Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An experimental validation and extension of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness Saha, Sudhir Kumar 1972

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A1 S34_3.pdf [ 5.7MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101404.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101404-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101404-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101404-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101404-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101404-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101404-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101404-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101404.ris

Full Text

AN EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND EXTENSION OF FIEDLER'S CONTINGENCY MODEL OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS by Sudhir Kumar Saha B. Com. CHons.] U n i v e r s i t y o f R a j s h a h i , 1965 M. Com., U n i v e r s i t y o f R a j s h a h i , 1966 M.B.A., U n i v e r i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970  A THESIS SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n the F a c u l t y of.  COMMERCE AND BUSINESS  accept t h i s  ADMINISTRATION  t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1972.  standard.  In  presenting  this  thesis  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e the L i b r a r y I  further  for  agree  scholarly  by h i s of  shall  this  written  at  the U n i v e r s i t y  make i t  freely  that permission  for  It  financial  of  of  Columbia,  British for  for extensive by  gain  Columbia  shall  the  requirements  reference copying of  I agree and this  that  not  copying  or  for  that  study. thesis  t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t  is understood  permission.  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a  fulfilment  available  p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d  representatives. thesis  in p a r t i a l  or  publication  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t  my  i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: F i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r the study was- provided by the I n s t i t u t e o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia.  The A s s o c i a t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t i e s and C o l l e g e s o f  Canada sponsored my e n t i r e graduate work i n Canada. Words f a i l t o d e s c r i b e my g r a t i t u d e t o P r o f e s s o r Vance F. M i t c h e l l who was not only the chairman o f my d o c t o r a l committee, but was a l s o t h e a r c h i t e c t o f my whole graduate c a r e e r a t U.B.C. The  c o n t i n u i n g guidance and a s s i s t a n c e provided  throughout the  study by P r o f e s s o r s Ronald T a y l o r and Merle E. Ace deserve a s p e c i a l note of g r a t i t u d e .  My s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n i s due a l s o  to P r o f e s s o r K a r l E. Sarndal  f o r h i s help i n s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s .  P r o f e s s o r Susan Butt of the Department of Psycgology many h e l p f u l suggestions  which I deeply  rendered  acknowledge.  There are many others who c o n t r i b u t e d toward making t h i s study p o s s i b l e .  S p e c i a l thanks are due t o P r o f e s s o r s Gordon  Walter and R i c h a r d T. Barth f o r encouraging t h e i r students t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. the experiments. students Mrs.  Ian G o l d i e served  as an observer i n  Edward McMullan and Wayne Smith, two d o c t o r a l  a t the F a c u l t y of Commerce, helped me i n v a r i o u s ways.  M. N e i l s o n typed  the f i n a l manuscript with e x p e r t i s e i n the  very l i m i t e d time a v a i l a b l e to h e r . F i n a l l y , my deepest thanks are t o my mother, Mrs. Sukhada Rani Saha.  She s a c r i f i c e d a l l she had t o send me t o s c h o o l .  ABSTRACT F i e d l e r ' s Contingency Model suggests t h a t  task-oriented  l e a d e r s are more e f f e c t i v e where the l e a d e r s h i p s i t u a t i o n i s e i t h e r very  favourable  or very unfavourable and t h a t r e l a t i o n s -  o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s are more e f f e c t i v e i n s i t u a t i o n s o f i n t e r mediate f a v o u r a b i l i t y . T h i s model was put here t o an e m p i r i c a l t e s t u s i n g three-man l a b o r a t o r y group performing e i t h e r a s t r u c t u r e d o r an u n s t r u c t u r e d  task.  An e f f o r t was a l s o made t o extend  the model by i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t o f three new v a r i a b l e s , namely, i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y f o r a leader. t u r e s by H i l l  as determinants o f  Based on e a r l i e r  conjec-  and F i e d l e r , i t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t the degree o f  i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y as w e l l as the l e v e l of m o t i v a t i o n o f l e a d e r s and group members w i l l determine how e f f e c t i v e a leader would be i n a c h i e v i n g higher group p r o d u c t i v i t y . One hundred and forty^-seven Commerce undergraduate  students  of the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the i n v e s tigation.  They were assigned  t o 49 groups o f three people.  of the three people i n each group was appointed basis of a sociometric preference were c r e a t e d by manipulating  rating.  One  as l e a d e r on the  Leadership  situations  task s t r u c t u r e , leader p o s i t i o n  power, l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s , i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and motivation.  Group p r o d u c t i v i t y was r a t e d using two c r i t e r i a o f per-  formance T speed and q u a l i t y of. group d e c i s i o n .  I t was hypo-  t h e s i z e d t h a t group d e c i s i o n s o f higher q u a l i t y and g r e a t e r  speed w i l l  be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  motivation  of leaders  The  higher  intelligence,  a b i l i t y and  and g r o u p members.  r e s u l t s provided  moderate support  f o r the Contingency  M o d e l p r e d i c t i o n s i n t e r m s o f d i r e c t i o n and m a g n i t u d e o f c o r relations  between l e a d e r s h i p  style  and g r o u p p r o d u c t i v i t y .  Most o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s , however, f a i l e d of  statistical  significance. CD  to satisfy  In the extension  the  r e s u l t s showed t h a t  the  s p e e d o f g r o u p d e c i s i o n and c o n t r i b u t e d  effectiveness; significantly C3)  cision;  motivation  part  the t e s t of the study,  significantly  12) i n t e l l i g e n c e o f l e a d e r s  affected  t o the leadership and g r o u p  members  a f f e c t e d b o t h t h e q u a l i t y and s p e e d o f g r o u p d e ability  as o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d  by a  self-esteem  measure d i d n o t i n f l u e n c e e i t h e r t h e speed o r t h e q u a l i t y o f group problem of group  solving;  C4)  motivation  output.  On t h e b a s i s o f f i n d i n g s i n C D , wa,s c o n c l u d e d should  d i d not i n f l u e n c e q u a l i t y  that  ( 2 ) , (3) and C4) above, i t  intelligence, motivation  be i n c o r p o r a t e d  i n future  and p e r h a p s  ability  studies of the Contingency  M o d e l as p a r a m e t e r s o f s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y .  iv TABLE 'QF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements  . i  Abstract  i i  L i s t o f Tables  vi  L i s t of F i g u r e s Chapter 1: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Chapter 2: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Chapter 3: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Chapter 4:  viii  INTRODUCTION Research on Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s ; A Review The Contingency Model o f Leadership Effectiveness M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y as Moderators of L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s Summary  3 8 13 15  METHOD S e t t i n g and Subjects The Measures: T h e i r R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y D e s c r i p t i o n of the S t a t i s t i c a l Procedure D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Experimental Design  17 20 40 42  RESULTS Introduction Leadership S t y l e , S i t u a t i o n a l F a v o u r a b i l i t y and Group P r o d u c t i v i t y M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y as Moderators o f Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s Summary o f F i n d i n g s  44 47 51 59  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS  4.1 4.2 4.3  F i n d i n g s Relevant t o t h e Hypotheses Relevance and V a l i d i t y of the Measures F u r t h e r Research Recommendations  4.4  Conclusion  79  Berger's Acceptance of, S e l f Scale  81  APPENDIX I-:  APPENDIX IT: Sociometric  P r e f e r e n c e Rating  .  58 72 76  84  V  Page 85  APPENDIX S T I :  The Least P r e f e r r e d .Coworker S c a l e  APPENDIX XV:  Task 23  87  APPENDIX y.;  Task 59  88  APPENDIX V I ;  Rating P o s i t i o n Power and M o t i v a t i o n : Leaders Only 1  APPENDIX V i i :  90  Leader Behaviour, P o s i t i o n Power and Motivation:  Co-workers Only  91  APPENDIX V I I I : The Group Atmosphere S c a l e  92  APPENDIX IX:  Rating Q u a l i t y of Group S o l u t i o n  93  APPENDIX X:  Leader Behaviour Observers Only  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Rating: 94 95  LTSTNOF-  T A B L E S -  Medj;a,n C o r r e l a t i o n f o r the Development Steadies of the Contingency Model o f Leadership  1  Mean P e r c e p t i o n o f Group Members about Leader P o s i t i o n Power Mean GA Scores f o r C o n d i t i o n s Leader Member R e l a t i o n s Mean o f the S u b j e c t s '  of Good and Poor  Rating o f t h e i r  Motivation  I n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s between Observers' Ratings of Leader Behaviour I n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n between Observer Rating o f Leader Behaviour and the LPC Scores I n t e r - R a t e r Agreement on the Rating  of Group Output  Design f o r Experiment - A Design f o r Experiment - B Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC and Q u a l i t y o f Group D e c i s i o n Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC and Speed o f Group D e c i s i o n E f f e c t of M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y on the Speed of Group D e c i s i o n E f f e c t o f I n t e l l i g e n c e , A b i l i t y and M o t i v a t i o n on t h e Q u a l i t y o f Group D e c i s i o n E f f e c t o f M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y on the R e l a t i o n s h i p between the LPC and Speed o f Group D e c i s i o n E f f e c t of I n t e l l i g e n c e , A b i l i t y and M o t i v a t i o n on the R e l a t i o n s h i p between LPC and Q u a l i t y o f Group D e c i s i o n Summary of C o r r e l a t i o n s between LPC and Group Performance Reported i n 'Field and Laboratory Studies T e s t i n g the Contingency Model Comparison of Antecedent and E v i d e n t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n between LPC and Group Performance  vii Page 18. 19.  Comparison of R e s u l t s Reported By F i e d l e r and the Present Study-  66  Comparison of R e s u l t s Reported By Graen et a l . , and th_e Present Study  67  y i i i  L I S T OF' FIGURES - Page 1.  S i t u a t i o n a l F a v o u r a b i l i t y , Leadership S t y l e and Group P r o d u c t i v i t y  71  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION One  of the most p e r p l e x i n g  problems c o n f r o n t i n g  manager as w e l l as the b e h a v i o u r a l  s c i e n t i s t has  the  been to  deter-  mine the l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e most conducive to promoting e f f e c t i v e work groups.  Leadership e f f e c t i v e n e s s and  p r o d u c t i v i t y and p o i n t s of, t r a i t s ,  i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to  s a t i s f a c t i o n have been examined from the f u n c t i o n s , s t y l e s and  situations.  The  standcon-  cept of l e a d e r s h i p ha,s been viewed a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l y , economica l l y , p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y and  s o c i o l o g i c a l l y , as w e l l as from  vantage p o i n t s of p o l i t i c a l  power and  experience.  scope and magnitude of these e f f o r t s , we about what makes one why  still  the  Despite  the  know l i t t l e  s u p e r i o r more e f f e c t i v e than another or  a manager i s e f f e c t i v e i n one  s i t u a t i o n and  not i n another.  E m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s d i r e c t e d toward f i n d i n g t h a t s t y l e which i s most e f f e c t i v e have y i e l d e d i n c o n c l u s i v e and  often  d i c t o r y r e s u l t s Ce.g., Blake and Mouton, 1964;  Fiedler,  Lewin, L i p p i t and White, 1939; haviour  L i k e r t , 1961;  contra1958;  Shaw, 1955).  Be-  s c i e n t i s t s have been amazed to f i n d t h a t both the d i -  r e c t i v e , a u t h o r i t a t i a n , task o r i e n t e d leader and  his  counterpart,  the democratic, human r e l a t i o n s leader have proved e f f e c t i v e in countless s i t u a t i o n s . The  Contingency Theory of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s r e c e n t l y  advanced by F i e d l e r (1964, 1967) a t i o n f o r the c o n f u s i o n  which now  suggests a t h e o r e t i c a l explane x i s t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e  and  2 the p r a c t i c a l i n s i g h t s of many managers. suggests  Fiedler's  theory  t h a t l e a d e r s h i p i s an i n f l u e n c e process where the  ease or d i f f i c u l t y of e x e r t i n g i n f l u e n c e i s a f u n c t i o n o f the fayourableness of t h e group task s i t u a t i o n f o r the l e a d e r . Although  i t has been r e c o g n i s e d t h a t the favourableness o f  each group task s i t u a t i o n may depend on d i f f e r e n t the t h r e e most commonly acknowledged determinants,  variables, stated i n  t h e i r order of importance are l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s ,  task  s t r u c t u r e and p o s i t i o n power. While the e m p i r i c a l b a s i s from which the contingency theory was induced  i s impressive  (over 50 s t u d i e s o f 21 d i f f e r -  ent groups!, v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s o f the theory have y i e l d e d mixed and c o n f u s i n g r e s u l t s .  For example, Graen e t a l . (1971)  found r e s u l t s c o n t r a r y t o the p r e d i c t i o n s of the contingency model.  They made a d i s t i n c t i o n between antecedent  t i a l probabilities.  and e v i d e n -  On the other hand, F i e d l e r and h i s co-  workers r e p o r t e d r e s u l t s supporting the p r e d i c t i o n s of h i s contingency model. The c r i t i c i s m s and counter c r i t i c i s m s of the r e s e a r c h done on the contingency model leave the readers i n c o n f u s i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , the study r e p o r t e d here was designed  to provide  f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l evidence on the contingency model.  Three new  v a r i a b l e s were a l s o examined t o f i n d out i f they a f f e c t the socalled model.  " l e a d e r s h i p f a v o u r a b l e n e s s " dimension  of the contingency  3  1.1  Research on 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  Modern p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h on l e a d e r s h i p i s u s u a l l y thought of as beginning w i t h the Ohio State Leadership S t u d i e s CHemphill  and Coons, 1957;  H a l p i n and Winer, 1957).  The Ohio  S t a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r s found from a f a c t o r a n a l y t i c a l study of a 150-item  q u e s t i o n n a i r e widely known as the Leadership  Behaviour  D e s c r i p t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (LBDQ), two p r i n c i p a l dimensions l e a d e r s h i p behaviour which they named ' c o n s i d e r a t i o n 'initiating  structure'.  Subsequently,  1  of  and  scores of b e h a v i o u r a l  s c i e n t i s t s have worked with the LBDQ and a r e l a t e d the Leadership O p i n i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (LOQ)  instrument,  attempting to i d e n -  t i f y the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of " C o n s i d e r a t i o n " and i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e " i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s .  Two  "Init-  excellent re-  views of t h i s work have been r e p o r t e d by Korman (1966) and House (1972). ing these two  Both reviews concluded t h a t the r e s e a r c h concerns t y l e s of l e a d e r behaviour i s i n c o n s i s t e n t  yields contradictory findings.  and  The c o r r e l a t i o n between the  l e a d e r behaviours on the one hand and subordinate  two  satisfaction  and/or p r o d u c t i v i t y on the o t h e r , f a i l e d to r e v e a l a c l e a r p a t t e r n i n one d i r e c t i o n or another. In another 1951)  s e r i e s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , Katz e t a l . (1950,  and Kahn (1951, 1956  and 1958)  of the Survey  Research  Center a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan s t u d i e d r a i l r o a d and i n surance employees e x t e n s i v e l y and i d e n t i f i e d two l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e s which they c a l l e d orientation".  "employee o r i e n t a t i o n " and "production  C a r t w r i g h t and  Zander  (1950) of the  Research  Center f o r Group Dynamics d e s c r i b e d l e a d e r s h i p i n terms of  two  4 s e t s of group f u n c t i o n s , Achievement". lations",  "Group Maintenance" and  Mann (1965) o f f e r e d a t r i o l o g y of "human r e -  " t e c h n i c a l " and  " a d m i n i s t r a t i v e " s k i l l s as  required  L i k e r t (1961) found f i v e  conditions  of e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s o r s . for  e f f e c t i v e supervisory  agents;  supportive  behaviour i n a study of  r e l a t i o n s , group methods of  high performance g o a l s , t e c h n i c a l knowledge and scheduling  and  "Goal  planning.  Bowers and  a "Four F a c t o r Theory of Leadership"  Seashore  insurance  supervision, co-ordinating,  (1966) advanced  based on four dimensions  of leader behaviour which they named "support", " i n t e r a c t i o n facilitation",  "goal emphasis" and  "work  facilitation".  Because of the d i v e r s i t y of terms and f a c e t s of the l e a d e r s h i p process, f u l l y compare and schools be  called  i t i s d i d r f i c u l t to meaning-  assess the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of these  of thought.  s a i d t h a t two  focus on d i f f e r e n t  various  At the r i s k of o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , i t may  dimensions of l e a d e r behaviour, t h a t may  "people" and  "task" o r i e n t a t i o n s , have a t t r a c t e d more  a t t e n t i o n from the v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h groups than have others.  dimensions have y i e l d e d c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s .  example, w h i l e Katz and Hamblin  reported general and  Kahn (1953), A r g y l e  (1964), Comery et a l . (1954) and McGregor  evidence i n favour style  Day  (1960)  of a democratic, employee o r i e n t e d  of s u p e r v i s i o n ;  produced b e t t e r performance. (1956), Spector and  For  et a l . (1958),  Hawkins (1962), Solem  Shaw (1955) found t h a t a u t o c r a t i c task o r i e n t e d  Reimer  any  However, e f f o r t s to assess the r e l a t i v e importance of  these two  and  be  On the other  Suttel  (1956),  (1952),  leadership  hand, Morse  and  McCurdy and  Eber  5 C1953)  , and  Sales  (1964) found no: d i f f e r e n c e i n terms of produc-  t i v i t y between the two  styles- of .leadership.  At the height of the c o n f u s i o n f e c t i v e n e s s of the two  concerning  the r e l a t i v e e f -  s t y l e s of l e a d e r s h i p , r e s e a r c h e r s  turned  to s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to e x p l a i n the  con-  f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s coming from l e a d e r s h i p r e s e a r c h .  and  Mann Q.960) argued t h a t s u p e r v i s o r y to the  Vroom  behaviour v a r i e d  s i z e of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s .  according  Fleishman et a l . (1955)  hypothesized t h a t " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e " moderated the l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p and  productivity.  re-  Katz e t a l .  C1961) suggested t h a t the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p a r t i c u l a r kinds l e a d e r s h i p p r a c t i c e s would depend on v a r i a b l e s such as the of a company and  the degree of u r b a n i z a t i o n of the  location.  (1964) has  Vroom  suggested f u r t h e r that the degree  r e c e i v e might be determined by the wishes and  others  subordinates  and  c i t e s research  i n support of t h i s h y p o t h e s i s .  s t u d i e s of the  size  company's  of acceptance which p a r t i c u l a r kinds of s u p e r v i s o r y  the l e a d e r ' s  of  " c o n s i d e r a t i o n " and  practices  expectancies o f by h i m s e l f  and  In h i s c a r e f u l review of  "initiating  structure"  dimensions, Korman favoured the i n t r o d u c t i o n of s i t u a t i o n a l variables into leadership research.  In t h i s r e g a r d ,  (.197.1, 1972)  f i l e employees p r e f e r more  has  shown t h a t rank and  s t r u c t u r e than i s p r e f e r r e d by s c i e n t i s t s and research  and  development  House  technicians i n  activities.  Most of the s t u d i e s reviewed so f a r lacked  an adequate con-  c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s and were c a r r i e d on without the b e n e f i t of a comprehensive theory  of  leadership  6  phenomena.  F u r t h e r , i n y e s t i g a t o r s - us.ed -measures'- s u i t e d t o t h e i r  own. research- i n t e r e s t s and t h e i r . c h o i c e s ' frequently- have pre-r eluded meaningful  comparisons of .results-.  Also, l i t t l e  attempt  has- Been made t o systematize the i n f o r m a t i o n necessary f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the s o c i a l context within, which groups operate. sequently, it..frequently- has- Been i m p o s s i b l e t o t e l l  Con-  whether  f i n d i n g s from one study do o r do not support the r e s u l t s o f a purportedly similar  study.  A r e v i e w o f l e a d e r s h i p r e s e a r c h i s incomplete without  con-  s i d e r i n g , the r e c e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s made by Robert House and h i s associates  Cref:  1971a, 1971b, 1971c and 1972).  House, e t a l .  advanced a "Path Goal Theory o f Leadership" i n t h e i r e f f o r t s t o e x p l a i n the c o n f u s i n g and c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s from r e s e a r c h based itiating  on the dimensions  structure".  earlier  o f " c o n s i d e r a t i o n " and " i n -  F o r example, c o r r e l a t i o n s between s t r u c t u r e  and subordinate performance were found t o be c o n s i s t e n t l y posi t i v e a t h i g h o c c u p a t i o n a l l e v e l s while they were c o n s i s t e n t l y n e g a t i v e a t low o c c u p a t i o n a l l e v e l s .  House's Path Goal Theory  e x p l a i n s t h i s f i n d i n g i n terms of task s t r u c t u r e .  The theory  hypothesizes t h a t s t r u c t u r e i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to higher l e v e l jobs because they are ambiguously d e f i n e d .  Lower l e v e l  jobs, because o f t h e i r r o u t i n e nature, are n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to  s t r u c t u r e because any s t r u c t u r e i s p e r c e i v e d by employees as  an " i m p o s i t i o n o f e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l " . The Path Goal Theory o f Leadership, has been developed  from  Expectancy- Theory (Atkinson, 19.581, the Path Goal Theory o f Motivation  CGeorgopoulos e t a l . 1957); and a l s o extensions o f both  7 P a t h G o a l Theory and Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964; and L a w l e r , 1967;  G a l b r a i t h and Cummings, 1967;  and L a w l e r , 1971).  Porter  G r a e n , 1969  The P a t h G o a l L e a d e r s h i p Theory  specifies  t h r e e c l a s s e s o f s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s which are h y p o t h e s i z e d moderate the e f f e c t s subordinates'  o f s p e c i f i c dimensions o f l e a d e r  task c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  and s u b o r d i n a t e  preferences  environmental  for d i f f e r e n t  to  behaviour;  variables,  kinds of leader  be-  haviour . The P a t h G o a l Theory has p o t e n t i a l f o r e x p l a i n i n g c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s from e a r l i e r s t u d i e s .  By l e g i t i m a t e use o f  concepts from Expectancy and M o t i v a t i o n t h e o r i e s , b r i n g these t h e o r i e s  i t can a l s o  c l o s e r to leadership theories  and  thereby  entxance the p r e d i c t i v e power o f l e a d e r s h i p t h e o r i e s .  For  example, i n t h e P a t h G o a l L e a d e r s h i p Theory a c l e a r e r  link  has  b:een e s t a b l i s h e d between attempted i n f l u e n c e o f the l e a d e r  and  m o t i v a t i o n and e x p e c t a n c i e s  o f the s u b o r d i n a t e s .  s t a g e , However, House's t h e o r y i s v e r y g e n e r a l .  A t the  present  I t does not  ex-  p l a i n i n any d e t a i l e x a c t l y how s p e c i f i c dimensions o f  leader  b e h a v i o u r a r e expected to i n t e r a c t w i t h the moderators  that  h y p o t h e s i z e d nor does i t i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h e s e moderators  are of  o r how the t h e o r y may be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d .  Another r e c e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n , on a more t h e o r e t i c a l has b:een made by H o l l a n d e r et a l .  (1969)  and H o l l a n d e r (1971) .  H o l l a n d e r p r o v i d e d an o v e r v i e w o f s e v e r a l l i n e s o f i n the study o f l e a d e r s h i p .  plane,  development  In h i s o p i n i o n , l e a d e r s h i p  should  be viewed a,s an i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s growing out o f a system o f exchange r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the l e a d e r and the  followers,  8 with, t h e the  effectiveness- of  leader's  perception  perception  of  may  sources of  reveal  position  or  the  interaction line  of h i s followers  leader.  This view of  identification  of  view of style,  o f work has  researchers,  and  i s novel  leadership  processes  leadership  been pursued  influence  i n the s u c h as  Starting  f r o m an  leadership  s e p a r a t e but  the  will  be  style for  has  f o r over  the  vides  related studies  15  the  the  upon t h e  degree of  leader, leader  that  1967). aspects  The of  legit-  systematically  Effectiveness  operational  (1964, 1967)  years.  His  a partial  studied  Contingency from a program  leadership  appropriate  various  a  performance  matching of  leadership  group s i t u a t i o n  degree to which the  w i t h i n f l u e n c e oyer h i s group  of  phenomena.  "group's  the  of  lengthy  answer t o a number  favourableness of  i s , the  measurement  conducted over t h i s  problems concerning  contingent  several  identification, been  of  new.  t i m e by  i t o p e n s up  C o n t i n g e n c y Model s t a t e s t h a t  and  leader's  i n terms  (1964, 1965,  inductively derived  been o f f e r e d as  conceptual The  of a  Leadership  i n t e r e s t i n the  T h e o r y o f L e a d e r s h i p was  and  legitimacy  research.  interpersonal relations, Fiedler  period  followers' phenomenon  s y s t e m s w h i c h have n o t  Contingency Model o f  12  the  by  leadership  f o r a long  sources of  1.2  a s p e c t s of  by  s i t u a t i o n i s not  sense t h a t  i n previous  of  and  effectiveness  s t r u c t u r e , and  explored  The  or  e s p e c i a l l y by F i e d l e r  formulation  i m a c y and  r e l a t i o n s h i p determined both  role.  Hollander's  This  this  s i t u a t i o n pro-  members"(Fiedler  9 1967).  The model assumes t h r e e v a r i a b l e s , i . e . , " p o s i t i o n  power", "task s t r u c t u r e " and " l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s " as af> fecting leadership effectiveness. F i e d l e r ' s theory- o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s i n t u i t i v e ly appealing. appears  The i n d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g behind the theory a l s o  reasonable.  H i s r e s e a r c h program not o n l y upholds the  p o s i t i o n that l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s a j o i n t product o f s t y l e , s t r u c t u r e , and s i t u a t i o n , but a l s o has e x p l o r e d the conc e p t u a l l y d i f f i c u l t phenomena o f l e a d e r s h i p i n the f i e l d as w e l l as i n the l a b o r a t o r y w i t h a f a i r  sampling o f a c t o r s , be-  h a v i o u r s and b e h a v i o u r a l c o n t e x t s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the evidence i n favour o f the p r e d i c t i v e power of the contingency model has been questioned 1970,  1971).  1966,  1967), Hunt  (Graen e t a l .  The e v i d e n t i a l s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d by F i e d l e r (1967), M i t c h e l l  (1969), H i l l ,  Graen e t a l . C1971) have o b t a i n e d mixed r e s u l t s .  (1969), and Some of the  r e s u l t s s a t i s f y o n l y d i r e c t i o n a l r a t h e r than s t a t i s t i c a l icance;  (1965,  signif-  w h i l e some of the f i n d i n g s are c o n t r a r y t o what would  be p r e d i c t e d by F i e d l e r ' s model.  For example, i n M i t c h e l l ' s  study o f U n i t a r i a n Church groups, H i l l ' s  study o f department  s t o r e s and Graen e t a l ' s study o f students i n the l a b o r a t o r y a t least  . p a r t o f the r e s u l t s were c o n t r a r y to those hypothesized  by the Contingency  Theory.  A very important flaw i n the contingency model as brought out by Graen e t a l . (1970) i s the model's extreme s e n s i t i v i t y to  situational factors.  