t a t i o n has no s i g n i f i c a n t p l a c e i n the model. Thing o r i e n t a t i o n might be r e l a t e d to c e r t a i n kinds of behaviors ( f o r example, i n d i v i d u a l task behaviors which have nothing to do w i t h other people), but, w i t h i n the present study, i t has nothing to do w i t h l e a d e r s h i p behavior. Thing o r i e n t a t i o n i s not r e l a t e d to the concepts of I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e , Concern f o r P r o d u c t i o n , Task O r i e n t a t i o n , e t c . An important a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g was the emergence of the three leader behavior dimensions, as discovered by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , and t h e i r h i g h interdependency. I t was a l s o noted that two items loaded dimen-sions which were opposite to the Key used to mark the Behavior C h e c k l i s t . Notwithstanding t h i s , the r e s u l t s obtained i n t e s t i n g the hypotheses using the o r i g i n a l item loadings are s t i l l considered v a l i d . The r e v e r s -i n g of a p a i r of items should not have s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s and t h i s was v e r i f i e d by running a s e r i e s of new t e s t s using the r e v i s e d dimensions -Factor I f o r I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e and Factors I I plus I I I f o r Considera-t i o n . I t must be kept i n mind that there were many l i m i t a t i o n s i n the present study. Future attempts should focus on measuring r e a l behavior, i n r e a l s i t u a t i o n s which take i n t o account the s u b j e c t s ' perceptions of the s i t u a t i o n s . Because of other problems r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r , attempts should a l s o be made to measure the person and s i t u a t i o n components of the model using continuous v a r i a b l e s . In a d d i t i o n , dependent v a r i a b l e - 114 -measures should be of a composite nature or have v a l i d evidence of independence. A m u l t i - v a r i a t e design, p o s s i b l y i n c o r p o r a t i n g the technique of path a n a l y s i s , might a l s o be more appropriate than an a n a l y s i s of vari a n c e design f o r t e s t i n g a r e f i n e d i n t e r a c t i o n a l model of leader behavior. In c o n c l u s i o n , t h i s study provides some support f o r an i n t e r -a c t i o n a l model of leader behavior and v a l i d a t e s that there are d i f f e r -ences i n leader behavior response i n t e n s i t y between d i f f e r e n t combina-t i o n s of s p e c i a l t y and s i t u a t i o n . I t a l s o provides i n f o r m a t i o n that w i l l be extremely v a l u a b l e f o r r e o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the main components of the model f o r eventual use i n a c t u a l behavior s i t u a t i o n s . Although leader behavior e f f e c t i v e n e s s and a c t u a l behavior were not tapped i n t h i s study, there i s a suggestion that supports the use of S p e c i a l i z a -t i o n theory i n l e a d e r s h i p research - G e n e r a l i s t s and Person S p e c i a l i s t s might be more a c t i v e and th e r e f o r e more e f f e c t i v e i n a c t u a l l e a d e r s h i p s i t u a t i o n s . Thing s p e c i a l i s t s may on the other hand be much more i n h i b i t e d and withdrawn s o c i a l l y . This p r e d i c t i o n must however be t r e a t e d w i t h c a u t i o n as i t would f i r s t have to be unequivocally proven by pure b e h a v i o r a l research before i t could be supported. - 115 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, G.J. " E f f e c t s of classroom s o c i a l c l i m a t e on i n d i v i d u a l l e a r n i n g " . American Educational Research J o u r n a l , 1970, 7, 135-152. A r g y r i s , C. " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p " . In P e t r u l l o , L. & Bass, B.M. Leadership arid I n t e r p e r s o n a l Behavior. New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1961. Ashour, A.S. "The contingency model of le a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s : An e v a l u a t i o n " . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior arid Human Performance, 1973, 9, 339-355 ( a ) , 369-376 (b). B a l e s , R.F. "The E q u i l i b r i u m Problem i n Small Groups". In Parsons, T., Bales, R.F. & ShilSj E.A., (Eds). Working Papers i n the Theory of  A c t i o n . Glencoe, 111: Free Press, 1953, 111-161. Barnowe, J.T., F r o s t , P.J. & Jamal, M. "When p e r s o n a l i t y meets s i t u a -t i o n " . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977. Bass, B.M. "The Leaderless Group D i s c u s s i o n " . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1954, 51, 465-492. Bass, B.M. Leadership, Psychology and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior. New York: Harper, 1960. Bass, B.M., Dunteman, G., Frye, F., V i d u l i c h , R. & Wambach, H. " S e l f , i n t e r a c t i o n , and t a s k - o r i e n t a t i o n inventory scores a s s o c i a t e d w i t h overt behavior and personal f a c t o r s . Educ. psychol. Measmt,. , 1963, 23, 101-116. Bass, A.R., F i e d l e r , F.E. & Kreuger, S. " P e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s of assumed s i m i l a r i t y (AS.) and r e l a t e d scores". (USPHS Tech. Rep. No. 19). Urbana, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Group E f f e c t i v e n e s s Research Laboratory, 1964. Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. The Managerial G r i d . Houston: G u l f , 1964. Bogardus, E.S. E s s e n t i a l s of S o c i a l Psychology. Los Angeles: Univer-s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1918. Bowers, D.G. "Hierarchy, Function and the G e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of Leader-ship P r a c t i c e s " . In Hunt, J.G. & Larson L.L., (Eds). Leadership  F r o r i t i e r s . Kent, Ohio: Comparative A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t e , 1975. - 116 -Bowers, K.S. " S i t u a t i o n i s m i n psychology: An a n a l y s i s and a c r i t i q u e " . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1973, 80, 307-336. Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. I l l & Weick, K.E. Manage- r i a l Behavior, Performance, and E f f e c t i v e n e s s . New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1970. Ca r t e r , L.F. "Leadership and Small Group Behavior". In S h e r i f , M. & Wilson, M.O., (Eds.). Group R e l a t i o n s a t the Crossroads. New York: Harper, 1953, 275-284. C a r t e r , J.H. " M i l i t a r y Leadership". M i l i t a r y Review, 1952, 32, 14-18. Case, CM. "Leadership and conjuncture". S o c i a l Soc. Res., 1933, 17, 510-513. C a t t e l l , R.B. , "New Concepts f o r Measuring Leadership in.Terms of Group S y n t a l i t y " . Human R e l a t i o n s , 1951, 4, 161-184. Chemers, M.M. & Ri c e , R.W. "A t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l examination of F i e d l e r ' s Contingency model of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s " . In Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L., (Eds.). Contingency Approaches to  Leadership. Carbondale: SIU Press, 1973. Cronbach, L . J . " I n t e l l i g e n c e ? C r e a t i v i t y ? A parsimonious r e i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n of the Wallach-Kogan data". American Educational Research J o u r n a l , 1968, 5, 491-511. Endler, N.S. "Estimating variance components from mean squares f o r random and mixed e f f e c t s a n a l y s i s of varia n c e models". Per c e p t u a l  and Motor S k i l l s , 1966, 22, 559-570. Endler, N.S. & Magnusson, D. I n t e r a c t i o n a l Psychology and P e r s o n a l i t y . New York: Wiley, 1976 (a). Endler, N.S. & Magnusson, D. "Toward an I n t e r a c t i o n a l Psychology of P e r s o n a l i t y " . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1976 ( b ) , 83, 956-974.. Evans, M.G. "The e f f e c t s of sup e r v i s o r y behavior on the path-goal r e l a t i o n s h i p " . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 277-298. Eysenck, H.J. The St r u c t u r e of Human P e r s o n a l i t y . London: Methuen, 1953 Eysenck, H.J. (Ed). Readings i n E x t r o v e r s i o n - I n t r o v e r s i o n . 2 V o l s . London: S t a p l e s , 1970. - 117 -F i e d l e r , F.E. A Theory of Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s . New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1967. F i e d l e r , F.E. " V a l i d a t i o n and extension of the Contingency Model of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s : A review of e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s " . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1971, 76, 12-148. F i e d l e r , F.E. " P e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n a l determinants of Leader Behavior". In Fleishman, E.A. & Hunt J.G., (Eds.). Current  Developments i n the Study of Leadership. Carbondale: SIU P r e s s , 1973. Fleishman, E.A. "The Measure of Leadership A t t i t u d e s i n Industry". J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1953, 37, 153-158. Fleishman, E.A. "The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire". In S t o g d i l l , R.M. & Coons, A.E., (Eds.). Leader Behavior: I t s D e s c r i p t i o n and  Measurement. Columbus: Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y P r ess, 1957, 120-133. Fleishman, E.A. "Twenty Years of C o n s i d e r a t i o n and S t r u c t u r e " . In Fleishman, E.A. & Hunt, J.G. , (Eds.). Current Developments i n the  Study of Leadership. Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. Fleishman, E.A. "Overview". In Fleishman, E.A. & Hunt, J.G., (Eds.). Current Developments i n the Study of Leadership. Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P r ess, 1973. Fleishman, E.A., H a r r i s , E.F. & B u r t t , H.E. Leadership & Supervision  i n Industry. Bureau of Educational Research, No. 33. Columbus: Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1955. Fleishman, E.A. & Hunt, J.G. (Eds.) Current Developments i n the Study  of Leadership. Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. F r o s t , P.J. & Barnowe, J.T. "Convergence on a c o n s t r u c t : a s e r e n d i p i -tous meeting of Measures". U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977. Gibb, C.A. Leadership: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, Penguin, 1954. Gibb, C.A. "Leadership". In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E., (Eds.). The  Handbook of S o c i a l Psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. - 118 -Graen, G., A l v a r e s , D., O r r i s , J.B. & M a r t e l l a , J.A. "The Contingency model of Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s : Antecedent and E v i d e n t i a l R e s u l t s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1970, 74, 285-295. Graen, G., O r r i s , J.B. & A l v a r e s , K.M. "Contingency model of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s : Some experimental r e s u l t s " . Journal of A p p l i e d  Psychology, 1971 ( a ) , 55, 196-201. Graen, G., O r r i s , J.B. & A l v a r e s , K.M. "Contingency model of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s : some methodological i s s u e s " . Journal of A p p l i e d  Psychology, 1971 (b), 55, 205-210. • G r e i g , M. UBC ANOVAR: A n a l y s i s of Variance and Covariance. Computing Center, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. Hackman, J.R. " E f f e c t s of Task C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on Group Products". Journal of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 4, 162-187. H a l p i n , A.W. "The leader behavior and lea d e r s h i p ideology of education-a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and a i r c r a f t commanders". Harvard Educational  Review, 1955, 25, 18-32. H a l p i n , A.W. " E v a l u a t i o n through the study of the leader's behavior". Educ. Leadership, 1956, 14, 172-176. H a l p i n , A.W. & Winer, B.J. "Studies i n a i r crew composition: The le a d e r s h i p behavior of the a i r p l a n e commander". (Tech. Rep. No. 3) Columbus: Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y . Personnel Research Board, 1952. Ha l p i n , A.W. & Winer, B.J. "A f a c t o r i a l study of the leader behavior d e s c r i p t i o n s " . In S t o g d i l l , R.M. & Coons, A.E., (Eds.). Leader  Behavior: I t s d e s c r i p t i o n and measurement. Bureau of Business Research, No. 88. Columbus: Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1957. H e l l e r , F.A. & Y u k l , G. " P a r t i c i p a t i o n , managerial decision-making, and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s " . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Perform- ance, 1969, 4, 227-241. Hemphill, J.K. "The Leader and h i s group". Journal of Educational  Research, 1949, 28, 225-229, 245-246. Hemphill, J.K. Leader Behavior D e s c r i p t i o n . Columbus: Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y . Personnel Research Board, 1950. Hemphill, J.K. & Coons, A.E. "Development of the Leader Behavior D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire." In S t o g d i l l , R.M. & Coons, A.E., (Eds.). " Leader Behavior: I t s D e s c r i p t i o n and Measurement. Bureau of Business Research, No. 88. Columbus: Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1957. - 119 -H i l l , W.A. "Leadership s t y l e f l e x i b i l i t y , s a t i s f a c t i o n , and perform-ance". In Fleishman, E.A. & Hunt, J.G., (Eds.). Current  developments i n the study of l e a d e r s h i p . Carbondale: SIU Pr e s s , 1973. H i l l , W.A. & Hughes, D. " V a r i a t i o n s i n Leader Behavior as a Function of Task Type". O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 1974, 11, 83-96. Hollander, E.P. Leaders, Groups, and In f l u e n c e . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964. Homans, G.C. " S o c i a l behavior as exchange". Amer. J . S o c i o l . , 1958, 63, 597-606. House, R.J. "A path-goal theory of leader e f f e c t i v e n e s s " . A d m i n i s t r a - t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1971, 16, 321-338. House, R.J. & D e s s l e r , G. "The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Some Post Hoc and A P r i o r i Tests". In Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L., (Eds.). Contingency Approaches to Leadership. Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973. Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L. (Eds.) Contingency Approaches to Leadership. Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L. (Eds.) Leadership F r o n t i e r s . Kent, Ohio: Comparative A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t e , 1975. Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L. (Eds.) Leadership: The C u t t i n g Edge. Carbondale, 111.: SIU Pr e s s , 1977. I l g e n , D.R. & F u g i i , D.S. "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the V a l i d i t y of Leader Behavior D e s c r i p t i o n s Obtained from Subordinates". J o u r n a l of  App l i e d Psychology, Vol..61, No. 5, 1976, 642-651. Jacobs, T.O. Leadership and Exchange i n Formal Organizations. A l e x a n d r i a , Va: Human Resources Research O r g a n i z a t i o n , 1971. Jennings, E.E. An Anatomy of Leadership: P r i n c e s , Heroes, and  Supermen. New York: Harper, 1960. Karmel, Barbara Leadership: A Challenge to T r a d i t i o n a l Research  Methods & Assumptions. Wisconsin Working Paper 2-77-6, 1977. Karmel, B & Egan, D.M. "Managerial Performance: A New Look at Underlying D i m e n s i o n a l i t y " . Org. Beh. and Human Performance, 1976, 15, 322-334. - 120 -K e r l i n g e r , F.N. & Pedhazur, E.J. M u l t i p l e Regression i n Be h a v i o r a l  Research. New York: H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, 1973. Ker r , S. "Discussant Comments". In Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L., (Eds.). Contingency Approaches to Leadership. Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P r ess, 1973. Ke r r , S., Schriescheim, C.A., Murphy, C.J. & S t o g d i l l , R.M. "Toward a contingency theory of l e a d e r s h i p based upon the c o n s i d e r a t i o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e l i t e r a t u r e " . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and  Human Performance, 1974, 12, 62-82. Korman, A.K. "C o n s i d e r a t i o n " , " I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e " , and Or g a n i z a t i o n -a l C r i t e r i a - A Review". Pers. P s y c h o l . , 1966, 19, 349-362. Korman, A.K. "Contingency Approaches to Leadership: An Overview". In Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L., (Eds.). Contingency Approaches to  Leadership. Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973. Larson, L.L. & Rowland, K.M. "Leadership S t y l e , Stress and Behavior i n Task Performance". O r g a n i z a t i o n Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 407-420. L i k e r t , R. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. L i k e r t , R. The Human Org a n i z a t i o n . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. L i t t l e , B.R. Person-thing o r i e n t a t i o n : A p r o v i s i o n a l manual f o r the T-P s c a l e . Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y , 1972 (a). L i t t l e , B.R. " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Man as a S c i e n t i s t , Humanist and S p e c i a l -i s t " . J o u r n a l of Experimental Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1972 (b), 6, 95-118. L i t t l e , B.R. " S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and the V a r i e t i e s of Environmental Experience". In Experiencing the Environment. Wapner, S., Cohen, S. & Kaplan, B., (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press, 1976 (a). L i t t l e , B.R. "Environmental Psychology and the E v a l u a t i o n of Change". Department of Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 (b). Lorn, R.G. "Behavior Measurement and R e l a t i o n to S o c i a l Power and Leadership Perceptions". A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1977, 22, 114-133. Lowin, A., Hrapchak, W.J. & Kavangh, M.J. "Consideration and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e : An experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n of l e a d e r s h i p t r a i t s " . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1969, 14, 238-253. - 121 -Lubln, A. "The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n " . E ducational and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 1961, 21, 807-817. Magnusson, D. & Endler, N.S. (Eds.) P e r s o n a l i t y a t the Crossroads: Current Issues i n I n t e r a c t i o n a l Psychology. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976. Maier, N.R. & Hoffman, L.R. "Acceptance and q u a l i t y of s o l u t i o n s as r e l a t e d to leader's a t t i t u d e s toward disagreement i n group problem s o l v i n g " . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l Science, 1965, 1, 373-386. Mann, R.D. "Dimensions of I n d i v i d u a l Performance i n Small Groups Under Task and Social-Emotional Conditions". J o u r n a l of Abnormal and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1961, 62, 674-682. McGregor, D. The Human Side of E n t e r p r i s e . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. McGregor, D. Leadership and M o t i v a t i o n . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1966. McGuigan, F.J. Experimental Psychology: A Methodological Approach. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1968. Miner, J.B. "The Un c e r t a i n Future of the Leadership Concept". In Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L., (Eds.). Leadership F r o n t i e r s . Kent, Ohio: Comparative A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t e , 1975. M i s c h e l , W. P e r s o n a l i t y and Assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968. M i t c h e l l , T.R. "Cognitive complexity and l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e " . J o u r n a l  of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1970, 16, 166-173. Murphy, A.J. "A study of the l e a d e r s h i p process". Amer S o c i o l . Review, 1941, 6, 674-687. Nie, N.H., H u l l , C.H., Jenkins , J.G., Steinbrenner, K. & Bent, D.H. S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences. New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1975. Osborn, R.N. & Hunt, J.G. "An Adaptive-Reactive Theory of Leadership". In Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L., (Eds.). Leadership F r o n t i e r s . Kent, Ohio: Comparative A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t e , 1975. Otke, P.G. A Study of Assessment Procedures f o r Pre-Commission  T r a i n i n g . CF/PARU Toronto, 1964. P f e f f e r , J . "The Ambiguity of Leadership". Academy of Management  Review, 1977, 2, 104-112. - 122 -Raven, B.H. & French, J.R.P. "Group support, l e g i t i m a t e power, and s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e " . J . Pers., 1958 ( a ) , 26, 400-409. Raven, B.H. & French, J.R.P. "Legitimate power, c o e r s i v e power, and o b s e r v a b i l i t y i n s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e " . Sbciometry, 1958 ( b ) , 21, 83-97. Rambo, W.W. "The c o n s t r u c t i o n and a n a l y s i s of a l e a d e r s h i p behavior r a t i n g form". J . Appl. Psychol., 1958, 42, 409-415. Rosenberg, K.D. The R e l a t i o n of D i s p o s i t i o n and S e t t i n g to V i s i t o r Involvement oh Nature Walks at Yosemite N a t i o n a l Park. Unpublished M.Sc. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, 1976. Sheridan, J.E., Downey, H.K. & Slocum, J.W. "Testing Causal R e l a t i o n -ships of House's Path-Goal Theory of Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s " . In Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L., (Eds.). Leadership F r o n t i e r s . Kent, Ohio: Comparative A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t e , 1975. Skinner, E l i z a b e t h " R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Leadership Behavior Patterns and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l - S i t u a t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s " . Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22, 489-494. Sorenson, J.R. "Task Demands, Group I n t e r a c t i o n and Group Performance". SOciQmetry, 1971, 34, 483-495. S t o g d i l l , R.M. Handbook of- Leadership. New York: The Free P r e s s , 1974. S t o g d i l l , R.M. & Coons, A.E. (Eds.) Leader Behavior: I t s D e s c r i p t i o n  and Measurement. Columbus, Ohio St a t e , 1957. Tead, 0. "The technique of c r e a t i v e l e a d e r s h i p " . In Human Nature and  Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1929. Vroom, V.H. & Jago, A.G. "Decision-Making as a S o c i a l Process: Normative and D e s c r i p t i v e Models of Leader Behavior". Tech Report No. 5, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Sciences, Y a l e , 1974. Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W. "Toward a Normative Model of Leadership S t y l e " . Tech Report No. 1, Carnegie-Mellon U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. Vroom, V.H. & Y e t t o n , P.W. Leadership and Decision-Making. P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h Press, 1973. Weissenberg, P. & Kavanagh, M.J. "The independence of i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e & c o n s i d e r a t i o n : a review of the l i t e r a t u r e " . Pers  Psy, 1972, 25, 119-130. - 123 -Westburgh, E.M. "A p o i n t of view: s t u d i e s i n Leadership". J . Abnormal  Soc. P s y c h o l . , 1931, 25, 418-423. Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s , i n Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Wofford, J.C. "Managerial behavior, s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , and produc-t i v i t y and morale". Admin. S c i . Quar., 1971, 16, 10-17. Wynne, B.E. & Hunsaker, P.L. "A Human Information Processing Approach to the Study of Leadership". In Hunt, J.G. & Larson, L.L., (Eds.). • Leadership F r o n t i e r s . Kent, Ohio: Comparative A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t e , 1975. Y u k l , G." "A S i t u a t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire f o r Leaders". Educational and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 1969, 29, 515-518. Y u k l , G.A. "Leader LPC scores: a t t i t u d e dimensions and b e h a v i o r a l c o r r e l a t e s " . J . Soc. Psy c h o l . , 1970, 80, 207-212. Y u k l , G.A. "Toward a b e h a v i o r a l theory of Leadership". O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  Behavior & Human Performance, 1971, 6, 414-440. - 124 -APPENDIX A Study Questionnaire Contents - 125 -CFOCS SURVEY OF INTERESTS AND BEHAVIOR This q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s p a r t of a study being c a r r i e d out f o r the completion of my M.Sc. t h e s i s i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior a t the Univer-s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The study i s an attempt to v a l i d a t e s p e c i f i c hypotheses concerning behavior and your responses are th e r e f o r e p a r t i c u -l a r l y important f o r the completion of the t h e s i s and the f u t u r e a p p l i c a -b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s f o r managerial t r a i n i n g i n the Forces. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t s of two p a r t s . One p a r t i n c l u d e s two short personal preference i n v e n t o r i e s , each w i t h separate i n s t r u c t i o n s . They are not i n t e l l i g e n c e or p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s and there are no r i g h t or wrong answers. You should however answer as a c c u r a t e l y as p o s s i b l e i n terms of how the statements apply to you. The other p a r t of the ques t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e s three described s i t -u a tions w i t h three s e t s of i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r your responses. Please f o l -low the i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the order they appear throughout the ques t i o n -n a i r e and complete each s e c t i o n very c a r e f u l l y before proceeding to the next one. I f you have any questions concerning the i n s t r u c t i o n s , please r a i s e your hand at any time. You are a l s o requested to f i l l i n the b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n below. Your name and SIN w i l l only be used to match t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h other a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . Once a l l the r e l e v a n t data has been compiled your name and SIN w i l l be removed. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be t r e a t e d w i t h the s t r i c t e s t confidence and no one from t h i s school or i n the Canadian Forces, apart from myself, w i l l have access to your i d e n t i -f i a b l e responses. I would be pleased to answer any questions concerning the study a f t e r you have completed the que s t i o n n a i r e o r , i f you are i n t e r e s t e d i n the r e s u l t s , you could contact me at the Management Development School at CMR i n the f a l l . Thank you f o r your time and cooperation! Major G.W. Mains - 126 -PLAN: ROTP CLASSIFICATION: DEO OCCUP. GROUPING: LAND OPS OCTP - SEA OPS DOTP AIR OPS RETP ' ENGINEER OTHER _ _ _ S p e c i f y SUPPORT MARITAL STATUS: S M PRIMARY LANGUAGE: E F SEX: M F COMPLETED EDUCATION: SCHOOL: JR. MATRIC '' ' SR. MATRIC CMC or UNIVERSITY YEAR: 1 _ 2 - ' 3 4 COMPLETED YEARS OF REGULAR FORCE SERVICE: AGE: SIN: ' ' COY & PLATOON: NAME: Last I n i t i a l s - 127 -TP INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE In t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , show how much you l i k e to be i n s i t u a t i o n s where you might be doing the things l i s t e d . Use the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e , and place the appropriate number i n the space next to the sentence. Try, i f p o s s i b l e , to use the f u l l range of the s c a l e , from 0 - 4 . 0 1 2 3 4 Not a t a l l S l i g h t l y Moderately So Quite a Lot Extremely So 1. J o i n i n and help out a d i s o r g a n i z e d c h i l d r e n ' s game at a pub-l i c park. _ _ _ 2. Take upon y o u r s e l f the b u i l d i n g of a stereo set or a ham r a d i o . _ _ _ 3. Interview people f o r employment i n a l a r g e h o s p i t a l . 4. Explore the ocean f l o o r i n a one-man sub. ' 5. Process computer cards i n a l a r g e i n d u s t r i a l c e n t r e . ' 6. Breed r a r e forms of t r o p i c a l f i s h . 7. Climb a mountain on your own. 8. Stop to watch a piece of machinery at work on the s t r e e t . ' 9. L i s t e n i n on a conversation between two people i n a crowd. _ _ 10. Become p r o f i c i e n t i n the a r t of glass-blowing. 11. Interview people f o r a newspaper column. ' 12. Remove the back of a mechanical toy to see how i t worked. 13. S t r i k e up a conversation w i t h a beggar on a s t r e e t corner. ' 14. Attempt to f i x your own watch, t o a s t e r , e t c . " 15. Observe the path of a comet through a telescope. ' 16. L i s t e n w i t h empathic i n t e r e s t to an o l d - t i m e r who s i t s next to you on a bus. ' 17. Note the i d i o s y n c r a c i e s of people about you. ' 18. Make f i r s t attempts to get to know a new neighbour. ' 19. Attend an address given by a person whose character you ad-mire, without being aware of the t o p i c of the address. ' 20. Attempt to comfort a t o t a l stranger who has j u s t met w i t h tragedy. _ _ _ 21. Do s k y - d i v i n g . ' 22. Gain a r e p u t a t i o n f o r g i v i n g good advice f o r personal problems. 23. Make a hobby of photographing nature scenes and developing and p r i n t i n g the p i c t u r e s y o u r s e l f . ' 24. Help a group of c h i l d r e n p l a n a Halloween (or Guy Fawkes) par t y . - 128 -YOUR INTERESTS The f i r s t p a r t of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s concerned w i t h people's i n t e r e s t s across a number of areas. A number of job t i t l e s , a c t i v i t i e s , and amusements are l i s t e d below. For each, show how you would f e e l about doing that k i n d of work, or t a k i n g p a r t i n that a c t i v i t y or way of having fun. I n d i c a t e the extent to which you would LIKE or DISLIKE c a r r y i n g out each k i n d of work, a c t i v i t y or amusement by p l a c i n g a mark (X) i n the appropriate box to the r i g h t of each item. For example, i f E d i t o r was l i s t e d as a job occupation and you f e l t i t was an occupation you l i k e d very s t r o n g l y , you would place a mark (X) i n the "Strongly L i k e " column to the r i g h t of the item E d i t o r . Respond i n the same way to items d e s c r i b i n g a c t i v i t i e s and amusements. Strong l y Somewhat I n d i f - Somewhat Strongly L i k e L i k e f e r e n t D i s l i k e D i s l i k e 5 4 3 2 1 E d i t o r For j o b s , don't worry about whether you would be good at the job or about not being t r a i n e d f o r i t . Forget about how much money you could make or whether you could get ahead. Think only about whether you would l i k e to do the work done on that j o b . For a c t i v i t i e s and amusements, give the f i r s t answer that comes to mind. Do not t h i n k over v a r i o u s p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Think only about whether you would l i k e to do what i s s t a t e d . Work f a s t and answer every question. Strongly Somewhat I n d i f - Somewhat Strongly JOBS/OCCUPATIONS L i k e L i k e f e r e n t D i s l i k e D i s l i k e 5 4 3 2 1 1. Astronomer 2. Church worker 3. C i v i l engineer 4. Computer operator 5. Elementary school teacher 6. Mechanical e n g i -neer 7. R e c e p t i o n i s t - 129 -Strongly Somewhat I n d i f - Somewhat Strongly L i k e L i k e f e r e n t D i s l i k e D i s l i k e 5 4 3 2 1 8. S o c i a l worker 9. S t a t i s t i c i a n 10. YMCA/YWCA s t a f f member ACTIVITIES 11. Operating machin-ery 12. A d j u s t i n g a c a r -buretor 13. I n t e r v i e w i n g job a p p l i c a n t s 14. Meeting and d i -r e c t i n g people 15. Making s t a t i s t i -c a l charts . 