T h i s s e n s i t i v i t y encourages  t i g a t o r s t o a s c r i b e any c o n t r a r y f i n d i n g s from t h e i r  the i n v e s invest-  10 i g a t i o n t o unaccounted situati;ona,i f a c t o r s . C1969). e x p l a i n e d  an i n s i g n i f i c a n t  For example,  Kill  result;  Since the work performed was o f a h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l nature, i t may Be t h a t the t e c h n i c a l a b i l i t y o f the Supervisor should have been a f a c t o r i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f the f a v o u r a b i l i t y dimension. The design of the study d i d not provide an o p p o r t u n i t y to i n c l u d e t h i s cond i t i o n . Cp. 516] . Again, F i e d l e r (1967] suggested: We r e q u i r e a s c a l e which i s based not only on the presence or absence of good l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s , homogeneity, l e a d e r p o s i t i o n power, and task s t r u c t u r e but which takes account a l s o o f other f a c t o r s t h a t are l i k e l y to a f f e c t the favourableness of the s i t u a t i o n . These may need t o i n c l u d e the l e a d e r ' s and h i s member's i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s and t e c h n i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , the m o t i v a t i o n of the group, and the c o n d i t i o n s o f s t r e s s under which t h e group i s f o r c e d t o operate, (p. 262). Every time F i e d l e r and h i s a s s o c i a t e s statistically  i n s i g n i f i c a n t or contrary  t o the model's p r e d i c -  t i o n , they tend t o e x p l a i n the discrepancy i d e n t i f i e d or u n c o n t r o l l e d  find a result either  i n terms o f some un-  s i t u a t i o n a l moderators.  This  search  f o r a d d i t i o n a l moderators may sometimes l e a d the i n v e s t i g a t o r to experimenter b i a s e f f e c t .  Graen e t a l . (1970) observed:  the Contingency Model overdetermines the 'meaningful' r e s u l t s of e m p i r i c a l studies the model p r e s c r i b e s t h a t we should continue to search f o r a d d i t i o n a l homogenizing v a r i a b l e s u n t i l our r e s u l t s converge upon those s p e c i f i e d by the model. Once we have d i s c o v e r e d the a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e or v a r i a b l e s t h a t produce the 'meaningful' p a r t i t i o n s (our observed r e s u l t s converge upon those p r e d i c t e d by the models), we should d i s c o n t i n u e search and p r o c l a i m e m p i r i c a l support f o r the model. Cp. 294).  11 According to Graen e t imenter b i a s e f f e c t  a l . , t h i s procedure  produces expert  (Barber and S i l v e r , 1968a, 1968b,;  Rosenthal  1968}. Another exchange between Graen et a l . and F i e d l e r  centered  on the q u e s t i o n of methodology' i n t e s t i n g the Contingency (Graen e t a l . ,  1971;  F i e d l e r , 1971a).  F i e d l e r argued  Model  that  Graen's experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n s of the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s were not s t r o n g enough t o produce the intended e f f e c t s . other review crepancy  C1971b) F i e d l e r r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e r e was  i n r e s u l t s between l a b o r a t o r y and f i e l d  Contingency  In an-  a great d i s -  s t u d i e s on the  Model.  Notwithstanding  the p o s s i b i l i t y o f weaknesses i n G r a e n s 1  m a n i p u l a t i o n of the contingency v a r i a b l e s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t  to  accept the p o s i t i o n t h a t l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s should not be able to  r e p l i c a t e r e s u l t s obtained i n f i e l d  studies.  I f the  ability  of  c o l l e g e students to assume f u n c t i o n a l r o l e s i s questioned,  much of the s m a l l group r e s e a r c h , past and p r e s e n t , would be brought bound  (Davis, 1969).  A theory which i s method  ( i n t h i s i n s t a n c e l i m i t e d to f i e l d  cepted. of  into question  I t was  s t u d i e s ) cannot be  ac-  f e l t therefore, that further laboratory tests  the model were necessary with an improved methodology.  study r e p o r t e d here was  designed to r e p l i c a t e the r e s u l t s  The found  i n the f i e l d s t u d i e s . As a l r e a d y noted, F i e d l e r d e f i n e s s i t u a t i o n a l i n terms of three y a r i a b l e s : l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s .  favourability  task s t r u c t u r e , p o s i t i o n power and  Research  based  on F i e d l e r ' s model has  measured p o s i t i o n power i n e s t a b l i s h e d groups by a simple  eighteen  item c h e c k l i s t c o n t a i n i n g v a r i o u s i n d i c e s p f p o s i t i o n power, Task s t r u c t u r e has been measured.By four o f the t e n dimensions used By Shaw C1963) , i,e.', d e c i s i o n y e r i f i a B i l i t y , g o a l g o a l p a t h m u l t i p l i c i t y and s o l u t i o n m u l t i p l i c i t y .  clarity,  Leader memBer  r e l a t i o n s have Been c a t e g o r i z e d i n terms o f a Group Atmosphere (GAI Score, which p u r p o r t s t o i n d i c a t e the degree t o which the l e a d e r f e e l s accepted By the group and r e l a z e d and a t ease i n his role  (Fiedler,  1962).  Leader memBer r e l a t i o n s , task s t r u c t u r e and p o s i t i o n power are dichotomized t o form e i g h t / c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s s i t u a t i o n a l favouraBleness.  (octants) of  The s i t u a t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w i t h  the p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p Between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and performance a s found i n the antecedent s t u d i e s of the Contingency Model are shown i n TaBle I .  TABLE I  Median C o r r e l a t i o n f o r the Development S t u d i e s of the Contingency Model o f L e a d e r s h i p Situation Octant (OCT) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.  Group AtmoS' phere CGA)  Task  Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor  High High Low Low High High Low Low  Classification  Structure CTS)  Position Power  CPP) Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak  More E f f e c t i v e Leadership Style (orientation)  Median r  n  Task Task Task People People People People Task  -.52 -.58 ^.33 .47 .42  8 3 12 10 6 0 12 12  .05 -.44  13 Research. ba.sed on the Contingency- Model, has always m e a s u r e d l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e by u s i n g a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t widely- known as the Lea,s+_ P r e f e r r e d Co-worker to s e v e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , t e r p r e t a t i o n , low LPC LPC  CLPCI.  The LPC  has been s u b j e c t  A c c o r d i n g to the most popular i n -  scores mean "task o r i e n t a t i o n " w h i l e h i g h ;  scores s i g n i f y "people o r i e n t a t i o n " .  w/ill take a c l o s e r look at the  Chapter  2 of the  LPC.  A c c o r d i n g to F i e d l e r a task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r w i l l be t i v e i n h i g h l y favourable able  (octants 1, 2, 3) or h i g h l y  Coctant 8) s i t u a t i o n s ;  effec-  unfavour-  whereas a people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r  w i l l be s u c c e s s f u l i n s i t u a t i o n s of i n t e r m e d i a t e Coctants  study  favourableness  4,5,6,7).  Because of l i m i t e d number of s u b j e c t s a v a i l a b l e the p r e s e n t study examined o n l y a l i m i t e d number of o c t a n t s - o c t a n t s 1, 4 and  8.  A p a r t o f the study was  i t y of the Contingency  Model.  concerned The  with t e s t i n g the  valid-  f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n was  used to t e s t the v a l i d i t y of p r e d i c t i o n s of the model: Hypothesis  I:  Task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s  i n o c t a n t s 1 and  (low LPC)  w i l l be  8, w h i l e people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s  be s u c c e s s f u l i n o c t a n t 4.  The  effective  (high LPC)  c o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC  and group performance should be of the same magnitude and i o n as p r e d i c t e d by the Contingency 1.3  score  direct-  Model.  M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s . • \ The Contingency  will  as Moderators of  Model measures- s i t u a t i o n a l  favourableness  f o r a l e a d e r i n terms- of t h r e e v a r i a b l e s - v l e a d e r member refl a t i o n s , l e a d e r p o s i t i o n power and task s t r u c t u r e . The  present  14  study, however, r a i s e d two separate i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o such a d e ^ f i n i t i o n of; s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y . ' F i r s t , do the  three  v a r i a b l e s adequately measure the s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b l e n e s s parameter? of  Second, i f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s d e f i n e d  i n terms  group p r o d u c t i v i t y as i s done i n the Contingency Model, may  we not conceive of other v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g group performance and  thereby make a l e a d e r ' s task harder or e a s i e r ? P o s i t i o n power measures how much power (e.g., c a p a c i t y t o  reward, h i r e and f i r e , organization. or a novel  etc.)  a l e a d e r i s g i v e n by the employing  Task s t r u c t u r e measures whether the j o b i s r o u t i n e  one.  Leader member r e l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e the c l i m a t e i n  the work group between the leader and the l e d . I t r e q u i r e s but little  imagination  to conceive of other  f e c t the favourableness o f a l e a d e r ' s motivation, The  v a r i a b l e s t h a t may a f -  s i t u a t i o n ( f o r example,  i n t e l l i g e n c e or a b i l i t y ) .  v a r i a b l e s j u s t named may a f f e c t l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e -  ness, but then, so may many other v a r i a b l e s . r a i s e d r e l a t e d to the c r i t e r i o n or c r i t e r i a one  of choice  - how does  go about adding or s u b t r a c t i n g v a r i a b l e s from a model?  question all.  The q u e s t i o n may be  The  r a i s e d i s r e l e v a n t , but the answer may not be obvious at  I t i s not p o s s i b l e t o be c e r t a i n t h a t some v a r i a b l e s are the  only v a r i a b l e s determining s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness f o r a l e a d e r . Such a determination contingency model. ership contingencies  may w e l l be beyond the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t o f the P a r t i c u l a r l e a d e r s w i l l face p a r t i c u l a r l e a d i n terms o f f a v o u r a b i l i t y of s i t u a t i o n .  The  contingency model i s not a bound model. In a t l e a s t two o f the e a r l i e r s t u d i e s on the Contingency  Model  (Hill,  1969;  three more v a r i a b l e s  F i e d l e r , 1967), the i n v e s t i g a t o r s f e l t  that  ('intelligence,' a b i l i t y / and m o t i v a t i o n )  affect leadership effectiveness.  These v a r i a b l e s were  may  thought  to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e x p l a i n i n g more of the v a r i a n c e i n the s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness dimension  of the contingency model.  Encouraged by such c o n j e c t u r e s , the present study was to  designed  e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t the e f f e c t of the three v a r i a b l e s on l e a d e r -  Ship e f f e c t i v e n e s s , notwithstanding the f a c t t h a t any  contingen-  cy, t h e o r y i s always open t o . a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s i n terms o f the adequacy of the s i t u a t i o n e x p l o r e d . lowing three hypotheses Hypothesis  II:  A c c o r d i n g l y , the  fol-  were accepted f o r t e s t i n g .  A l l other t h i n g s remaining  the same, a l e a d e r  of motivated groups w i l l achieve higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms of speed  and q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n s than W i l l a l e a d e r of  motivated Hypothesis  non-  groups. III:  Higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms of speed  and q u a l -  i t y w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e a d e r s of groups with h i g h e r i n t e l l i g e n c e , a l l other group i n p u t s remaining Hypothesis  IV:  constant.  A l e a d e r managing a group with higher  ability  w i l l generate higher q u a l i t y group d e c i s i o n s i n a s h o r t e r time than w i l l a l e a d e r managing a group of low a b i l i t y , s i t u a t i o n a l e f f e c t s remaining 1.4  a l l other  the same.  Summary In t h i s chapter the development of enquiry concerning  l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s has been t r a c e d very b r i e f l y .  Several  l i n e s of work were reviewed w i t h s p e c i a l emphasis on two major  developments;  the Path Goal Theory of L e a d e r s h i p and the Con-  t i n g e n c y Theory o f L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s .  The  controversial  and c o n f l i c t i n g nature of f i n d i n g s from the Contingency Model s t u d i e s were mentioned  briefly.  The need f o r a f u r t h e r t e s t o f  t h i s model w i t h an improved methodology Hypothesis I of the present study, was  was  emphasized,  stated.  and  An e x t e n s i o n o f  the " s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b l e n e s s " parameter o f the Contingency Model i n terms o f t h r e e more v a r i a b l e s i n t e l l i g e n c e ) a l s o was arising  proposed.  (motivation, a b i l i t y  and  The t h e o r e t i c a l framework,  from the works of H i l l and F i e d l e r , s u p p o r t i n g t h i s  k i n d of e x t e n s i o n was  b r i e f l y reviewed.  F i n a l l y Hypotheses I I ,  I I I and IV were proposed to d e s c r i b e the moderating e f f e c t s o f the t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s .  CHAPTER  2  METHOD  2.1  S e t t i n g and Subjects The  i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d out i n the Small Groups Lab-  oratory- a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia.  Subjects f o r the  experiment were drawn from second year undergraduate Commerce c l a s s e s i n the F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment was v o l u n t a r y , but each s u b j e c t earned  some bonus p o i n t s f o r h i s course by p a r t i c i p a t i n g  present experiment.  i n the  There were 147 s u b j e c t s d i v i d e d i n t o 49  groups o f 3 people. Procedure:  The data c o l l e c t i o n f o r the present study was  d i v i d e d i n t o two separate s e s s i o n s : In an approximately were asked  t e s t i n g and experimental.  one hour long t e s t i n g s e s s i o n the s u b j e c t s  t o complete the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s :  1.  Wesman Personnel C l a s s i f i c a t i o n T e s t .  2.  Berger's Acceptance o f S e l f S c a l e . (Appendix I)  3.  S o c i o m e t r i c P r e f e r e n c e Rating o f Group Members. (Appendix II)  4.  The Least P r e f e r r e d Co-worker S c a l e  (LPC).  (Appendix I I I ) The  scores from t e s t s No. 1 and 2 were dichotomized  a t the  median t o a s s i g n the s u b j e c t s i n t o v a r i o u s c e l l s o f the study. Data on the LPC were f i l e d as soon as they were c o l l e c t e d and were not considered u n t i l the end o f the experiment and'begin-  18 ning o f the a n a l y s i s o f data.  