16. Operating o f f i c e machines 17. I n t e r v i e w i n g prospects i n s e l l i n g 18. Organizing c a b i -nets and c l o s e t s 19. S t a r t i n g a con-v e r s a t i o n w i t h a stranger 20. • I n t e r v i e w i n g c l i e n t s AMUSEMENTS 21. S o l v i n g mechani-c a l puzzles 22. Being a c t i v e i n a church young peo-p l e ' s group 23. B u i l d i n g a radi o or stereo s et 24. E n t e r t a i n i n g others - 130 -SITUATIONS Se c t i o n 1 On each of the next three pages there i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of a pos-s i b l e s i t u a t i o n i n which you as an o f f i c e r or manager could f i n d your-s e l f . Please read the f i r s t d e s c r i p t i o n very c a r e f u l l y and then c o n s i d -er y o u r s e l f as being i n the s i t u a t i o n and having to d e a l w i t h the de-s c r i b e d problem. A f t e r t h i n k i n g about t h i s s i t u a t i o n w r i t e out what you would do to r e s o l v e i t . Please use the bottom and back of the page which describes the s i t u a t i o n f o r your response, us i n g a d d i t i o n a l pages i f necessary. In other words, describe your f e e l i n g s , thoughts and behaviors as i f you were a c t u a l l y faced w i t h the described s i t u a t i o n . Do not be con-cerned w i t h a c t u a l l y working out the expected or i d e a l s o l u t i o n but r a t h e r describe how you would t a c k l e and d e a l w i t h both the people i n -volved and the problems. Try to be as i n c l u s i v e as p o s s i b l e . Do not concern y o u r s e l f w i t h w r i t i n g s t y l e or grammar - f e e l f r e e to use p o i n t form. Your major concern should be w i t h d e s c r i b i n g your f e e l i n g s , thoughts and behaviors i n d e a l i n g w i t h both the people (communications, r e l a t i o n s h i p s , etc.) and the problems ( s o l u t i o n s , t a s k s , etc.) i n the s i t u a t i o n . Once you have completed the f i r s t s i t u a t i o n , please c a r r y out the same procedure f o r the next two s i t u a t i o n s . You should spend between 10 and 15 minutes on each s i t u a t i o n . When you have f i n i s h e d a l l three s i t -u a tions please c a r r y on w i t h the remainder of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . - 131 -Consultant Problem You are r e g i o n a l manager of a management c o n s u l t i n g company. You have a s t a f f of s i x consultants r e p o r t i n g to you, each of whom enjoys a considerable amount of autonomy i n the f i e l d w i t h c l i e n t s . Yesterday you re c e i v e d a complaint from one of your major c l i e n t s to the e f f e c t that the consultant whom you assigned to work on the con-t r a c t w i t h them was not doing h i s job e f f e c t i v e l y . They were not very e x p l i c i t as to the nature of the problem but i t was c l e a r that they were d i s s a t i s f i e d and that something would have to be done i f you were to r e -s t o r e the c l i e n t ' s f a i t h i n your company. The consu l t a n t assigned to work on that c o n t r a c t has been w i t h the company f o r s i x years. For the f i r s t f our or f i v e years h i s per-formance was superb and he was a model f o r the other more j u n i o r con-s u l t a n t s . However, r e c e n t l y he has seemed to have a "chip on h i s shoul-der" and h i s previous i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the company and i t s o b j e c t i v e s has been replaced w i t h i n d i f f e r e n c e . His negative a t t i t u d e has been no-t i c e d by other c o n s u l t a n t s as w e l l as c l i e n t s . This i s not the f i r s t such complaint about h i s performance that you have had from a c l i e n t t h i s year. A previous c l i e n t even reported to you that he reported to work s e v e r a l times o b v i o u s l y s u f f e r i n g from a hangover and that he had been seen around town i n the company of " f a s t " women. I t i s important to get to the root of t h i s problem q u i c k l y i f that c l i e n t i s to be r e t a i n e d . The consultant o b v i o u s l y has the s k i l l necessary to work w i t h the c l i e n t s e f f e c t i v e l y . I f only he would use i t ! * Please s p e c i f y below your f e e l i n g s and thoughts about t h i s s i t u a -t i o n and then describe your behaviors i n d e a l i n g w i t h i t . - 132 -Work Schedule As p a r t of your managerial t r a i n i n g program you were r e q u i r e d to work as the a s s i s t a n t manager of a small u n i t f o r the past s i x months. Although i t was planned to keep you there f o r another two months, you have j u s t been appointed a c t i n g manager of a very s i m i l a r u n i t on a tem-porary b a s i s i n order to replace the normal manager who must attend a two month course. As i t i s c l o s e to the end of June you are immediately faced w i t h the problem of scheduling summer h o l i d a y s f o r the 24 people i n your u n i t . They had a l l been promised two weeks h o l i d a y s over the July-August months. Company p o l i c y p r o h i b i t s more than one quarter of a u n i t ' s personnel on h o l i d a y s during any s p e c i f i c p e r i o d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y 20 of your people have requested t h e i r two weeks f o r J u l y because of the pending Olympic Games. You have a l s o j u s t r e c e i v e d a memo from head o f f i c e which s t i p u l a t e s that two of your personnel must attend an up-grading course running from 25 J u l y to 7 August i n a d d i t i o n to a warning that there may be excessive commitments f o r your u n i t ' s s e r v i c e s f o r the l a s t two weeks of J u l y . Considering the complications of the pending work and h o l i d a y schedules, please s p e c i f y below your f e e l i n g s and thoughts about t h i s s i t u a t i o n and then describe your behaviors i n d e a l i n g w i t h i t . - 133 -Memorial Service Each year a j u n i o r o f f i c e r i s s e l e c t e d to make a l l the prepara-t i o n s f o r an annual memorial r e l i g i o u s s e r v i c e f o r a l l m i l i t a r y person-n e l i n the area. This year you have been designated as that o f f i c e r . Your r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e making sure the b u i l d i n g f o r the s e r v i c e i s c l e a n and ready f o r the s e r v i c e . This a l s o i n c l u d e s having 1000 f o l d i n g c h a i r s and 50 s o f t V.I.P. c h a i r s set up, a podium i n place w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e decorations and f l a g s , and a f u n c t i o n i n g PA system. You have been a l l o c a t e d up to 25 men p l u s a truck to a s s i s t you i n c a r r y i n g out these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Please s p e c i f y below your f e e l i n g s and thoughts about t h i s s i t u a -t i o n and then d e s c r i b e your behaviors i n d e a l i n g w i t h i t . - 134 -SITUATIONS Section 2 Now that you have i n d i c a t e d how you would respond to each of the three s i t u a t i o n s , t h i n k of how an outside observer (a s u p e r i o r or co-worker) might have rated your behavior f o r each s i t u a t i o n . This s e c t i o n t h e r e f o r e . r e q u i r e s that you r a t e the l i s t e d dimensions on the f o l l o w i n g pages i n terms of how you t h i n k an observer who witnessed your a c t i o n s might have rated you. You may r e f e r back to the described s i t u a t i o n s but please do not be concerned w i t h the w r i t t e n responses you have given - t h i s i s not a check on what you included or d i d not i n c l u d e . The r a t -i n g s c a l e s may have l i t t l e i n common w i t h the dimensions of behavior you have described. This i s however an attempt to determine how you t h i n k an unbiased observer would r a t e your behavior on s p e c i f i c dimensions f o r each s i t u a t i o n . Please w r i t e the t i t l e of the f i r s t s i t u a t i o n on the top of the next page. Now r a t e each of the 14 dimensions f o r that s i t u a t i o n i n accordance w i t h how you t h i n k you would have been r a t e d by an observer. Repeat t h i s procedure f o r the second s i t u a t i o n using the next page and then i n t u r n , f o r the t h i r d s i t u a t i o n . Do not l e t the r a t i n g s f o r one s i t u a t i o n i n f l u e n c e the r a t i n g s of another. Please take your time, t h i n k of e x a c t l y how you would have been r a t e d , and then r a t e each d i -mension s e p a r a t e l y . - 135 -T i t l e of S i t u a t i o n  (Please i n d i c a t e how an unbiased observer would have rated your behavior i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n ) For t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n d i c a t e the degree to which he: Not At A l l 0 S l i g h t 1 Moderate 2 Quite A Lot 3 A great Deal 4 1. Encouraged others to express t h e i r ideas and opinions 2. E f f e c t i v e l y s a i d what he wanted to say 3. Helped others 4. C l e a r l y defined or o u t l i n e d problem(s) 5. Offered good s o l u t i o n s to problem(s) 6. Engaged i n f r i e n d l y jokes or comments 7. Made others f e e l at ease 8. Helped s e t t l e c o n f l i c t s 9. Had others share i n making d e c i s i o n s w i t h h i m s e l f 10. Influenced others 11. Showed i n i t i a t i v e 12. Led d i s c u s s i o n s 13. Complimented others 14. Motivated others to p a r t i c i p a t e - 136 -SITUATIONS Se c t i o n 3 F i n a l l y , to complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e would you please t h i n k of each s i t u a t i o n i n terms of the f o l l o w i n g two "independent" dimensions: People O r i e n t a t i o n - the degree to which the nature of the prob-lem s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v e s p e r s o n a l i s t i c f a c t o r s (people, r e l a t i o n s h i p s , f e e l i n g s , etc.) Non-People or Thing O r i e n t a t i o n - the degree to which the nature of the problem s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v e s p h y s i c a l i s t i c f a c t o r s ( t h i n g s , t a s k s , data, etc.) Now please c i r c l e a r a t i n g on these dimensions f o r each s i t u a t i o n . None Moderate Extreme People O r i e n t a t i o n 1 ( ( ( ( ( ) f ( I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1st s i t u a t i o n None Moderate Extreme Non-people O r i e n t a t i o n . , , , , , , , . . r r i 1 H —I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 None Moderate Extreme People O r i e n t a t i o n , • , , , , _, v , , , 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2nd s i t u a t i o n ! None Moderate Extreme Non-people O r i e n t a t i o n ^ I • | I I i I ( I I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 None Moderate Extreme People O r i e n t a t i o n , , , , , , I i | | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3rd s i t u a t i o n None Moderate Extreme Non-people O r i e n t a t i o n ^ ^ | t | | ^ ( I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I apologize f o r t a k i n g up your v a l u a b l e time but most s i n c e r e l y thank you f o r your c o n t r i b u t i o n . The very best of l u c k to you on t h i s course and i n your f u t u r e career. " 137 — APPENDIX B Eighteen I n i t i a l S i t u a t i o n s - 138 -A - Bomb Scare You are v i s i t i n g a l o c a l high school i n order to show a movie and make a p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r t h e i r "Careers Day". Jus t a f t e r lunch the p r i n c i p a l ' s o f f i c e r e c e i v e d a bomb scare telephone c a l l . A f t e r evacu-a t i n g the school and making sure the students were a l l s a f e , he assem-bled the teachers i n an attempt to organize a bomb search p r i o r to the a r r i v a l of the bomb squad. As there was some h e s i t a t i o n as to who would vo l u n t e e r to c a r r y out the search, you stepped forward s t a t i n g you would lead i t on the b a s i s of your previous m i l i t a r y experience. S i x teachers f i n a l l y volunteered to a s s i s t you. You a l l agree t h a t the search should be as thorough as p o s s i b l e but a l s o very r a p i d . E v i d e n t l y the time l i m i t s p e c i f i e d by the telephone c a l l e r suggests there are only 20 more minutes l e f t before everyone should be w e l l c l e a r of the school b u i l d i n g . U n f o r t u n a t e l y the bomb squad w i l l probably not a r r i v e f o r another 20 minutes. What steps or a c t i o n s would you c a r r y out i n an attempt to re s o l v e t h i s problem? - 139 -B - Stock P o r t f o l i o You are the head of a s t a f f u n i t r e p o r t i n g to the v i c e - p r e s i d e n t of f i n a n c e . He has asked you to provide a r e p o r t on the f i r m ' s current p o r t f o l i o to i n c l u d e recommendations f o r changes i n the s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a c u r r e n t l y employed. Doubts have been r a i s e d about the e f f i -c i e n c y of the e x i s t i n g system i n the current market c o n d i t i o n s , and there i s considerable d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h p r e v a i l i n g r a t e s of r e t u r n . You plan to w r i t e the r e p o r t , but a t the moment you are q u i t e perplexed about the approach to take. Your own s p e c i a l t y i s the bond market and i t i s c l e a r to you that a d e t a i l e d knowledge of the e q u i t y market, which you l a c k , would g r e a t l y enhance the value of the r e p o r t . F o r t u n a t e l y , four members of your s t a f f are s p e c i a l i s t s i n d i f f e r e n t segments of the e q u i t y market. Together, they possess a v a s t amount of knowledge about the i n t r i c a c i e s of investment. However, they seldom agree on the best way to achieve anything when i t comes to the stock market. While they are o b v i o u s l y c o n s c i e n t i o u s as w e l l as knowledgeable, they have major d i f f e r e n c e s when i t comes to investment philosophy and s t r a t e g y . You have s i x weeks before the r e p o r t i s due. You have already begun to f a m i l i a r i z e y o u r s e l f w i t h the f i r m ' s current p o r t f o l i o and have been provided by management w i t h a s p e c i f i c set of c o n s t r a i n t s that any p o r t f o l i o must s a t i s f y . Your immediate problem i s to come up w i t h some a l t e r n a t i v e s to the f i r m ' s present p r a c t i c e s and s e l e c t the most prom-i s i n g f o r d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s i n your r e p o r t . How would you attempt to r e s o l v e t h i s problem? What steps or a c t i o n s would you take? - 140 -C - R e t a i l Exchange Order You have j u s t completed the f i r s t two months of a two year tour, at a s e m i - i s o l a t e d m i l i t a r y s t a t i o n . . Although s m a l l , the s t a t i o n has i t s own r e t a i l exchange ( s t o r e ) . Close to 300 f a m i l i e s depend on t h i s exchange as t h e i r primary source f o r g r o c e r i e s , c l o t h i n g and m i s c e l l a -neous purchases. U n f o r t u n a t e l y the c i v i l i a n manager of the exchange d i e d a week ago. You have been r e l i e v e d of your present d u t i e s and t o l d by the s t a t i o n commander that you w i l l be the a c t i n g exchange manager u n t i l a permanent replacement can be h i r e d . I t i s expected t h i s w i l l take from 3 to 6 months. Your knowledge of r e t a i l i n g i s extremely l i m i t e d but you welcome t h i s o p portunity as a personal challenge. At l e a s t you have f i v e department managers ( G r o c e r t e r i a ; C l o t h i n g ; Audio-Photo; Hardware-Sporting Goods; and Miscellaneous Giftware) and although they are not r e a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s ( h i r e d through l o c a l resources mainly f o r t h e i r i n t e r e s t s ) they are f a m i l i a r w i t h the exchange's o p e r a t i o n s . You have j u s t spent the past two days f a m i l i a r i z i n g y o u r s e l f w i t h the exchange o p e r a t i o n and paperwork. You have found out i t i s impera-t i v e a very l a r g e semi-annual order be placed w i t h i n the next three days so that d e l i v e r y i s guaranteed before w i n t e r sets i n . The order would be subject to 10% discount i f placed w i t h i n three days and there i s a r i s k of s u b s t a n t i a l increases i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s i f the order i s sent i n l a t e . The previous manager has l e f t most of the i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d to pl a c e the order, i n c l u d i n g q u a n t i t i e s of s p e c i f i e d items, but you are s k e p t i c a l about some of the i n f o r m a t i o n . You know the department managers have had some input i n determining the order but you don't know how much. What steps or a c t i o n s would you take to r e s o l v e t h i s immediate problem s i t u a t i o n ? - 141 -D - Fictitious Accounts You are the Sales Manager f o r the C o l o n i a l F u r n i t u r e Manufacturing Company and have j u s t completed a one week t r i p a u d i t i n g customer ac-counts and p r o s p e c t i v e accounts i n one of your four major r e g i o n s . Your primary i n t e n t i o n was to do follow-up work on p r o s p e c t i v e accounts con-tac t e d by s a l e s s t a f f members during the past s i x months. Pr o s p e c t i v e c l i e n t s were u s u a l l y f u r n i t u r e dealers or l a r g e department s t o r e s w i t h f u r n i t u r e departments. To your amazement you discovered that almost a l l the s o - c a l l e d p r o s p e c t i v e accounts were f i c t i t i o u s . The salesmen had o b v i o u s l y turned i n f a l s e l y documented f i e l d r e p o r t s and expense statements. Company salesman had a c t u a l l y c a l l e d upon only 3 of 22 reported f u r n i t u r e s t o r e s or department s t o r e s . Thus you surmised that salesmen had f a l s e l y claimed approximately 85 percent of the good w i l l c o n t a c t s . Further study showed that a l l salesman had followed t h i s general p r a c t i c e and that no one had a c l e a n r e c o r d . You have decided that immediate a c t i o n i s mandatory, although the salesmen are experienced s e n i o r men. Angry as you.are, w i t h a p r e f e r -ence f o r f i r i n g them a l l , you remember you are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s a l e s and r e a l i z e that r e p l a c i n g the s t a f f would s e r i o u s l y c r i p p l e the t o t a l s a l e s program f o r the coming year. What steps or a c t i o n s would you take i n order to r e s o l v e t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? - 142 -E - O i l P i p e l i n e You are general foreman i n charge of a l a r g e gang l a y i n g an o i l p i p e l i n e . I t i s now necessary to estimate your expected r a t e of prog-ress i n order to schedule m a t e r i a l d e l i v e r i e s to the next f i e l d s i t e . You know the nature of the t e r r a i n you w i l l be t r a v e l l i n g and have the h i s t o r i c a l data needed to compute the mean and variance i n the r a t e of speed over that type of t e r r a i n . Given these two v a r i a b l e s i t i s a simple matter to c a l c u l a t e the e a r l i e s t and l a t e s t times a t which m a t e r i a l s and support f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be needed at the next s i t e . I t i s important that your estimate be reasonably accurate. Underestimates r e s u l t i n i d l e foremen and workers, and an overestimate r e s u l t s i n t y i n g up m a t e r i a l s f o r a p e r i o d of time before they are to be used. Progress has been good and your f i v e foremen and other members of the gang stand to r e c e i v e s u b s t a n t i a l bonuses i f the p r o j e c t i s com-p l e t e d ahead of schedule. What steps or a c t i o n would you take to s a t i s f y the demands of t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? - 143 -F - Sea Rescue You are a j u n i o r o f f i c e r aboard a naval destroyer which has an-chored f o r the n i g h t i n a s h e l t e r e d bay. J u s t before midnight the Com-munications department r e c e i v e s a Mayday from a yacht (with a f a m i l y of s i x on board) which i s f l o a t i n g h e l p l e s s l y o f f an i s l a n d l e s s than 10 miles away. Although the yacht skipper i s not sure of h i s exact p o s i -t i o n he i s f e a r f u l of s i n k i n g by grounding. The destroyer Captain i n -forms the Rescue-Coordination Center and the yacht that he w i l l send a s s i s t a n c e . He delegates you to take a seaman, e l e c t r i c i a n and mechanic i n the motor sea boat i n order to provide a s s i s t a n c e . The n i g h t i s c l e a r and the weather good but the a i r i s c h i l l y and i t i s s t i l l very dark. You r e a l i z e the yacht i s not sure of i t s p o s i t i o n but you b e l i e v e i t must be i n the v i c i n i t y of the i s l a n d that has been mentioned. What steps or a c t i o n would you f o l l o w i n c a r r y i n g out t h i s rescue mission? - 144 -G - Parking Spaces You have r e c e n t l y been appointed manager of a new p l a n t which i s p r e s e n t l y under c o n s t r u c t i o n . Your team of f i v e department heads has been s e l e c t e d and they.are now working w i t h you i n s e l e c t i n g t h e i r own s t a f f , purchasing equipment and g e n e r a l l y a n t i c i p a t i n g the problems that are l i k e l y to a r i s e when you move i n t o the p l a n t i n three months. Yesterday you r e c e i v e d from the a r c h i t e c t a f i n a l s e t of plans f o r the b u i l d i n g , and f o r the f i r s t time you examined the parking f a c i l -i t i e s that are a v a i l a b l e . There i s a l a r g e l o t across the road from the pl a n t intended p r i m a r i l y f o r h o u r l y workers and lower l e v e l supervisory personnel. In a d d i t i o n , there are seven spaces immediately adjacent to the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s , intended f o r v i s i t o r and reserved p a r k i n g . Company p o l i c y r e q u i r e s that a minimum of three spaces be made a v a i l a b l e f o r v i s i t o r p a r k i n g , l e a v i n g you only four spaces to a l l o c a t e among y o u r s e l f and your f i v e department heads. There i s no way of i n c r e a s i n g the t o t a l number of such spaces without changing the s t r u c t u r e of the b u i l d i n g . Up to now, there have been no obvious s t a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s among your team, who have worked together very w e l l i n the planning phase of the o p e r a t i o n . To be sure, there are s a l a r y d i f f e r e n c e s , w i t h your