The S o c i o m e t r i c  Preference  Rating was used t o c r e a t e groups where t h e l e a d e r o f the group was  e i t h e r l i k e d o r d i s l i k e d By h i s f e l l o w members.  I t was a s -  sumed t h a t t h e assignment o f s u b j e c t s i n t o experimental on the b a s i s o f a p r e f e r e n c e r a t i n g would manipulate mosphere.  groups  group a t -  A group where the l e a d e r was p r e f e r r e d by h i s two  other group members was assumed t o have good l e a d e r member r e lations  Chigh GA).  The r e v e r s e was assumed t o be t r u e f o r t h e  groups where a n o n - p r e f e r r e d person was appointed  as the l e a d e r  of t h e group. In the experimental  s e s s i o n , the pre-assigned  subjects  were brought t o .a. Small Groups Laboratory which has two rooms (observation and experimental) In two experimental strong  separated by a two-way m i r r o r .  c o n d i t i o n s , namely, high m o t i v a t i o n and  p o s i t i o n power, a reward o f f i v e d o l l a r s was attached t o  e x c e p t i o n a l performance.  In strong p o s i t i o n power c o n d i t i o n ,  the c a p a c i t y t o reward was e n t r u s t e d w i t h the l e a d e r .  In h i g h  m o t i v a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , they were t o be rewarded by the E.  While  the s u b j e c t s sat around a t a b l e t o do the assigned t a s k , they were observed  from the o b s e r v a t i o n room by two o b s e r v e r s , one o f  whom was t h e E h i m s e l f . As the experimental  s e s s i o n progressed,  the behaviour o f  the l e a d e r i n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h two o f h i s f e l l o w members was observed c a r e f u l l y by the E and h i s a s s i s t a n t , both o f whom i n dependently developed  completed t h e Leader Behaviour  by Graen e t a l . (1971).  Rating q u e s t i o n n a i r e  The Leader Behaviour  Rating  was like  a s i x - i t e m r a t i n g form having  8-point b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s  ' P e r m i s s i v e - S t r i c t ' , Reguesting-Ordering' , 'Considerate-^ 1  Rude' and  so on.  The  nature and meaning of scores from the i n -  strument were i d e n t i c a l with LPC.  Low- scores i n d i c a t e d task  o r i e n t a t i o n whereas high scores meant people  orientation.  c o r d i n g to Graen, comparison of scores between LPC  and  Ac-  Leader  Behaviour Rating would i n d i c a t e whether LPC measured what i t was supposed to measure. w a s unknown.  Still,  v a l i d i t y of the LPC  The  v a l i d i t y of the Leader Behaviour R a t i n g  i t provided an experimental  check on  the  scale.  At the end of the experiment, the l e a d e r of the group subm i t t e d a w r i t t e n s o l u t i o n f o r the problem the group was solve. by two  g i v e n to  These s o l u t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d by E and e v a l u a t e d independent judges as to t h e i r q u a l i t y .  later  Rating was  done  on a 5^point L i k e r t type s c a l e f o r each of the four anchors [adequacy, i s s u e involvement,  e x c l u s i v e n e s s and c l a r i t y of p r e -  s e n t a t i o n ) provided to the judges. f i n e d as the mean o f the sum dependent  Q u a l i t y of s o l u t i o n was  de-  of scores obtained from the two i n -  judges.  A f t e r the s o l u t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d , the s u b j e c t s were asked to complete t h r e e post-experimental  questionnaires:  phere, P o s i t i o n Power and M o t i v a t i o n . (See Appendix VIII) was Model s t u d i e s .  The Group Atmosphere S c a l e  the same as used i n e a r l i e r Contingency  M o t i v a t i o n and P o s i t i o n Power q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  Appendices VI and VII) were developed  here.  were completed by the s u b j e c t s independently ation.  Group Atmos-  (See  These q u e s t i o n n a i r e s without  any  consult-  In the Group Atmosphere q u e s t i o n n a i r e they r a t e d the  q u a l i t y of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s e x i s t i n g at the experimenta,l session.  The  question  on p o s i t i o n power asked the co-workers of  the leader to r a t e the power the leader had The  question  on m o t i v a t i o n  h i s co-workers.  was  answered by both the leader  s u b j e c t s were d e b r i e f e d  questionnaires. p o s i t i o n power bill 2.2  as was The  1  In two and  experiment.  a f t e r they completed  'high m o t i v a t i o n ' ,  Measures:  T h e i r R e l i a b i l i t y and  i n the present  experiment.  Validity effectiveness  study, measures were needed of  s t r u c t u r e , p o s i t i o n power, group atmosphere, a b i l i t y ,  output.  The  l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and  w i t h so many v a r i a b l e s d e t e r r e d  a l s o measures of group  the i n v e s t i g a t o r from  However, every attempt was  measures w i t h adequate r e l i a b i l i t y and of the measures i s g i v e n Task S t r u c t u r e :  As  made to  validity.  use  below:  o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by F i e d l e r (1967) i n  sions are: 1) g o a l c l a r i t y ;  as one  developing  A description  terms of four dimensions developed by Shaw (1963).  i s defined  involved  a l r e a d y mentioned i n Chapter I, the degree  of task s t r u c t u r e was  ution specificity;  task  intellig-  huge task of m a n i p u l a t i o n and measurement  o r i g i n a l measures.  'strong  they were p a i d a 5 - d o l l a r  To c a r r y on the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of l e a d e r s h i p  ence, m o t i v a t i o n ,  the  experimental c o n d i t i o n s , namely,  promised to them at the beginning of the  as conceived  and  A l l the members r a t e d t h e i r s t a t e of motiv-  a t i o n to do an e f f e c t i v e job i n the The  over the members.  2) d e c i s i o n v e r i f i a b i l i t y ;  4) g o a l p a t h m u l t i p l i c i t y . which has  These dimen3)  A structured  a s p e c i f i c v e r i f i a b l e goal;  soltask  that i s ,  21  one  f o r which t h e r e a r e few a l t e r n a t i v e s to the s o l u t i o n .  structured  An un-  t a s k i s vague, having no s p e c i f i c - v e r i f i a b l e s o l u t i o n ;  t h i s type o f s o l u t i o n may Be a t t a i n e d By pursuing a number o f d i f f e r e n t courses of a c t i o n . The u s u a l procedure adopted By F i e d l e r f o r measuring structure i s to oBtain  r a t i n g s o f s t r u c t u r e o f a task  number o f independent judges.  task  from a  Moreover, he dichotomizes  task  s t r u c t u r e By s e t t i n g a c u t t i n g p o i n t of 5.0 on the mean r a t i n g oyer a l l the four s c a l e s .  I f the mean sum o f judges' r a t i n g  Below- 5.0, i t i s considered  as a s t r u c t u r e d t a s k .  a, mean sum of r a t i n g 5*0 or aBove i s considered  A task  falls  having  unstructured.  For the purpose of the present experiment, the degree o f task  s t r u c t u r e was manipulated By task  of E x p e r i m e n t a l Tasks from the Book. 3.73  (Shaw, 1963).  s e l e c t i o n from Taxonomy  Two tasks were s e l e c t e d  Task 23 (See Appendix IV) having a mean r a t i n g o f  was accepted as s t r u c t u r e d .  regarded as u n s t r u c t u r e d ,  Task 59 (See Appendix V) was  s i n c e i t had a mean r a t i n g o f 4.93  which f a l l s c l o s e t o the c u t t i n g p o i n t of 5.0.  I t i s desiraBle  to maximize the d i f f e r e n c e Between mean r a t i n g o f s t r u c t u r e and the c u t t i n g p o i n t t o i n c r e a s e group performance.  the e f f e c t o f task  s t r u c t u r e on  Due t o the n o n - a v a i l a B i l i t y o f s u i t a B l e  tasks having h i g h l y r e l i a B l e r a t i n g s on s t r u c t u r e , task  59 was  s e l e c t e d , although i t was v e r y c l o s e t o t h e c u t t i n g p o i n t . found i n t e r ^ r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y Task S t r u c t u r e .  Shaw  of .80 t o .88 f o r h i s taxonomy o f  T h i s was regarded a^s: acceptable.  P o s i t i o n Poyer: In an ongoing group, p o s i t i o n power was measured  i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s of the Contingency Model by a simple  eighteen  item check l i s t which p r o v i d e s v a r i o u s i n d i c e s of p o s i t i o n power. But,  i n an ad hoc group, p o s i t i o n power must be p r o v i d e d by i n -  duction. having  P o s i t i o n power was d e f i n e d f o r the present  two dimensions:  the groups;  study as  1) the c a p a c i t y t o reward the members o f  2) some meaningful e x t e r n a l symbol of s t a t u s .  Leaders having  strong p o s i t i o n power i n the present  experiment  were g i v e n the power t o reward group members with cash.  They  were a l s o g i v e n the o v e r a l l charge of c a r r y i n g on the t a s k .  Ad-  d i t i o n a l l y , they had an e x t e r n a l symbol of s t a t u s l i k e a s i g n with the word "Chairman" i n f r o n t of t h e i r seat. nated  The E d e s i g -  the l e a d e r as i n charge of group o p e r a t i o n s i n the presence  of other group members.  These s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e s and s t a t u s were  w i t h h e l d from l e a d e r s of groups assigned t o the weak p o s i t i o n power experimental  condition.  In order t o l e a r n whether the i n d u c t i o n was e f f e c t i v e i n a c t i v a t i n g strong or weak l e a d e r p o s i t i o n power, the p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o complete a q u e s t i o n n a i r e at the end o f the experimental s e s s i o n g i v i n g t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of the l e a d e r ' s p o s i t i o n power.  The l e a d e r as w e l l as h i s group members r a t e d p o s i t i o n  power on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e .  (Please see Appendix VI and  Appendix V I I ) . An a n a l y s i s was done to determine the mean p e r c e p t i o n scores i n t h r e e o c t a n t s of t h e Contingency Model. are shown i n Table 2.  The r e s u l t s  23 TABLE 2 • S  V V  « s  Mean p e r c e p t i o n of group members about l e a d e r p o s i t i o n power Oct. 1 Oct. 4 ( s t r o n g ) ( w e a k ) Exp  Exp  A 2.4 ( V a l i d a t i o n ) N = 8 ^B (Extension)  The  3.0 N=8  t h a t the i n d u c t i o n worked very only  2.3 N=8  2.8 N=9  2.5 N=8  2.7 N=8  o v e r a l l mean f o r strong power c o n d i t i o n was  whereas the same f o r weak c o n d i t i o n was  was  Oct. 8 (weak)  .3 on a 5-point  scale.  strong p o s i t i o n power supports  2.4.  2.7,  This w i l l  suggest  s l i g h t l y , s i n c e the d i f f e r e n c e T h i s i n a b i l i t y to  induce  F i e d l e r ' s contention that i t i s  v e r y hard to manipulate p o s i t i o n power s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n a laboratory  situation.  Leader Member R e l a t i o n s : Both i n ongoing and member r e l a t i o n s was by an instrument  ad hoc groups the q u a l i t y of  measured i n past Contingency Model s t u d i e s  c a l l e d Group Atmosphere  (GA).  The GA  r e l a t e d to the group members' l o y a l t y to the l e a d e r 1967)  leader  i s highly  (McNamara,  s i n c e i t measures only the l e a d e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of group  atmosphere.  Leader member r e l a t i o n s i s one  of the  v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness, Fiedler.  crucial  according  to  The GA score has o b t a i n e d i n p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s from a s e t o f s c a l e items (number of i t e m s v a r y i n g between t e n and seventeen! a s k i n g the l e a d e r t o r a t e h i s group on a s e r i e s of b i p o l a r items such, a s f r i e n d l y v u n f r i e n d l y , . cooperatives-uncooperative, t e n s e relaxed, etc.  (Appendix V I I I ) .  "A summation of the item  scores y i e l d s a q u i t e r e l i a b l e and meaningful Group  Atmosphere  s c o r e , which i n d i c a t e s the degree t o which the l e a d e r  feels  accepted by the group and r e l a x e d and at ease i n h i s r o l e " . C F i e d l e r , 1967). One c r i t i c i s m t o which the GA score has been  subjected.is  the f a c t t h a t i t may be confounded by group performance et a l . 1970).  For example,  (Graen  the h i g h or low performance of a  group may i n f l u e n c e the l e a d e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n as t o the k i n d o f r e l a t i o n he had w i t h h i s group members.  In an e s t a b l i s h e d de-  partment noted f o r h i g h performance the boss may f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o admit t h a t h i s i n f l u e n c e on the group was minimal. To minimize the l i k e l i h o o d o f t h i s c r i t i c i s m i t was decided f o r the purpose o f the present experiment t h a t the group atmosphere would be c r e a t e d by some k i n d of m a n i p u l a t i o n i n a d d i t i o n to measuring i t a f t e r the experiment was over.  T h i s e f f o r t was  p o s s i b l e because the s u b j e c t s f o r the experiment were drawn from a c l a s s where they had p r e v i o u s l y worked s i x weeks.  together f o r f i v e t o  The p l a n i n v o l v e d . d e v i s i n g a s o c i o m e t r i c p r e f e r e n c e  r a t i n g where the s u b j e c t s were asked t o mention which members of the c l a s s he would l i k e as h i s workmates.  (See Appendix I I ) .  S u b j e c t s were assigned t o groups i n a f a s h i o n where a p r e f e r r e d s u b j e c t would be g i v e n the p o s i t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p i n a  group where he was l i k e d by h i s workmates,  I t was assumed t h a t  t h i s procedure would enable the l e a d e r t o have some 'influence on h i s workmates.  Where poor l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s were d e s i r e d ,  the group was c o n s t i t u t e d o f members who d i d not p r e f e r each other.  The assumption i n this- case was t h a t the non-preference  of the l e a d e r by group members would reduce the l e a d e r ' s i n f l u e n c e oyer the group. To check whether the m a n i p u l a t i o n  o f group atmosphere was  s u c c e s s f u l , the l e a d e r s as w e l l as the group members were asked to complete the ten item G A S c a l e developed by F i e d l e r . d a t a were analyzed  These  t o determine the d i f f e r e n c e of G A scores be-  tween the c o n d i t i o n s of good and bad leader member  relations.  Table 3 shows t h e r e s u l t s : TABLE 3 Mean G A scores f o r c o n d i t i o n s of good and poor l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s (Based on the leader perception)  Experiment  Good Oct.  Poor  1  Oct. 4  Oct. 8  Exp - A  68  (N=8)  67 (N=8)  66 (N=9)  Exp - B  64  (N=8)  67 CN=8)  61 (N=8)  Overall  68.6  63.5  The  o v e r a l l Mean Group Atmosphere scores £or  of l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s was  68.6  of poor leader member r e l a t i o n s was-  the c o n d i t i o n  while t h a t f o r the c o n d i t i o n 63.5.  From the above T a b l e , i t appears the m a n i p u l a t i o n i n f l u e n c e by s o c i o m e t r i c p r e f e r e n c e r a t i n g was c e r t a i n extent.  But  of l e a d e r  s u c c e s s f u l to a  the small d i f f e r e n c e between the two means  suggests t h a t the m a n i p u l a t i o n  f a i l e d to achieve a  significant  d i f f e r e n c e between good and poor leader member r e l a t i o n s . The scores may  small d i f f e r e n c e i n group atmosphere i n terms of G A be due  to two  reasons:  l a t i o n of group atmosphere by way  first,  the degree of manipu-  of s u b j e c t assignment was  strong enough, o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , the G A s c a l e as developed F i e d l e r d i d not adequately fluence.  The  not by  measure the q u a l i t y of leader i n -  second e x p l a n a t i o n seems p l a u s i b l e i n view of the  f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n by A l l a n B. Posthuma  (1970):  The G A s c a l e produces some i n t e r e s t i n g comparisons. In comparison to l a b o r a t o r y groups, r e a l l i f e groups have somewhat lower item means (not s i g n i f i c a n t ) and s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r v a r i a n c e (F=3.61, P 01). T h i s d i f f e r e n c e can probably be a t t r i b u t e d to the a r t i f i c i a l nature of l a b o r a t o r y groups where i t would be d i f f i c u l t to dev e l o p strong negative f e e l i n g s and where the a t t i t u d e toward the group would produce any severe d i f f e r e n c e s i n o p i n i o n among group members. In a l a b o r a t o r y group, members are aware of the temporary nature of the experience and are i n v o l v e d with tasks they know w i l l l a s t o n l y f o r a c e r t a i n l e n g t h of time. T h i s i s not the case i n r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s , where members h o l d t h e i r jobs f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons, and where t e n s i o n s b u i l d up over a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d and a complex s e r i e s of experiences, (pp. 10-13).  I f the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the G A s c a l e i n measuring group atmosphere i n l a b o r a t o r y groups as brought out by Posthuma i s granted, i t i s to be expected between the two  t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e of G A  scores  good and poor c o n d i t i o n s c r e a t e d i n the present  experiment w i l l be s m a l l , no matter how m a n i p u l a t i o n by the experimenter.  strong the degree of  No matter which of the  two  reasons  are accepted  f o r the s m a l l e r mean d i f f e r e n c e between  the two  c o n d i t i o n s of the present experiment, i t appears t h a t  the m a n i p u l a t i o n of l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s i n a l a b o r a t o r y experiment  w i l l remain a hard task to  accomplish.  Mot i v at'lon:  I t has been demonstrated r e p e a t e d l y t h a t t h i s  v a r i a b l e may  be manipulated  f e c t i v e performance.  by p r o v i d i n g some i n c e n t i v e f o r e f -  What p r o v i d e s an adequate i n c e n t i v e i r r e s -  p e c t i v e of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i s , of course, s u b j e c t t o debate.  However, both theory and e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s support  the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of cash as an e f f e c t i v e i n c e n t i v e f o r higher performance.  There i s a w e l l documented body of r e s e a r c h which  i n d i c a t e s t h a t cash has c o n v e r t i b i l i t y to other valued p s y c h i c and m a t e r i a l outcomes  (e.g., Whyte, 1955;  Subjects were assigned to two ditions;  h i g h and  low.  The  Lawler,  1971).  d i f f e r e n t m o t i v a t i o n a l con-  s u b j e c t s i n the high m o t i v a t i o n  c o n d i t i o n were t o l d a t the beginning of the experimental  session  by E t h a t each of the group members would r e c e i v e a cash  prize  of f i v e d o l l a r s f o r r e a c h i n g d e c i s i o n s of higher q u a l i t y i n the minimum p o s s i b l e time.  No  time l i m i t was  to minimize time and maximize q u a l i t y .  given.  They were t o l d  Whether t h e i r d e c i s i o n  28  s a t i s f i e d the requirement  of quality- and  d i s c r e t i o n of the experimenter.  time/ was  le£t to the  In the case o f s u b j e c t s under  the low m o t i v a t i o n c o n d i t i o n no i n c e n t i v e was  given.  They were  t o l d o n l y to minimize time and maximize q u a l i t y as best could.  They were not promised any reward f o r doing  To f i n d out whether the m a n i p u l a t i o n  so.  o f high and  low motiv-  a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s as d e v i s e d by the above experimental was  s u c c e s s f u l , each s u b j e c t was  on a 5r-point s c a l e . r a t i n g form).  ."  they  procedure  asked to r a t e h i s m o t i v a t i o n  (See Appendices VI and VII f o r the  Table 4 shows the mean r a t i n g s : TABLE 4  Mean of the S u b j e c t s ' Rating of T h e i r M o t i v a t i o n  Octants  High M o t i v a t i o n  Low  N=12  Motivation N=12  1  4.33  4.17  4  4.75  2.58  8  4.66  2.58  Mean over octants  4.58  3.11  From the above Table i t appears t h a t the m a n i p u l a t i o n r e s p e c t to m o t i v a t i o n was  q u i t e s u c c e s s f u l w i t h the  of the groups i n the o c t a n t 1 experimental  with  exception  condition.  A differ-  erence of  (.4.58 ^ 3.11)' 1.47  s c a l e p o i n t s on a 5-point  scale  may  be c o n s i d e r e d  s a t i s f a c t o r y g i v e n the short term d u r a t i o n  and  artificiality  i n v o l v e d i n the  Ability: ta,sk as  Vroom "...  experiment.  (1964) d e f i n e s a person's a b i l i t y to perform a  the degree to which he possesses a l l the psycho-  l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s n e c e s s a r y f o r a high l e v e l of performance, excluding and Lawler  those of a m o t i v a t i o n a l nature", C1968) a b i l i t i e s are "...  (p. 198).  To  Porter  r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e long  term i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (e.g., p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , manual s k i l l s ,  i n t e l l i g e n c e , e t c . ) , t h a t represent  u a l ' s c u r r e n t l y developed power to perform", Pursuing  these two  argue t h a t a t e s t having  definitions a l i t t l e relevance  for  e f f e c t i v e performance may  The  problem, however, i s how  One  hundred?  the past?  (p.  the 22).  f u r t h e r , one  may  to an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c a p a c i t y  be used as a measure of many t e s t s to use?  What has been the experience  with  One?  ability. Two?  such t e s t s i n  Campbell et a l . (1970) showed t h a t the p r e d i c t i v e  v a l i d i t y of such t e s t s r a r e l y exceeds .40.  M i t c h e l l (1971)  f e e l s t h a t an o p e r a t i o n a l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of r e l a t e d a b i l i t i e s has A b i l i t y was present  individ-  task  been e l u s i v e .  o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d f o r the purpose of  the  experiment as the i n d i v i d u a l ' s o v e r a l l c a p a c i t y f o r e f -  f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g i n a g i v e n environment.  This capacity  was  assumed to be s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f concept or degree of s e l f esteem as acquired successes  through a s e r i e s of  or f a i l u r e i n tasks performed over a long p e r i o d of  3Q time.  Kaufman (1962) ,. Vroom, 0-9,61, 1962,  (1971) have provided e m p i r i c a l evidence  19641  t h a t an  and  Lawler,  individual's  l e v e l of performance tends to v a r y w i t h the degree of esteem he  self  possesses.  S e l f esteem i s u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to be more a p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c than a task r e l a t e d a b i l i t y .  Notwithstanding,  S e l f esteem was used i n the present study because of the lowing c o n s i d e r a t i o n s :  1) although not task r e l a t e d , s e l f  teem does i n f l u e n c e a person's his  environment.  fol-  Thus i t may  a b i l i t y i s more comprehensive  o v e r a l l c a p a c i t y to cope  eswith  be argued t h a t t h i s measure of ( i n the macro sense of the term)  than any o t h e r task r e l a t e d a b i l i t y measure;  2)  the p r i n c i p a l purpose of the present study was  given that  not to  develop  p r e d i c t o r s f o r e f f e c t i v e performance, a workable measure l i k e s e l f esteem was  considered a c c e p t a b l e ;  3)  c o n s i d e r i n g the  tasks t h a t were used i n the present experiment, i t appeared a l most i m p o s s i b l e to come up with a workable number of p r e d i c t o r s . A combination  of p r e d i c t o r s c o u l d be used but a t the c o s t of an  o v e r l y complex d e s i g n . S e v e r a l measures of s e l f esteem were c o n s i d e r e d , and developed  by Berger  investigation.  (1952) was  s e l e c t e d f o r use i n the  that  present  T h i s measure i s one of the most c a r e f u l l y d e v e l -  oped measures of a t t i t u d e toward s e l f with r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging from .776  to .884  (split half r e l i a b i l i t y for five  groups).  V a l i d a t i o n of the s c a l e scores a g a i n s t judges' r a t i n g s on acceptance  y i e l d e d a c o r r e l a t i o n of r =  Berger's  s e l f acceptance  self  .897.  measure c o n s i s t s of 36  attitude  statements  (both, p o s i t i v e and negative) which the respondents  r a t e on a 5-point L i k e r t type s c a l e . to negatively/ worded statements all  statements  When s c o r i n g , the answers  are r e v e r s e d .  are added together t o o b t a i n a s c a l e s c o r e .  higher the score the b e t t e r the respondent's v i c e versa.  The scores on The  s e l f esteem and  The scores f o r the 7 2 s u b j e c t s f o r Exp - B were  d i s t r i b u t e d normally, w i t h a range o f 105 - 162, and a median o f 138. The  s u b j e c t s were d i v i d e d a t the median score f o r .assign-  ment i n t o h i g h and low a b i l i t y groups.  Subjects s c o r i n g up t o  13 8 were c o n s i d e r e d as having low s e l f esteem, and those S c o r i n g beyond 138 were c l a s s i f i e d as having h i g h s e l f esteem. Intelligence:  General mental a b i l i t y o r i n t e l l i g e n c e i s a  m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l concept. important  Two dimensions which were c o n s i d e r e d  f o r the present experiment were:  v e r b a l reasoning  and numerical a b i l i t y .  P r o f i c i e n c y i n reasoning and numerical  c a p a c i t y were necessary  t o do an e f f e c t i v e j o b i n the problems  that were chosen f o r the present study.  An i n t e l l i g e n c e  measure which d i r e c t l y f i l l e d t h i s need was the Wesman Personnel C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Test.  The t e s t has c o n s i s t e n t l y produced  r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n the upper 80's.  I t c o r r e l a t e d w e l l with  other r e p u t a b l e t e s t s such as the O t i s General Examination .76).  (r = .68), and the Wonderlic  Intelligence  Personnel Test  (r =  The t e s t has been used w i t h s u b j e c t s i n a number o f d i f -  f e r e n t occupations to mechanical  and s e t t i n g s ranging from u n i v e r s i t y  apprentices.  students  A few words are i n order about the s t r u c t u r e of the t e s t . Items used to measure v e r b a l reasoning a b i l i t y fulfill  c e r t a i n requirements.  were designed to  Both reasoning through  analogy  and p e r c e p t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s are needed to respond to each item.  At the same time, the form permits the use of a wide  V a r i e t y of s u b j e c t matter and a consequent  r e d u c t i o n of emphasis  on mere v o c a b u l a r y knowledge.  of guessing c o r r e c t  The chances  a,nswers are o n l y one i n s i x t e e n , as a g a i n s t one for  more m u l t i p l e c h o i c e t e s t s ;  the  reliability  i n four or f i v e  this considerably increases  o f the i n d i v i d u a l items.  Although timed, the  t e s t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a measure of power r a t h e r than of  speed.  The numerical items have been d e v i s e d to t e s t command of basic arithmetic s k i l l s  and processes p l u s g e n e r a l f a c i l i t y i n  the use of numerical concepts.  The content has been so arranged  t h a t a premium i s p l a c e d on the a b i l i t y s h i p s and to operate w i t h i n g e n u i t y ;  to p e r c e i v e r e l a t i o n -  the importance of sheer  f i g u r e h a n d l i n g speed, or number p e r c e p t i o n , b e t t e r measured by simple c l e r i c a l tions;  t e s t s i s minimized.  There are no t r i c k  ques-  however, some problems are i n c l u d e d which are easy f o r  a person w i t h a ready understanding of p r i n c i p l e s and ships involved.  relation-  T h i s t e s t combines power and speed of perform-  ance. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the WPCT j u s t mentioned tial  f o r doing a good job i n the t a s k s s e l e c t e d f o r the present  experiment. to  were essen-  For example, one of the t a s k s r e q u i r e d the s u b j e c t s  a s s i g n f i v e people to f i v e machines u s i n g time and  motion  33  study data about the whole o p e r a t i o n s . _To make an e f f e c t i v e assignment a command o f a r i t h m e t i c s k i l l s and reasoning are e s s e n t i a l .  ability-  The WPCT measured these mental c a p a c i t i e s .  A t o t a l o f 147 s u b j e c t s were administered t h i s t e s t but o n l y 72 were used i n the Exp - B p a r t o f the study.  Their  scores ranged from 20 t o 54 w i t h a median o f 43. Sunjects were assigned based on a c u t t i n g score o f 43. Subjects s c o r i n g 43 or more were c o n s i d e r e d t o possess  'high' i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t y ,  and those who scored l e s s than 43 were c o n s i d e r e d  'low' i n i n -  telligence. Leadership S t y l e : developed  T h i s v a r i a b l e was measured by the LPC instrument  by F i e d l e r .  The LPC score i s o b t a i n e d by asking a per-  son t o t h i n k o f a l l t h e i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h whom, he has worked.  He  then d e s c r i b e s the person whom he c o n s i d e r s h i s l e a s t p r e f e r r e d co-worker.  The d e s c r i p t i o n s are made on 8-point,  a d j e c t i v e check l i s t s , ferential  bi-polar  s i m i l a r i n form t o Osgood's Semantic D i f -  (Osgood e t a l . , 1957), using items d e s c r i p t i v e o f per-  s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s , e.g: Friendly:  8 : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :  Co-operative:  8 : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 :  Cold:  1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 :  Unfriendly Uncooperative Warm.  (Pie-a-s-e-see E x h i b i t I I I f o r t h e LPC instrument According t o F i e d l e r , 1967): ... t h e Least P r e f e r r e d Co-worker score, LPC, i s an almost i d e a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l measure. I t takes no more than 5 minutes to a d m i n i s t e r ; i t c o n s i s t s of a short set o f s c a l e items ( u s u a l l y 16 t o 20);  used) .  34 has s p l i t h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y of above . 90, a t e s t r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y - f o r a d u l t s ranging from .5 to .8; and i t arouses l i t t l e i f any r e s i s t a n c e on the p a r t of s u b j e c t s . On the other hand, the LPC  score has been extremely  resis-  t a n t to any meaningful i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d e s p i t e a p e r s i s t e n t and i n t e n s i v e e f f o r t which has extended over n e a r l y two LPC  decades.  