A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , Manufacturing and Engineering Managers r e c e i v i n g s l i g h t l y more than the Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l and I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Managers. Each has r e c e n t l y been promoted to h i s new p o s i t i o n , and expects r e -served parking p r i v i l e g e s as a consequence of h i s new s t a t u s . From past experience you know that people f e e l s t r o n g l y about things which would be i n d i c a t i v e of t h e i r s t a t u s . So you and your-subordinates have been working together as a team and you are r e l u c t a n t to do anything which might j e o p a r d i z e these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . How would you r e s o l v e t h i s problem? What steps or a c t i o n would you take ? - 145 -H - Executive Cars You are one of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c e r s of a newly formed o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i v i s i o n . The d i v i s i o n a l manager has j u s t given you the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r choosing a f l e e t of four chauffered passenger cars which w i l l be used by senior management personnel f o r o f f i c i a l business purposes on as r e q u i r e d b a s i s . Throughout the o r g a n i z a t i o n there are c u r r e n t l y three types of cars i n use and your.choice i s l i m i t e d to these but a l l four cars must be of the same type. D r i v e r s of the proposed cars have not yet been h i r e d so you cannot o b t a i n t h e i r preferences. The executives who w i l l use them a l s o appear to be evenly s p l i t between the three types. The d i v i s i o n a l manager has s t a t e d that i t i s s t r i c t l y up to you to make the f i n a l d e c i s i o n based upon whatever i n f o r m a t i o n there i s a v a i l a b l e . What steps or a c t i o n would you take i n order to determine your f i n a l d e c i s i o n concerning t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? - 146 -I - Work.Hours You are one of the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c e r s i n a l a r g e o r g a n i z a -t i o n . Recently s e v e r a l managers have expressed concern over the a t t i -tude of o f f i c e employees i n a l l departments toward g e t t i n g to work on time, t a k i n g extended c o f f e e breaks, s t r e t c h i n g out t h e i r lunch hours, and l e a v i n g s e v e r a l minutes e a r l y . The managers agreed that the problem was due to f a i l u r e to administer a c l e a r - c u t p o l i c y c o n s i s t e n t l y i n a l l departments. You have been appointed to make a study of c e r t a i n employee work p r a c t i c e s . On reviewing the problem, you r e a l i z e that something more, would have to be done than j u s t p o s t i n g on the b u l l e t i n board a s t a t e -ment c i t i n g requirements and r e g u l a t i o n s f o r working hours. This had been done befo r e , w i t h l i t t l e n o t i c e a b l e change i n the h a b i t s of o f f i c e employees. Some dramatic a c t i o n should be taken, or threatened, that would awaken the o f f i c e f o r c e . One p o s s i b i l i t y would be to post the p o l i c y regarding working hours along w i t h a warning that those g u i l t y of v i o l a t i n g the p o l i c y would be discharged immediately. A second p o s s i b i l i t y would be to dock the pay of those who h a b i t u a l l y f a i l e d to conform to the working sched-u l e and to reprimand them p e r s o n a l l y . A t h i r d p o s s i b i l i t y would be the i n s t a l l a t i o n and use of time c l o c k s to determine a c c u r a t e l y the amount of working time each employee put i n . Their pay would then be based on a c t u a l hours worked. Perhaps other steps could be taken. You are aware that each p o s s i b l e a c t i o n has advantages and d i s a d -vantages. However, w i t h approximately 500 o f f i c e employees i n v o l v e d , something has to be done that would permanently e s t a b l i s h managerial p o l i c y regarding work hours and that would change present widespread and deeply i n g r a i n e d , employee a t t i t u d e s toward wasted time. What steps would you take or what a c t i o n would you propose i n order to r e s o l v e t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? - 147 -J - Defence Contract You are executive v i c e - p r e s i d e n t f o r a s m a l l pharmaceutical.manu-f a c t u r e r . ' You have the opportunity to b i d on a co n t r a c t f o r the Defence Department p e r t a i n i n g to b i o l o g i c a l warfare. I t i s outside the main-stream of your business but i t could.make economic sense s i n c e you do have unused c a p a c i t y i n one of your p l a n t s and the manufacturing proc-esses are not d i s s i m i l a r . You have w r i t t e n the document to accompany the b i d and now have the problem of determining the d o l l a r value of the quotation which you t h i n k w i l l win the job f o r the company. I f the b i d i s too high you w i l l undoubtedly l o s e to one of your competitors; i f i t i s too low you would stand to l o s e money on the program. There are many f a c t o r s to be considered i n making t h i s d e c i s i o n i n c l u d i n g the cost of the new raw m a t e r i a l s , the a d d i t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a -t i v e burden of r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h a new c l i e n t , not to speak of f a c t o r s which are l i k e l y to i n f l u e n c e the b i d s of your competitors such as how much they need t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r a c t . You have been busy assembling the necessary data to make t h i s d e c i s i o n but there remain s e v e r a l "un-knowns" one of which i n v o l v e s the manager of the p l a n t i n which the new products w i l l be manufactured. Of a l l your subordinates he i s i n the p o s i t i o n to estimate the costs of adapting the present equipment to t h e i r new purpose and h i s cooperation and support w i l l be necessary i n ensuring that the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the con t r a c t w i l l be met. However, i n an i n i t i a l d i s c u s s i o n w i t h him when you f i r s t learned of the p o s s i -b i l i t y of the co n t r a c t he seemed adamantly opposed to the idea. His previous experience has not p a r t i c u l a r l y equipped him w i t h the a b i l i t y to evaluate p r o j e c t s l i k e t h i s one so that you were not o v e r l y i n f l u -enced by h i s o p i n i o n s . From the nature of h i s arguments, you i n f e r r e d that h i s o p p o s i t i o n was i d e o l o g i c a l r a t h e r than economic. You r e c a l l that he was a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n a l o c a l "peace o r g a n i z a t i o n " and was one of the most v o c a l opponents w i t h i n the company to the war i n V i e t -nam. What steps or a c t i o n would you take i n an attempt to re s o l v e t h i s problem? - 148 -K - O i l S p i l l You are employed as an i n s t r u c t o r a t a m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g estab-lishment. Last n i g h t an o i l tanker went aground i n a storm not f a r from your establishment. While a c e r t a i n amount of o i l p o l l u t i o n i s unavoid-a b l e , the extent of damage to the surrounding shores and the th r e a t to fowl i n the area i s s t i l l undeterminable. In an attempt to assess the s i t u a t i o n and f o r e s t a l l f u r t h e r damage to the environment, personnel from your establishment have been tasked to provide immediate a s s i s t a n c e . You have been designated as o f f i c e r - i n - c h a r g e of a 4 m i l e s t r e t c h of s h o r e l i n e which i n c l u d e s a number of beaches i n small coves separated by rocky but passable s e c t i o n s of s h o r e l i n e . You have a l s o been assigned a c l a s s of 30 men whom you know w e l l , having i n s t r u c t e d them now f o r a number of weeks. They are cooperative, i n d u s t r i o u s and work very w e l l as a team. On departure to the o i l s p i l l area you have been informed that your r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : - Assess and describe the extent of damage to the p h y s i c a l shore and to fowl i n the area. - A s s i s t i n the s u r v i v a l of fowl and w i l d l i f e threatened by the o i l s p i l l . - Make recommendations f o r the manpower and equipment r e q u i r e d to cl e a n up the o i l . s p i l l . - Do what ever i s p o s s i b l e to prevent f u r t h e r damage w h i l e w a i t i n g f o r a d d i t i o n a l support. What immediate steps would you take i n c a r r y i n g out your respon-s i b i l i t i e s ? What s p e c i f i c acts would you i n c l u d e to ensure s u c c e s s f u l completion of your mission? - 149 -L - Consultant Problem You are r e g i o n a l manager of a management c o n s u l t i n g company. You have a s t a f f of, s i x consultants r e p o r t i n g to you, each of whom enjoys a considerable amount of autonomy i n the f i e l d w i t h c l i e n t s . Yesterday you re c e i v e d a complaint from one of your major c l i e n t s ,to the e f f e c t that the consultant whom you assigned to work on the con-t r a c t w i t h them was not doing h i s . j o b e f f e c t i v e l y . They were not very e x p l i c i t as to the nature of the problem but i t was c l e a r that they were d i s s a t i s f i e d and that something would have to be done i f you were to r e s t o r e the c l i e n t ' s f a i t h i n your company. The co n s u l t a n t assigned to work on that c o n t r a c t has been w i t h the company f o r s i x years. For the f i r s t four or f i v e years h i s performance was superb and he was a model f o r the other more j u n i o r c o n s u l t a n t s . However, r e c e n t l y he has seemed to have a "chip on h i s shoulder" and h i s previous i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the company and i t s o b j e c t i v e s has been replaced w i t h i n d i f f e r e n c e . His negative a t t i t u d e has been n o t i c e d by other c o n s u l t a n t s as w e l l as c l i e n t s . This i s not the f i r s t such com-p l a i n t about h i s performance that you have had from a c l i e n t t h i s year. A previous c l i e n t even reported to you that he reported to work s e v e r a l times o b v i o u s l y s u f f e r i n g from a hangover and that he had been seen around town i n the company of " f a s t " women. I t i s important to get to the root of t h i s problem q u i c k l y i f that c l i e n t i s to be r e t a i n e d . The consultant o b v i o u s l y has the s k i l l necessary to work w i t h the c l i e n t s e f f e c t i v e l y . How would you attempt to r e s o l v e t h i s problem? What a c t i o n or steps would you take? - 150 -M - Work Schedule As part of your managerial t r a i n i n g program you were r e q u i r e d to work as the a s s i s t a n t manager of a s m a l l u n i t f o r the past s i x months. Although i t was planned to keep you there f o r another two months, you have j u s t been appointed a c t i n g manager of a very s i m i l a r u n i t on a tem-porary b a s i s i n order to re p l a c e the normal manager who must attend a two month course. As i t i s c l o s e to the end of June you are immediately faced w i t h the problem of scheduling summer h o l i d a y s f o r the 24 people i n your u n i t . They had a l l been promised two weeks h o l i d a y over the July-August months. Company p o l i c y p r o h i b i t s more than one quarter of a u n i t ' s personnel on h o l i d a y s during any s p e c i f i c p e r i o d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y 20 of your people have requested t h e i r two weeks f o r J u l y because of the pending Olympic Games. You have a l s o j u s t r e c e i v e d a memo from head o f f i c e which s t i p u l a t e s that two of your personnel must attend an up-grading course running from 25 J u l y to 7 August i n a d d i t i o n to a warning that there may be excessive commitments f o r your u n i t ' s s e r v i c e s f o r the l a s t two weeks of J u l y . C onsidering the complications of the pending work and h o l i d a y schedules, what steps or a c t i o n s would you take to r e s o l v e your current predicament? - 151 -N - F i r e d Employee You are the Personnel D i r e c t o r of an o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which i n d i -v i d u a l departments have complete autonomy concerning the h i r i n g and f i r i n g of employees. Consequently your r o l e i s more that of a c o n s u l t -ant, r e s o l v i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s and problems and f o r m u l a t i n g p o l i c y . I t i s F r i d a y afternoon and you are having an i n t e r v i e w w i t h an employee from the accounting department who u r g e n t l y requested to see you. He has explained to you that he was e l e c t e d by the other 75 em-ployees of the accounting department to speak on t h e i r b ehalf about company p r a c t i c e s which they wished modified or e l i m i n a t e d . Last F r i d a y t h i s employee had a p r i v a t e meeting w i t h h i s Department Head where he expressed concern about the merit r a t i n g system which the employees thought was u n f a i r , p o o r l y used, and u t i l i z e d as a reason f o r not paying higher s a l a r i e s . A second p r a c t i c e not w e l l accepted by the employees was the a r b i t r a r y way i n which management determined v a c a t i o n time f o r employees. E v i d e n t l y one employee was given two days n o t i c e before he r e c e i v e d h i s f i r s t week of v a c a t i o n i n October and f i v e days n o t i c e before he was t o l d he could take o f f another week i n A p r i l . You were a l s o t o l d that the Department Head l i s t e n e d a t t e n t i v e l y to these concerns but because i t was l a t e i n the day he s t a t e d he would consider then next week. The f o l l o w i n g week the employee n o t i c e d howev-er that h i s Department Head was out of town and no a c t i o n was taken con-cer n i n g h i s remarks. However, h i s f e l l o w employees tended to t r e a t him much l i k e a hero f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g them i n f r o n t of the Department Head. This employee j u s t picked up h i s pay check t h i s morning but was shocked to f i n d h i s discharge n o t i c e and two weeks of a d d i t i o n a l pay i n h i s envelope. He was so upset he immediately requested t h i s i n t e r v i e w w i t h you. What steps or a c t i o n would you take i n an attempt to r e s o l v e t h i s s i t u a t i o n ? - 152 -0 - Data Information System You are on the division manager's staff and work on a wide varie-ty of problems of both an administrative and technical nature. You have been given the assignment of developing a universal method to be used i n each of the five plants in the division for manually reading equipment registers, recording the readings and transmitting the scorings to a centralized information system. A l l plants are located in a relatively small geographical region. Until now there has been a high error rate in the reading and/or transmittal of the data. Some locations have considerably higher error rates than others, and the methods used to record and transmit the data vary between plants. It is probable, therefore, that part of the error variance is a function of specific local conditions rather than anything else, and this w i l l complicate the establishment of any system common to a l l plants. You have the information on errors or on the local condi-tions which necessitate the different practices. Everyone would benefit from an improvement in the quality of the data as i t is used in a number of important decisions. Your contacts with the plants are through the quality-control supervisors who are re-sponsible for collecting the data. They are a conscientious group com-mitted to doing their jobs well but are highly sensitive to interference on the part of higher management in their own operations. Any solution which does not receive the active support of the various plant supervi-sors is unlikely to reduce the error rate significantly. What steps or actions would you take in obtaining a solution to this situation? - 153 -P - Memorial Service Each year a j u n i o r o f f i c e r i s s e l e c t e d to make a l l the prepara-t i o n s f o r an annual memorial r e l i g i o u s s e r v i c e f o r a l l m i l i t a r y person-n e l i n the area. This year you have been designated as that o f f i c e r . Your r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e making sure the b u i l d i n g f o r the s e r v i c e i s c l e a n and ready f o r the s e r v i c e . This a l s o i n c l u d e s having 1000 f o l d i n g c h a i r s and 50 s o f t V.I.P. c h a i r s s et up, a podium i n place w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e decorations and f l a g s , and a f u n c t i o n i n g PA system. You have been a l l o c a t e d up to 50 men plus a tr u c k to a s s i s t you i n c a r r y i n g a l l these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . What steps or a c t i o n would you take to ensure the above i s c a r r i e d out to everyone's s a t i s f a c t i o n ? - 154 -Q - O f f i c e Space You are on the s t a f f of a Regional Headquarters O f f i c e ( u n i t ) and one of your secondary r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e s being the S p e c i a l P r o j -ects O f f i c e r . You have j u s t been given a p r o j e c t which w i l l r e q u i r e you to c a r r y out a d e t a i l e d study developing recommendations f o r the most e f f i c i e n t a l l o c a t i o n of o f f i c e space w i t h i n the headquarters b u i l d i n g . The HQ b u i l d i n g c o n s i s t s of two f l o o r s and some 50 separate rooms. The m a j o r i t y of rooms are u t i l i z e d as separate executive o f f i c e s or c l e r i c a l support o f f i c e s but there are a l s o e i g h t l a r g e rooms which are used as typi n g p o o l s , s t a f f lounges, conference rooms, e t c . The Regional s t a f f had plans to increase i t s personnel component u t i l i z i n g a d d i t i o n a l ac-commodations i n an adjacent b u i l d i n g but these plans were reversed by N a t i o n a l Headquarters w i t h d i r e c t i v e s that the Regional s t a f f would maintain i t s personnel compliment but give up one quarter of i t s o f f i c e and supporting space f o r a new department ( u n i t ) which w i l l be moving i n w i t h i n the next 6 weeks. A l l Regional Headquarters personnel are aware of t h i s u n r e a l i s t i c cutback and i t i s expected that i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l r e -s i s t attempts d i r e c t e d towards p l a c i n g them i n smaller o f f i c e s , s haring o f f i c e s and l o s i n g other v a l u a b l e space. You only have a week to do a d e t a i l e d survey of t h i s , s i t u a t i o n and make very d e f i n i t e recommendation which w i l l ensure one quarter of the b u i l d i n g i s a v a i l a b l e f o r the new u n i t . You have 5 c l e r i c a l workers who can a s s i s t you i n t h i s task. What steps or a c t i o n s would you take ( i n o u t l i n e form) i n s o l v i n g t h i s problem so you are sure your recommendations w i l l be both v a l i d and acceptable? - 155 -R - Engineer Transfer You are s u p e r v i s i n g the work of twelve engineers. Their formal t r a i n i n g and work experience are very s i m i l a r , p e r m i t t i n g you to use them interchangeably on p r o j e c t s . Yesterday, your manager informed you that a request had been r e c e i v e d from an overseas a f f i l i a t e f o r four engineers to go abroad on extended loan f o r a p e r i o d of s i x to e i g h t months. For a number of reasons, he argued and you agreed that t h i s r e -quest should be met from your group. A l l your engineers are capable of handling t h i s assignment and, from the standpoint of present and f u t u r e p r o j e c t s , there i s no p a r t i c u -l a r reason why any one should be r e t a i n e d over any other. The problem i s somewhat complicated by the f a c t that the overseas assignment i s i n what i s g e n e r a l l y regarded i n the company as an u n d e s i r a b l e l o c a t i o n . What steps or a c t i o n would you take to r e s o l v e t h i s problem s i t u a t i o n ? - 156 -APPENDIX C P i l o t Study Questionnaire I n s t r u c t i o n s - 157 -CFOCS SURVEY OF INTERESTS AND BEHAVIORS  PART I This q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s p a r t of a study being c a r r i e d out f o r the completion of a M.Sc. t h e s i s a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The study i s p a r t i a l l y concerned w i t h i n d i v i d u a l preferences and i n t e r e s t s and should provide v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r o f f i c e r and managerial t r a i n i n g . Two d i f f e r e n t types of short i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s , both w i t h sep-arate s e t s of i n s t r u c t i o n s , are attached. Please read and f o l l o w the i n s t r u c t i o n s c a r e f u l l y . Each should only take a few minutes of your time to complete. You are a l s o requested to f i l l i n the bi o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n be-low. Your name and SIN w i l l only be used to match t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h other i n f o r m a t i o n . Once a l l the r e l e v a n t data has been completed your name and SIN w i l l be t o t a l l y removed. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be t r e a t e d w i t h the s t r i c t e s t confidence and no one from t h i s school or i n the Canadian Forces w i l l have access to your responses. Please note that these i n v e n t o r i e s have n e i t h e r r i g h t nor wrong answers. They only concern your personal preferences - they are not a p e r s o n a l i t y or i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t . Therefore please answer as a c c u r a t e l y as you can. Thank you f o r your time and cooperation! RANK: 0 Cadet A 2 LT 2 LT LT CAPT OCCUPATIONAL Land Ops GROUPING: Sea Ops A i r Ops Engineer Support MARITAL STATUS: PRIMARY LANGUAGE: SEX: M S E F M F PLAN: ROTP DEO OCTP DOTP RETP Other COMPLETED EDUCATION: UNIVERSITY: (Specify) J r . Matr. Sr. Matr. 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year C i v i l i a n U. CMC COMPLETED YEARS OF SERVICE COMPANY AGE CLASSIFICATION PLATOON SIN NAME Last I n i t i a l s - 158 -Name: CFOCS SURVEY OF INTERESTS AND BEHAVIORS  PART I I This questionnaire i s a n . a d d i t i o n a l p a r t of the study being c a r r i e d out f o r my M.Sc. t h e s i s a t U.B.C. I would be pleased to answer any questions concerning the study a f t e r you have completed t h i s p a r t . Before we s t a r t would you please w r i t e your name on the top of t h i s page and on the f r o n t of the blank b o o k l e t provided. Again, your name w i l l o nly be used f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n purposes. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n obtained i n t h i s study w i l l be he l d i n s t r i c t e s t confidence; apart from myself no one from t h i s school or i n the Canadian Forces w i l l have access to any i d e n t i f i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . On each of the next three pages there i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of a pos-s i b l e s i t u a t i o n i n which you could h y p o t h e t i c a l l y f i n d y o u r s e l f . Please read the f i r s t d e s c r i p t i o n very c a r e f u l l y and then consider y o u r s e l f as being i n the s i t u a t i o n and having to deal w i t h the described problem. Using the booklet provided s t a t e the s i t u a t i o n t i t l e and then describe i n as much d e t a i l as p o s s i b l e e x a c t l y what you would do i n order to r e s o l v e the problem. In other words, describe the steps or a c t i o n you would take i f you were a c t u a l l y faced w i t h t h i s problem. Do not concern y o u r s e l f w i t h w r i t i n g s t y l e or grammar but t r y to be'as i n c l u s i v e as p o s s i b l e i n terms of a l l the d i f f e r e n t things you might do. F e e l f r e e to use p o i n t form. Your major concern should be w i t h i d e n t i f y i n g your  a c t i o n s and behaviors so t r y to make extensive use of a c t i o n words and  verbs to describe your behavior. Once you have completed the f i r s t s i t u a t i o n and are s a t i s f i e d you have in c l u d e d e v e r y t h i n g you would do, please c a r r y out the same proce-dure f o r the next two s i t u a t i o n s . You should spend between 5 and 10 minutes on each s i t u a t i o n . When you have f i n i s h e d a l l three s i t u a t i o n s please c a r r y on w i t h the remainder of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . - 159 -Se c t i o n 2 Now that you have s t a t e d how you would respond to each of the three s i t u a t i o n s , t r y to put y o u r s e l f i n the p o s i t i o n of an o u t s i d e ob-s e r v e r . Without t u r n i n g back to your w r i t t e n n a r r a t i v e s , r a t e the f o l -lowing dimensions as i f you were an observer assessing y o u r s e l f i n each  of the described s i t u a t i o n s . ' You may r e f e r back, to the described s i t u -a t i o n s but please do not go back to what you have w r i t t e n i n the book-l e t . Do not be concerned i f you have not commented i n your n a r r a t i v e on any of these behaviors - t h i s i s not a check on what you in c l u d e d or d i d not i n c l u d e . I t i s however an attempt to determine how you t h i n k you would have behaved i n each s i t u a t i o n i n terms of s p e c i f i c dimensions. Please w r i t e the t i t l e of the f i r s t s i t u a t i o n you d i d on the top of the next page. Now r a t e each of the 14 dimensions f o r the s i t u a t i o n i n accordance w i t h how you t h i n k you would have responded to that s i t u a -t i o n . . Then repeat t h i s procedure f o r the second s i t u a t i o n u s i n g the next page and then the t h i r d s i t u a t i o n . Do not l e t the r a t i n g s f o r one s i t u a t i o n i n f l u e n c e the r a t i n g s of another. Please take your time and r a t e each dimension c a r e f u l l y . - 160 -T i t l e of S i t u a t i o n For t h i s s i t u a t i o n i n d i c a t e the degree to which you: Not At A l l 0 S l i g h t 1 Moderate 2 Quite A Lot 3 A Great Deal .4. 1. Encouraged others to express t h e i r ideas and opinions 2. E f f e c t i v e l y s a i d what I wanted to say 3. Helped others 4. C l e a r l y defined or o u t l i n e d problem(s) 5. Offered good s o l u t i o n s to problems 6. Engaged i n f r i e n d l y jokes and comments 7. Made others f e e l at ease 8. Helped s e t t l e c o n f l i c t s 9. Had others share i n making d e c i s i o n s w i t h me 10. Influenced others 11. Showed i n i t i a t i v e 12. Led d i s c u s s i o n s 13. Complimented others 14. Motivated others to . p a r t i c i p a t e - 161 -APPENDIX D P i l o t Study Results - 162 r-Table I Mean Consideration & Initiating Structure Scores by Specialty & Situation Specialty Situation P C T P (N - 8) 16.6 14.6 .i 12.5 G (N - 18) 16.7 14.1 14.4 T (N " 7) 15.7 10.0 10.2 Consideration Specialty Situation P C T P (N - 8) 18.3 17.9 20.4 G (N - 18) 18.7 17.1 • 18.1 T (N - 7) 18.2 15.0 15.7 Initiating Structure - 163 -Table I I 2-Way A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Dependent V a r i a b l e s Source SS df MS F S i t u a t i o n 70.78 2 35.39 1.26 S p e c i a l t y 125.78 2 62.89 2.24 I n t e r a c t i o n 21.11 4 5.28 0.19 E r r o r 1265.33 45 28.12 T o t a l 1483 Co n s i d e r a t i o n Source SS df MS F S i t u a t i o n 60.04 2 30.02 2.00 S p e c i a l t y 90.70 2 45.35 3.02 I n t e r a c t i o n 68.02 4 17.00 1.13 E r r o r 674 45 14.98 T o t a l 892 I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e - 164 -APPENDIX E S i t u a t i o n S e l e c t i o n - Ranking I n s t r u c t i o n s - 165 -ASSESSING SITUATIONS This i s a request f o r your p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e i n an attempt to f u r t h e r develop my on-going MSc t h e s i s . Some of you are already aware of the " S p e c i a l i z a t i o n " person-a l i t y c o n s t r u c t as developed and r e f i n e d by B r i a n L i t t l e , Peter F r o s t and Thad Barnowe, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the two dimensions l a b e l l e d People and Thing O r i e n t a t i o n . My c u r r e n t concern i s w i t h problem s i t u a t i o n s as faced by d e c i s i o n makers (leaders and managers) i n terms of how such s i t u a t i o n s can be c a t e g o r i z e d i n r e l a t i o n to the two primary objects of the environment - people and non-people or t h i n g s . I t i s hypothesized that any s p e c i f i c problem s i t u a t i o n can be r a t e d and q u a n t i f i e d on the two dimensions of People O r i e n t a t i o n and Thing or Non People O r i e n t a t i o n . These dimensions are described as f o l l o w s : People O r i e n t a t i o n - the personal or i n t e r p e r s o n a l element of the problem s i t u a t i o n . This i m p l i e s degree of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r people and t h e i r f e e l i n g s as e x h i b i t e d by the demands and/or nature of the problem s i t u a t i o n . I t a l s o i n c l u d e s the degree of i n t e r p e r s o n a l involvement of the a c t o r s plus t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior and a c t i v i t i e s . Thing (Non-people) O r i e n t a t i o n - The non-personal, t h i n g or task element of the problem s i t u a t i o n . This i m p l i e s the degree of concern w i t h non p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s , whether they be c l a s s i f i a b l e as things or as t a s k s , as e x h i b i t e d by the demands and/or nature of the problem s i t u a t i o n . A s i t u a t i o n may w e l l i n c l u d e both p h y s i c a l o b j e c t s and people ( i n f a c t , most s i t u a t i o n s are probably a combination) but the primary concern here i s w i t h the r e l a t i v e nature of the problem i n terms of the two dimensions. The subject matter and content of the s i t u a t i o n are important but I am more i n t e r e s t e d i n how you p e r c e i v e the a c t u a l nature  of the problem s i t u a t i o n i n terms of two separate and independent dimensions. The two dimensions can be f u r t h e r a m p l i f i e d as f o l l o w s : Person O r i e n t a t i o n Thing O r i e n t a t i o n Subject Matter & Content p r i m a r i l y : P e o p l e / f e e l i n g s Things/tasks ( i n c l u d i n g numbers, data, f i g u r e s , etc.) Nature of problem P e r s o n a l i s t i c P h y s i c a l i s t i c Managerial G r i d Concern f o r People Concern f o r Production Related Behaviors C o n s i d e r a t i o n I n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e Decis ion-Making More p a r t i c i p a t i v e More a u t o c r a t i c - 166 -Please note that as these dimensions are hypothetically indepen-dent and orthogonal, the score on one should have nothing to do with the score on the other for a specified problem situation. In other words, a situation may be high on one or the other dimension, high on both, or even conceivably low on both. Please ensure your rating on one dimension does not affect your rating on the other. Could you please read each of the following 18 problem situations. Each time you read a situation, please assign scores between 0 and 10 for the People dimension and for the Thing-Task dimension for that problem situation. This procedure should be comparable to placing an (X) at the point on each dimension (on the scales portrayed below) which represents your judgement of the degree to which both orientations (People and Things) are present within each situation. People Orientation J L 0 , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No People Extreme Degree Orientation of People Orientation Thing/Task Orientation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Thing Extreme Degree of Orientation Thing Orientation A Situation Rating Form i s attached for your convenience. Situations should be given to you in random order. When you complete a situation, please rate i t against the "letter" on the Rating Form which corresponds with the "letter" at the top of page identifying the situation. Your assistance and time in this endeavour is most sincerely appreciated. Thank you. Gordon Mains P.S. Please ignore the last sentence at the bottom of each situation. - 167 -S i t u a t i o n Rating Form S i t u a t i o n Person O r i e n t a t i o n Rating Thing O r i e n t a t i o n Rating 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094236/manifest

Comment

Related Items