has been u n c o r r e l a t e d with most p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t scores  and  v a r i o u s attempts to r e l a t e the score to s e l f d e s c r i p t i o n s , desc r i p t i o n s by o t h e r s , or b e h a v i o u r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s have l e d to complex or i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s . The LPC of time.  score has been i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n t l y over  First  i t has been suggested  measure of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e , e.g., s h i p o r i e n t e d , low LPC  t h a t LPC  high LPC  is a  simple  l e a d e r s are  l e a d e r s are task o r i e n t e d  periods  relation-  ( F i e d l e r , 1967).  However, standard measures of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e such as  Initiation  of S t r u c t u r e or C o n s i d e r a t i o n have f a i l e d to c o r r e l a t e c o n s i s t e n t l y with LPC  ( F i e d l e r , 1971).  Accordingly, Fiedler  (1970) i n a  t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t from the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington gave a new t e r p r e t a t i o n of the LPC s h i p s t u d i e s and  score.  in-  He r e - a n a l y z e d most of h i s l e a d e r -  observed:  ... the Leastt P r e f e r r e d Co-worker (LPC) score ... suggests t h a t the score r e f l e c t s a h i e r a r c h y of g o a l s . High LPC persons have as t h e i r primary g o a l the establishment and maintenance of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s and as a secondary g o a l the attainment of prominence and s e l f enhancement. The low LPC person i s seen as having as h i s primary g o a l the achievement of task and m a t e r i a l rewards w h i l e he has as h i s secondary g o a l the development of good i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l ations. The i n d i v i d u a l w i l l seek to achieve h i s primary as w e l l as secondary g o a l s i n S i t u a t i o n s i n which h i s c o n t r o l and i n f l u e n c e  35 i s r e l a t i v e l y great; he w i l l concentrate on s e c u r i n g h i s primary- g o a l s i n s i t u a t i o n s which are unfavourable and s t r e s s f u l . (Abstract to the Report] . A few other i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the LPC are a v a i l a b l e .  In a s e r i e s of a n a l y s e s , M i t c h e l l  score  (1970) has  presented  evidence  suggesting t h a t LPC measures c o g n i t i v e com-  plexity;  h i g h LPC  s u b j e c t s make g r e a t e r d i s t i n c t i o n s between  Stimulus  o b j e c t s than the low LPC  persons.  Thus, low LPC  are e f f e c t i v e i n very f a v o u r a b l e or very unfavourable  situations,  because of the f a c t t h a t the s i t u a t i o n s are c o g n i t i v e l y (e.g., e i t h e r f a v o u r a b l e or u n f a v o u r a b l e ) .  leaders  simple  But the high  LPC  l e a d e r s because of t h e i r higher c a p a c i t y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between stimulus o b j e c t s become s u c c e s s f u l i n s i t u a t i o n s of favourableness  intermediate  ( c o g n i t i v e l y complex).  Sample and Wilson  (1965) found  t h a t high and  low LPC  showed a s i m i l a r amount of i n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e over d u r a t i o n of a small group task experiment. behaviour  leaders  the  But, the p a t t e r n s of  s h i f t e d as the task neared completion.  Fiedler  inter-  p r e t e d t h i s f i n d i n g i n terms of a s t r e s s / n o n - s t r e s s d i f f e r e n c e i n the s i t u a t i o n . authors  In a r e c e n t study by Evans et a l . (1972), the  observed: The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d here suggests an a l t e r n a t i v e explanation. I t has been found t h a t low LPC was c o n s i s t e n t l y an i n d i c a t o r of c o g n i t i v e s i m p l i c i t y i n t h a t i t was ass o c i a t e d with high dogmatism and with high i n t o l e r a n c e f o r u n c e r t a i n t y . However, the h i g h LpC i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d be one of s e v e r a l types: a) c o g n i t i v e l y complex — undogmatic but uncomfortable w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y ; b) c o g n i t i v e l y mixed i : undogmatic but uncomfortable w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y , i i : dogmatic but comfortable w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y . (p. 18).  36 On the b a s i s of the above evidence the authors suggested t h a t LPC may  not be a measure of c o g n i t i v e complexity-, as e a r l i e r  r e s e a r c h showed i t to be. The LPC  s c a l e i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f any study on 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 , but the LPC as a measuring  instrument s t i l l  appears to be u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e or  Subject to s e v e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .  C o n s i d e r i n g t h i s , i t was  decided t o use the instrument a t i t s face v a l u e . however, made to check the v a l i d i t y of the LPC  A plan  was,  s c a l e i n terms of  Observation and r a t i n g of the behaviour of l e a d e r s i n the experiment.  Two  o b s e r v e r s independently r a t e d the bahaviour of the  l e a d e r s i n each group u s i n g the Leader Behaviour Rating instrument  developed by Graen e t a l . '(1971). T h i s r a t i n g form has s i x  b i ^ p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s s i m i l a r i n form to the LPC  s c a l e , a low  r a t i n g meaning t h a t the l e a d e r i s observed to be task o r i e n t e d , a h i g h r a t i n g i n d i c a t i n g the people o r i e n t a t i o n . One of  problem faced i n u s i n g the Leader Behaviour R a t i n g was any r e l i a b i l i t y  i n f o r m a t i o n about the instrument.  come t h i s , i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of  (Appendix X).  r a t i n g s done by the two  was  v a r i o u s c o r r e l a t i o n a l v a l u e s between the two  J n t e r ^ c o r r e l a t i o n between the r a t i n g s of two o b s e r v e r s on: CNF=35); i l 12 13 14 15 16  TOTAL  r r R r R -r R r x =  ,04 ,31 .86 ,42 .-66 .71  r R .76  sets  Table 5 shows  ratings.  TABLE 5  Item Item Item item Item Item  To over-  computed between two  independent o b s e r v e r s .  lack  Since the i n t e r p r e t e r r e l i a b i l i t y on the i n d i v i d u a l  items  v a r i e d from a low- of .0.4 t o ,8 6" w i t h a median o f ,54, i t wasdecided not t o use these f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s .  But, t h e i n t e r - r  r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y on the sum o f r a t i n g s was .7562.  T h i s was  considered acceptable with caution. A c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d on the LPC scores and the r a t i n g s o f l e a d e r behaviour dent o b s e r v e r s . sum  as submitted  by two indepen-  Four s e t s o f o b s e r v a t i o n s were used:  (1) r a t i n g  from observer No ..1.) (2) r a t i n g sum from observer No .2 ; (3) mean  of r a t i n g s from both observers;  (4) LPC s c o r e s .  Table 6 shows  the r e s u l t o f the a n a l y s i s . TABLE 6 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n between observer r a t i n g of l e a d e r behaviour and L e a s t P r e f e r r e d Coworker scores CN=35) Observer  #1  r  Observer  #2  r = .12  Mean of r a t i n g from #1 and #2  .07  r = .08  I t i s d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t the low c o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC scores and observer r a t i n g of l e a d e r behaviour.  The low  c o r r e l a t i o n a l values i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e a s s o c i a t i o n between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e as p r e d i c t e d by LPC and t h a t the two observers r a t e d as the demonstrated behaviour  o f the l e a d e r .  But any strong doubt on the v a l i d i t y of the LPC i n terms o f the r a t i n g by observers would be unwarranted s i n c e the v a l i d i t y of  38 the instrument (the Leader Behayiour Rating as developed by Graen) used wa&  unknown.  Group P r o d u c t i v i t y :  S o l u t i o n s from the two group tasks were  scored u s i n g two c r i t e r i a  Ci.e., q u a l i t y of s o l u t i o n and time  taken t o r e a c h the s o l u t i o n ) as was the t a s k s .  As mentioned  time f o r s o l u t i o n was of s o l u t i o n was task 59  suggested by the authors of  i n the s e c t i o n on experimental procedure,  recorded by the experimenter.  The  quality  r a t e d by two independent judges i n the case of  (unstructured):  f o r task 23  (structured) the q u a l i t y of  S o l u t i o n was measured a c c o r d i n g to the i n s t r u c t i o n p r o v i d e d by the author o f the t a s k . Task 23 was  an assignment problem where the groups were  asked to a s s i g n as e f f i c i e n t l y as they could f i v e men machines.  The assignment was  motion study  to f i v e  to be done according t o a time and  data p r o v i d e d to the group.  s o l u t i o n f o r the problem and t h i s was s o l u t i o n c o u l d be f i f t e e n minutes.  There was one best  t e n minutes.  The worst  Since the r e s u l t p r o v i d e d by  v a r i o u s groups v a r i e d between ten and f i f t e e n minutes, i t was  de-  c i d e d to r a t e the q u a l i t y of the output on a 10-point s c a l e . A c c o r d i n g l y , groups t h a t came up w i t h a s o l u t i o n of ten minutes got r a t e d as p e r f e c t  (10 p o i n t s ) ;  whereas the group d e c i d i n g on  a 15 minute s o l u t i o n was r a t e d as wrong Task 59 was  (0 p o i n t s ) .  a d i s c u s s i o n task i n which the group members  were asked t o f i g u r e out the f i v e most important t r a i t s f o r success i n a c u l t u r e . criterion  needed  Tt was very d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e the  ' q u a l i t y ' , because there was  no  'the s o l u t i o n ' .  The  39  author o f the t a s k d i d not have any- r a t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h i s criterion. form.  I t was t h e r e f o r e decided t o develop our own r a t i n g  T h i s was done as d e s c r i b e d Below.' Q u a l i t y was d e f i n e d as t h e  anchors o f :  1) adequacy  attaining success):  sum o f r a t i n g s on the  Chow adequate t h e . f i v e  t r a i t s are f o r  (how r e l e v a n t the  2) i s s u e invo1vernent  s o l u t i o n i s t o t h e problem):  3) e x c l u s i v e n e s s (defined as i n -  dependence o f the l i s t e d t r a i t s from one a n o t h e r ) : of  four  4) c l a r i t y  p r e s e n t a t i o n (defined as c l a r i t y of e x p r e s s i o n ) . A r a t i n g form was c r e a t e d where two judges were asked t o  r a t e each o f the group s o l u t i o n s independently on a 5-point L i k e r t type s c a l e using the four anchors  as d e s c r i b e d .  (^Lea_se  see Appendix I X ) . The two judges were d o c t o r a l students i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour  a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia.  Before they  were a s s i g n e d t o the r a t i n g job, they were i n v i t e d t o a j o i n t s e s s i o n with the E f o r b r i e f i n g and t r i a l . anchors was e x p l a i n e d t o them.  The meaning of the  A f t e r a reasonable agreement had  been reached on the meaning of anchors, the judges were asked t o make a few t r i a l  ratings.  At the end of the b r i e f i n g and p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n s , the judges went home with the group s o l u t i o n s which were p r i n t e d on a separate p i e c e of paper.  ( S o l u t i o n s were p r i n t e d t o a v o i d  the r a t i n g b i a s a r i s i n g from the q u a l i t y of handwritten  solutions).  R a t i n g was done p r i v a t e l y and independently. When a l l t h e r a t i n g s were r e c e i v e d from the two judges, an i n t e r - ^ r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was computed.  Table 7 shows the  40 i n t e r - r a t e r agreement on each, of the f o u r anchors as w e l l as on the sum of s c o r e s : TABLE 7 I n t e r - r a t e r Agreement on the Ratings of .Group Output CN=47) ;  R a t i n g Anchor  .75  2. Issue  .68  Involvement  3, E x c l u s i v e n e s s  .80  4. C l a r i t y of P r e s e n t a t i o n  .50  5, Sum  .74  of the Anchors  considered s a t i s f a c t o r y .  on the sum  (r = .74)  was  A l l f u r t h e r analyses were done on the  D e s c r i p t i o n of the S t a t i s t i c a l Hypothesis I was  the t e s t :  Three steps were i n v o l v e d i n  2) compute the Spearman Rank Order  between the two ranks;  Correlation  3) compare the rho's found i n the present  study w i t h those from the model, The  predic-  1) Convert the scores on the LPC and Group P r o d u c t i v -  i n t o ranks;  done.  Procedure  concerned w i t h t e s t i n g the e a r l i e r  t i o n s from the Contingency Model.  for  of scores  of s c o r e s .  2,3  ity  Lr)  1. Adequacy  Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y  sum  Reliability  A t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e  .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was  r e j e c t i n g the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s .  was  accepted as the b a s i s  41 Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y were t o t e s t the modera t i n g e f f e c t of m o t i v a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Each of the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s had two l e v e l s and the r e s u l t i n g experimental T h i s design f a c i l i t a t e d  d e s i g n was a 2 x 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l .  two important  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e end;  analyses;  and 2) a c o v a r i a n c e  1) three-way analysis.  In the three-way ANOVA the o b j e c t i v e was to determine the main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s o f the three proposed moderators on group performance. Y; = ACM  The s t a t i s t i c a l model was of the form:  + BCJl + C(k)  + D U ) + A B ( i j ) + AC(ik)  + BCCjk). + A B C C i j k l ) + E Where: A = Intelligence, B = Ability, D = R e p l i c a t i o n , i = 1,2  C = Motivation,  j=l,2  k=l,2  L- = 1,2,3 Y = Group Performance. In the a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e , the o b j e c t i v e was t o d e t e r mine i f the three proposed v a r i a b l e s d i d indeed moderate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the LPC and Group P r o d u c t i v i t y .  Accordingly,  the f o l l o w i n g c o v a r i a n c e model was used where LPC was the c o variate: Y = ACi) + B(J) + C(k) + /LPC + E where: Y A B C E  = Group Output = Intelligence = Ability = Motivation f= E r r o r  i = 1,2 j ~ 1,2 k = 1,2  R e s u l t s from the three-way- ANOVA and a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e  were subjected  to a t e s t of. s i g n i f i c a n c e at the  ,10  l e v e l of  cpn^  fidence, 2.4  D e s c r i p t i o n " of' the '^per^meRta,^,Pe^jfen The  reader may  v e s t i g a t i o n was  r e c a l l from .Chapter I t h a t tyhe present  concerned w i t h two  prime o b j e c t i v e s ;  the Contingency- Model w i t h an improved methodology and two, and  one,  into t e s t  design;  to a s c e r t a i n whether the v a r i a b l e s of m o t i v a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e a b i l i t y would indeed moderate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between  leader-  s h i p s t y l e and group p r o d u c t i v i t y as e a r l i e r t h e o r i s t s p r e d i c t e d . In order  to s a t i s f a c t o r i l y c a r r y out the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the  two  research questions,  an experimental design  c o n s i s t i n g of two  parts  was  p a r t of t h i s d e s i g n was  t o v a l i d a t e the  Contin-  conceived.  One  gency Model, the other,  to examine the moderating e f f e c t s of  motivation,  i n t e l l i g e n c e i n combination w i t h  a b i l i t y and  three o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s of the Contingency Model of effectiveness. p a r t s was Design  as  The  o v e r a l l design  and  that of the two  the  leadership separate  follows: Overall:  Leadership Style (measured by the LPC)  ^  . '  Group Output (measured by r a t i n g of output)  Situational Variables Part I  Part I I  C 1. Task S t r u c t u r e (TS) C 2. P o s i t i o n Power (PP) C 3. Leader Member R e l a t i o n s ( 4. I n t e l l i g e n c e ClNTi ( 5. A b i l i t y (SE) C 6, M o t i v a t i o n (MOTI  (GA)  According  t o the Contingency Model, the s i t u a t i o n modern  ates the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and group outcome.  The o v e r a l l design,  therefore, consisted of assigning  groups t o l a b o r a t o r y c r e a t e d s i t u a t i o n s on the b a s i s o f t h e y a r i a b l e s under examination, measuring the l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e of the p a r t i c u l a r l e a d e r , and the output of the p a r t i c u l a r group. The  broken l i n e above separates  C4,  5, 6) i n the present  t i n g e n c y Model  the v a r i a b l e s under examination  study from those contained  Cl/ 2 and 3 ) .  i n the Con-  The s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s were  dichotomized t o p r o v i d e d i f f e r e n t combinations o f degrees o f task s t r u c t u r e , p o s i t i o n power, q u a l i t y o f l e a d e r member r e lations, levels of a b i l i t y , ers were assigned  t o groups.  i n t e l l i g e n c e and m o t i v a t i o n .  Lead-  The c o v a r i a t i o n between l e a d e r s h i p  s t y l e and group p r o d u c t i v i t y p r o v i d e s  evidence f o r the p r e d i c -  t i v e power o f the Contingency Model.  The two p a r t s o f the  o v e r a l l design which w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as Experiment A and Experiment B, were as d e s c r i b e d  below:  Experiment A: T h i s p a r t o f the design was concerned with t e s t i n g the Contingency Model.  Attempts were made to c r e a t e  s i t u a t i o n s as c l o s e to the Model as p o s s i b l e .  leadership Methodological  c r i t i c i s m s by Graen e t a l . (1971) and F i e d l e r (1971) were kept i n mind i n manipulating  the d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . In  p a r t i c u l a r , care was taken t h a t t h e s t r e n g t h of manipulation of v a r i a b l e s such as p o s i t i o n power and l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s were not d i l u t e d .  T h i s p o i n t has been e l a b o r a t e d  S e c t i o n 2.2 o f t h i s Chapter.  earlier i n  The Contingency Model c o n t a i n s e i g h t c e l l s d e r i v e d , bya 2 x 2 x 2 breakdown o f the three s i t u a t i o n a l moderators PP and GA].  Leaders are hypothesized  CTS,  t o be e f f e c t i v e or i n e f -  f e c t i v e depending on the s i t u a t i o n a l o c t a n t s to which they a r e assigned and a l s o t h e i r LPC s c o r e s . low LPC scores  F o r example, l e a d e r s with  (meaning task o r i e n t a t i o n ) may be more  effective  i n o c t a n t s 1, 2 , 3 and 8 whereas l e a d e r s with high LPC scores (meaning people  o r i e n t a t i o n ) a r e p r e d i c t e d t o be more  effective  i n o c t a n t s 4, 5 and 7. Research on t h e Contingency Model has a l i m i t a t i o n i n terms o f the number of s u b j e c t s r e q u i r e d because o b s e r v a t i o n s are made on the b a s i s o f groups r a t h e r than on the b a s i s of i n d i v i d u a l s i n the groups.  F a c i n g t h i s c o n s t r a i n t , i t was de-  c i d e d t o t e s t o n l y three o c t a n t s o f the Contingency Model. These o c t a n t s are d e s c r i b e d i n Table 8. TABLE 8 Design Situational  Measures  GA  TS  PP  Oct. 1  Good  High  Oct. 8  Poor  Low  Oct. 4  Good  Low  Octant  -  f o r Experiment A Effective Leadership Style  N = No. of Groups  Task (low LPC)  8  Group product  Weak  Task Clow LPC)  8  Group product  Weak  People Chigh LPC)  8  Group product  Strong  ,  L  Performance  45  Experiment B:  T h i s experiment was concerned with examining the moderating e f f e c t s o f t h r e e new v a r i a b l e s f o r the Contingency three proposed v a r i a b l e s ( i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y were dishotomized  i n t o h i g h and low.  f e r e n t combinations.  Nesting  Model.  The  and m o t i v a t i o n )  This provided eight d i f -  the t h r e e Contingency  v a r i a b l e s i n each of these e i g h t new combinations the f o l l o w i n g d e s i g n , as shown i n Table  Model  resulted i n  9.  TABLE 9. Design  f o r Experiment B  Intelligence  (Int.)  HIGH  LOW A b i l i t y SE  High  Low  High  Low  High  Int-High SE -High Mot-High (TS,PP,GA)  Int-High SE -Low Mot-High (TS,PP,GA)  Low  Int-High SE -r-High MotT-Low (TS,PP,GA)  Int-High Int-Low Int-Low SE -Low SE -High SE -Low Mot-Low Mot-Low Mot-Low CTS,PP,GA) (TS,PP,GA)(TS,PP,GA)  MOTIVATION (MOT)  Int-Low Int-Low SE -High SE -Low Mot-High Mot-High (TS,PP,GA)(TS,PP,GA)  Since the new v a r i a b l e s were superimposed on the o c t a n t conditions  (1, 4 and 8) as hypothesized  Theory, t h e r e were twenty-four  by the Contingency  c e l l s of observations, eight  o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r each of o c t a n t s 1, 4 and 8. it  T h i s d e s i g n made  p o s s i b l e t o do a n l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e and c o v a r i a n c e t o d e t e r -  mine the e f f e c t s of the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s on the t h r e e o c t a n t s o f the Contingency  Model.  CHAPTER 3 RESULTS 3,1  INTRODUCTION In t h i s chapter the data r e l e v a n t  of the study are examined.  to the four hypotheses  Hypothesis I was concerned w i t h a  t e s t o f the v a l i d i t y o f the p r e d i c t i o n s o f the Contingency Model.  T h i s t e s t was done by the assignment o f l e a d e r s  into  d i f f e r e n t o c t a n t s o f the model i n d i c a t i n g d i f f e r e n t degrees o f s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness and computation of c o v a r i a t i o n between the LPC scores of the assigned leader tivity.  and group produc-  Both the LPC scores and group p r o d u c t i v i t y scores (de-  r i v e d by panel r a t i n g ) were converted i n t o ranks.  The Spearman  Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n was computed between the two ranks. The  c o r r e l a t i o n found was t e s t e d  level.  f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05  F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s were compared with the e a r l i e r  pre-  dictions . Hypotheses I I , I I I and IV, which examined the moderating e f f e c t s o f m o t i v a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y , on  leadership  variance. two  respectively,  e f f e c t i v e n e s s , were t e s t e d by an a n a l y s i s o f  As mentioned e a r l i e r , each of the three v a r i a b l e s had  l e v e l s , h i g h and low.  The three-way ANOVA enabled determin-  a t i o n o f the main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of the three on group productivity-.  variables  L e v e l means a l s o p r o v i d e d an i n d i c a t i o n  of the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f the two l e v e l s under each  47  variable.  The  moderating e f f e c t s of these three  were e s t a b l i s h e d  by  subjecting  the LPC  and  scores to an a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e .  The  variables  group p r o d u c t i v i t y e f f e c t s of the  three  v a r i a b l e s as moderators were found by examining the a n a l y s i s covariance Table.  A t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e at the  used as a b a s i s to r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s .  .10  level  was  Because of  the  Small number of o b s e r v a t i o n s under each experimental a lower l e v e l of confidence the  Csuch as  .10)  was  of s o l u t i o n , and derived  accepted to t e s t  measured i n two  But,  the The  scores  t h i s i n v o l v e d making a r b i t r a r y assumptions c r i t e r i a , e.g.,  the q u a l i t y of s o l u t i o n .  I t was  the  decided  f o r e to perform separate analyses f o r each of the  two  time there-  criteria.  very important advantage o f t h i s separate a n a l y s i s was enabled a study of the  group p r o d u c t i v i t y using real l i f e organizations  r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p , two  very p r a c t i c a l c r i t e r i a  defined  by em-  and  designed t o t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the Con-  t i n g e n c y Model i n terms of d e f i n i t i o n s , methods and of the model.  and  q u a l i t y of performance.  Leadership S t y l e , S i t u a t i o n a l F a v o u r a b i l i t y Group P r o d u c t i v i t y Experiment A was  that  applied  to assess the p r o d u c t i v i t y of t h e i r  ployees, namely, speed and 3.2  quality  c r i t e r i a could be combined i n t o a com-  about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two f o r d e c i s i o n and  ways;  the time needed f o r the d e c i s i o n .  under the two  p o s i t e score.  it  condition,  hypothesis. Group p r o d u c t i v i t y was  One  of  Experiment A,  leadership  i n terms of the Least P r e f e r r e d  s t y l e was  predictions  operationally  Co-worker Score  Ce.g.,  48 R Task O r i e n t e d ; . h i g h LPC  low LPC  R People Oriented)..  Leader  Member R e l a t i o n s , Leader p o s i t i o n Power and Task S t r u c t u r e w r e e  c o n s i d e r e d as- determining d u c t i y i t y was  measur ed i n terms of two  q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n . eyidence  s i t u a t i o n a l favour a b i l i t y - . Group pro-^  i n support  Hypothesis  of Hypothesis  and  I i s examained.  1 p r e d i c t e d t h a t task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s 8, while people  (high LPC). w i l l be s u c c e s s f u l i n octant 4.  between the LPC  speed  Tn t h i s S e c t i o n of Chapter 3  W i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n o c t a n t s 1 and ers  criteria;  The  (low  LPC)  oriented leadcorrelation  and group performance should be of the same mag-  n i t u d e and d i r e c t i o n as p r e d i c t e d by the Contingency Model. mentioned e a r l i e r , Hypothesis  I was  t e s t e d by computing  Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC formance.  The LPC  scores and  v e r t e d i n t o ranks. LPC  As  the  and group per-  speed and q u a l i t y scores were con-  A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t high  scores were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h high performance s c o r e s ;  con-  v e r s e l y , a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i e d t h a t high LPC  scores  were a s s o c i a t e d with low performance s c o r e s .  to the  According  Contingency Model, p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d success people  of  o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s while negative c o r r e l a t i o n would be  as-  s o c i a t e d with e f f e c t i v e n e s s of task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s . Octants found  numbered 1, 4 and  8 were examined.  The  results  from Experiment A f o r the three o c t a n t s with two  of group performance Tables 10 and  criteria  Ce.g., speed and q u a l i t y ) are r e p o r t e d i n  11.  R e s u l t s as d e s c r i b e d i n Tables 10 and  11 gave moderate sup-  p o r t to the p r e d i c t i o n s of the l o n t i n g e n c y Model.  The  negative  c o r r e l a t i o n i n o c t a n t s 1 and 8 showed t h a t t a s k o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s were more e f f e c t i v e than people o r i e n t e d leaders- i n the octants.  two  The p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n o c t a n t 4 i n d i c a t e s t h a t  people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s were more s u c c e s s f u l than task o r i e n t e d leaders.  The comparison of r v a l u e s between column 3 and column  4 of Tables 10 and 11 f a i r l y a t t e s t e d to the v a l i d i t y of e a r l i e r p r e d i c t i o n s of the Contingency Model. TABLE 10 ^ 7. x  V  Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n Between the LPC V. Scores and Q u a l i t y of Group D e c i s i o n  Octant  N  1 4 8  8 8 9  r_ found i n the "present study  Predicted_r_ i n the Contingency Model -.52 + .47 -.43  T.10  + .34 -.10  TABLE 11 Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n Between the Scores and Speed of Group D e c i s i o n  1 4 8  N  00  Octant  '.. CO CO  x  r_ found i n the present study -.69* + .48 -.51  S i g n i f i c a n t a t .0.5  level.  LPC  E a r l i e r Predicted r i n the Contingency Model -.52 + .47 -.43  50 A few trends t o be n o t i c e d 1)  i n the r e s u l t s  d i r e c t i o n of; the r e l a t i o n s h i p ?  lationship;  and 3)  statistical  21  concern:  magnitude of the r e -  s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e s u l t s .  As f a r as the d i r e c t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p was  concerned,  strong support was p r o v i d e d by the r e s u l t s d e s c r i b e d i n Tables 10" and l l , A l l s i x r e v a l u e s found i n the present study were i n J  the same d i r e c t i o n as was p r e d i c t e d p a r t o f Hypothesis  by the Contingency  Model. A  I concerning the d i r e c t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p  between the LPC and group performance scores was, c o n s i d e r e d as confirmed by the present Not so c l e a r a p i c t u r e  findings.  emerged when one compares the r e s u l t s  w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the magnitude o f r e l a t i o n s h i p . q u a l i t y o f group d e c i s i o n  therefore,  In case of  (see Table 10), the degree o f c o r r e -  l a t i o n was very small i n o c t a n t s numbered 1 and 8, w h i l e i t was moderate i n o c t a n t 4. group d e c i s i o n  On the o t h e r hand, i n case o f speed of  (see Table 11), a l l c o r r e l a t i o n a l v a l u e s were  very strong and o f the same magnitude as was hypothesized. When t e s t e d  for statistical  s i g n i f i c a n c e , a l l but one c o r -  r e l a t i o n v a l u e were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t .  Lack o f s t a t i s t i c -  a l s i g n i f i c a n c e may cause concern i n some q u a r t e r s . should not be s u r p r i s i n g  But, i t  i n the present case when one c o n s i d e r s  the s m a l l N values i n column 2 of both Tables 10 and 11. of the e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s  from the Contingency  i s f i e d the canon of s t a t i s t i c a l sample s i z e may enable f u t u r e  Model s t u d i e s  significance.  investigators  A large  Few sat-  enough  t o overcome t h i s  problem. In summary, the f i n d i n g s  from the present  investigation  were d i r e c t i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ; was found t o Be s a t i s f a c t o r y . ance i s - not considered concluded present  I f l a c k of s t a t i s t i c a l  too formidable  signifies  a shortcoming, i t may Be  t h a t a f u r t h e r degree of support was p r o v i d e d  study t o the Contingency Theory h y p o t h e s i s  t h e s i s X of the present 3.3  the magnitude of r e l a t i o n s h i p  By the  ( i . e . , Hypo-  study].  M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A B i l i t y as Moderators of Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s . Results reported  i n t h i s s e c t i o n were d e r i v e d from Exper-  iment B as t e s t s of Hypotheses I I , I I I and IV.  I t may Be r e -  c a l l e d from Chapter I t h a t Experiment B was designed  to t e s t  whether t h r e e new v a r i a B l e s , e.g., i n t e l l i g e n c e , a B i l i t y and motivation  should Be considered  a B i l i t y f o r a leader.  i n defining situational  Hypotheses i l ,  favour-  I I I and IV were proposed  i n this; c o n n e c t i o n . Hypothesis I I p r e d i c t e d t h a t l e a d e r s of motivated  groups  w i l l achieve higher p r o d u c t i v i t y ( i n terms of speed and q u a l i t y of output] than l e a d e r s of non-motivated groups.  Hypothesis I I I  f o r e c a s t t h a t l e a d e r s o f groups with high i n t e l l i g e n c e  will  t u r n out B e t t e r and q u i c k e r group d e c i s i o n s than l e a d e r s of groups with low i n t e l l i g e n c e .  Hypothesis IV p r e d i c t e d t h a t a  leader managing a group with higher a B i l i t y group output  w i l l produce g r e a t e r  than a l e a d e r managing a group of low a b i l i t y .  Hypotheses I I , I I I and IV were t e s t e d by s u b j e c t i n g the data d e r i v e d from Experiment B to two p r i n c i p a l analyses; Covariance.  a Three Way A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e  statistical  and an A n a l y s i s of  The  T h r e e Way  ANOVA a s s e s s e d  e f f e c t s of, m o t i v a t i o n , and  quality  provide out  intelligence  of group output.  a direct  test  of  This  the  Each o f the  The  comaprison of the  the  differential  Tables  12  and  Tables  12  13  results  present  a l s o the  The  group p r o d u c t i v i t y scores  scores  of  the  between t h e  under examination. i n Tables  For 12  high  intelligence,  than  groups with  levels  ability  T h r e e Way  13  Analysis of  and  of the  motivation  of  ability  two  levels  on  the  had  quality  weak e f f e c t Results supported  on  the  The  on  the  two  s p e e d and  shown i n T a b l e s  On  three  var-  The  differential the  other  quality  hand,  speed o f d e c i s i o n ability  than  had  a  of d e c i s i o n .  i n Tables Ca)  The  performance,  the  l e v e l s of  12  with  better  s t r o n g e r on  quality  f r o m ANOVA as r e p o r t e d  what was  of group  solution.  effect  of d e c i s i o n . both  criteria  i n t e l l i g e n c e was  a stronger  differ-  motivation.  of the  levels  motivation  scores  three variables  and  effect  speed o f  to  Variance.  performed  of group d e c i s i o n s .  the  as  i n d i c a t e t h a t groups  and  of d e c i s i o n than  levels.  average group p r o d u c t i v i t y  namely, speed  of  two  information  two  two  carried  under each v a r i a b l e .  levels  Ca)  not  t h r e e v a r i a b l e s on  i a b l e s v a r i e d between t h e  of  I t was  i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e were  two  effect  quality  analysis did  t h e mean g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e  intelligence,  degree of d i f f e r e n t i a l  speed  found.  example, t h e  (a) and  low  of the  results  and  ences i n output  statistical  the  t h r e e v a r i a b l e s had  of the  r e p o r t the  and  a b i l i t y on  l e v e l means p r o v i d e d  effects  13  and  interaction  three hypotheses.  o n l y t o a s c e r t a i n the. e f f e c t  group performance.  t h e m a i n and  and  12  Cb)  13  Ca).  and  13  (b)  Intel-  53 e had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t  ( p * .02 l e v e l ) on groups'  ' TABLE 12 E f f e c t o f M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y on the Speed o f Group D e c i s i o n a.  Mean Group Performance Score • LOW  b.  HIGH  Intelligence  (A)  (n=12)  14.8  18.7  (n=12)  Ability  (B)  (n=12)  16.3  17.1  (n=12)  Motivation  (C)  Cn=12)  12.8  20.6  (n=12)  Analysis of Variance  Source  Df  Mean Square  F  Significance  Intelligence  (A)  1  9.2  1.49  N.S .  S e l f Esteem  (B)  1  3.4  0.05  N.S  Motivation  (C)  1  3.6  5.85*  .02  A x B  1  3.7  0.01  N.S.  B x C  1  2.2  0.36  N.S.  A  C  1  7.1  0.11  N.S.  B x C  1  5.1  0.08  N.S.  2  7.8  1 26  N.S. ..  14  6.2  X  Ax  Octant Error  54 ..TABLE 13 E f f e c t of I n t e l l i g e n c e , A b i l i t y - and M o t i v a t i o n on the O u a l i t y . o f Group D e c i s i o n a.  Mean Group Performance Scores LOW  Intelligence  (Al  '—  - HIGH  9.8(n=12)  12.3  (n=12)  Ability  (B)  10.9  (n=12)  11.2  (n=12)  Motivation  (C)  10.5  (n=12)  11.6  (n=12)  b.  Analysis  of Variance  Source  Df  Mean Square  F  Significance  Intelligence  (A)  1  4.0  6.55*  0. 02  Ability  (B)  1  3.8  0.06  N.S.  Motivation  (C)  1  7.1  1.15  N.S.  A x B  1  3.8  0.16  N.S.  B x C  1  1.1  0.17  N.S.  A x C  1  2.1  0.33  N.S.  A x B x C  1  3.4  0.55  N.S.  Octant  2  9.3  15.13  0.00  14  ... 6 1  chance of a c h i e v i n g  higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms: o f h i g h e r  q u a l i t y but not i n terms o f higher speed.  No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -  ferences were found i n the e f f e c t o f A b i l i t y on group product i v i t y e i t h e r i n terms of q u a l i t y or i n speed o f s o l u t i o n . M o t i v a t i o n a f f e c t e d the speed o f group s o l u t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y C  )> < .02). The  possible  Quality  of s o l u t i o n was not a f f e c t e d by m o t i v a t i o n .  model o f ANOVA used  Cas r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 2) made  the study o f the f i r s t  l e v e l (AB, BC, AC) as w e l l as  the  second l e v e l o f i n t e r a c t i o n  (ABC) o f the three  variables.  The  small s i z e of the F v a l u e s f o r these i n t e r a c t i o n s as r e -  ported i n Table 12 Cb) and 13 Cb) i n d i c a t e the i n s i g n i f i c a n t nature o f these  interactions.  Octant e f f e c t s r e p o r t e d i n the two ANOVA Tables separated the  e f f e c t of the o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s  o f the Contingency Model  from the e f f e c t s of the t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s study.  The scope of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n  o n l y a subset o f the e i g h t the  introduced  Contingency Model.  included  combinations of F i e d l e r v a r i a b l e s o f  This  l i m i t a t i o n o f the study precluded  the p o s s i b i l i t y of i d e n t i f y i n g the e f f e c t o f each o f the Cont i n g e n c y Model v a r i a b l e s  separately.  But, the o c t a n t e f f e c t i n  the ANOVA s i g n i f i e d the combined e f f e c t of these v a r i a b l e s ; which was found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t with r e s p e c t t o q u a l i t y but not with r e s p e c t Data d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t analyzed by a n a l y s i s  t o speed of group  decision.  t o Hypotheses I I , I I I and IV were  of coyariance.  LPC was used as the covar-  i a t e , speed and q u a l i t y o f group d e c i s i o n as the dependent v a r i a b l e s , i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n as the moderating  56 variables.  Tables 14 and 15 present the" mean group performance  scores and a l s o the r e s u l t s from the analysis- o f c o v a r i a n c e . As  found e a r l i e r i n the ANOVA, the two l e v e l s of the t h r e e  variables decision.  d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d the speed and q u a l i t y o f group The magnitude o f the d i f f e r e n c e s  was a l i t t l e  lower.  CSee Tables 14 Ca] and 15 C a l , as compared with Tables 12 (a) and  13 Ca]. T h i s may be due t o the f a c t t h a t the group  mance scores were a d j u s t e d by the d i f f e r e n c e s  perfor-  i n the LPC s c o r e s .  Moderate support was found f o r Hypothesis I I I , which that  leaders  productivity  o f high i n t e l l i g e n c e groups w i l l achieve higher than leaders  o f low i n t e l l i g e n c e groups.  ported i n Tables 14 Cb) and 15 (b) r e v e a l e d significantly affected  that  the q u a l i t y and speed o f group  The r e s u l t s were t e s t e d  No support was r e c e i v e d group p r o d u c t i v i t y w i l l  Data r e -  intelligence  a f t e r the l a t t e r were a d j u s t e d f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s scores.  stated  decision  i n the LPC  f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t .10 l e v e l .  f o r Hypothesis IV which s t a t e d  that  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r between groups o f  h i g h a b i l i t y as compared to groups of low a b i l i t y .  F values  f o r the v a r i a b l e were very low under both the c r i t e r i a o f speed and  q u a l i t y o f group s o l u t i o n . Hypothesis I I s t a t e d  t h a t higher p r o d u c t i v i t y  speed and q u a l i t y w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d a t i o n of the leader t h e s i s was p a r t i a l .  motivated groups.  with the s t a t e o f motiv-  and h i s co-workers.  Support f o r t h i s hypo-  Table 14 Cb] r e p o r s t h a t  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f e r e n t  i n terms o f  speed of d e c i s i o n  C 1 5 . 0 4 ) between motivated and non-  On the other hand, m o t i v a t i o n d i d not make a  significant difference  i n the q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n  CSee  TABLE 14 E f f e c t o f M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e ' and A b i l i t y on the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between LPC and Speed of Group D e c i s i o n Mean Group Performance Scores HIGH  LOW  Intelligence  18.7  (n=12)  13.3  (n=12)  Ability  16.3  (n=12)  15.6  (n=12)  Motivation  19.2  Cn=12)  12.8  (n=12)  A n a l y s i s of Covariance Source  Df  Intelligence  1  1.5  2.95  .10  Ability  1  2.5  0.05  N.S.  Motivation  1  2.4  4.74  . 04  Octant  2  2.9  0.58  N.S.  17  2.9  Error  Mean Square  F  Significance  58  TABLE 15 E f f e c t of I n t e l l i g e n c e , A B i l i t y and M o t i v a t i o n on the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between LPC and Q u a l i t y of Group D e c i s i o n Mean' Group Performance Scores HIGH  LOW  Intelligence  11.9  Cn=12)  10.3  (n=12)  ABility  11.3  Cn=12)  10.9  (n=12)  Motivation  11.5  (n=12)  10.7  (n=12)  F  Significance  A n a l y s i s o f Covariance  Source  Df  Intelligence  1  1.16  2. 99  .09  ABility  1  4.59  0.11  N.S.  Motivation  1  3.56  0.91  N.S.  Octant  2  8.06  20.68  0.00  17  8.07  Error  Mean Square  Table 15 Cb).  Thus, i t was found that  l e a d e r s o% .motivated  groups achieved higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms o f .. speed but f a i l e d t o do so i n terms o f q u a l i t y . The e f f e c t o f the F i e d l e r v a r i a b l e s between l e a d e r s h i p  on the r e l a t i o n s h i p  s t y l e and group p r o d u c t i v i t y  remained the  same as was found  i n the ANOVA r e p o r t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s  The o c t a n t e f f e c t  (differences  i n task s t r u c t u r e ,  section.  p o s i t i o n power  and l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s ) was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the q u a l i t y o f group d e c i s i o n of group 3.4  t P - P5* ) but not f o r the speed  decision.  Summary o f F i n d i n g s R e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n the present chapter p r o v i d e d moderate  support i n terms o f d i r e c t i o n and magnitude of c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the Contingency  Theory hypotheses.  to s a t i s f y the t e s t of s t a t i s t i c a l  A l l but one r e s u l t  failed  significance.  In the e x t e n s i o n p a r t o f the study the a b i l i t y f a i l e d t o demonstrate the e f f e c t hypothesized. e f f e c t of i n t e l l i g e n c e was supported.  variable  The hypothesized  However, the evidence  pro-  v i d e d i n favour o f the hypothesized e f f e c t o f m o t i v a t i o n as a situational variable affected  was o n l y p a r t i a l .  the speed of group d e c i s i o n ,  strong e f f e c t on the q u a l i t y o f group  Motivation s i g n i f i c a n t l y but f a i l e d to show any decision.  CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND 4.1.  Findings The  CONCLUSIONS  Relevant to the Hypotheses  f i n d i n g s from the present  study provided  p o r t f o r the Contingency Theory hypotheses.  moderate sup-  I t was  found t h a t  task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s were more e f f e c t i v e i n extremely able  [Oct. 1) or extremely unfavourable  favour-  (Oct. 8) s i t u a t i o n s ,  whereas people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s were s u c c e s s f u l i n s i t u a t i o n s of i n t e r m e d i a t e  favourableness  (Oct. 4).  This f i n d i n g  was,  Of course, s u b j e c t to the s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s of ' s i t u a t i o n a l f , a y o u r a b i l i t y ' , ' l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e ' and  'leadership e f f e c t i v e n e s s  as s p e c i f i e d i n the Contingency Model of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e ness . The  r e s u l t s reported  ence t h a t has  here a l s o added to the mass of e v i d -  been gathered over the past two  decades on  contingency nature of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s .  the  Results  indic-  ated t h a t e f f e c t i v e n e s s of l e a d e r behaviour i n a c h i e v i n g  higher  group p r o d u c t i v i t y i s dependent upon task s t r u c t u r e , p o s i t i o n power and  leader member r e l a t i o n s .  t i c s of the r e s u l t s were n o t i c e d :  1) low  leader  Three c h a r a c t e r i s -  correlation in  two  instances;  2) l a c k of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e with the excep-  t i o n of one  case;  the present  f i n d i n g s w i t h those of e a r l i e r t e s t s of the Con-  tingency  but  3) c o n s i s t e n c y  i n terms of d i r e c t i o n of  Model.  Some doubt has  been c a s t on the p l a u s i b i l i t y of  the  1  61 Contingency- Theory hypotheses By s e v e r a l s t u d i e s , n o t a b l y those by- Graen e t a l , (1970,1971) , et a l . c a l l e d  Because of the l a c k of what Graen  ' e v i d e n t i a l p r o b a b i l i t y ' , l a c k of s e n s i t i v i t y o f  the model t o " c o r r e c t i o n a l i n f luences", and a l s o because of "experimenter b i a s e f f e c t " , Graen and h i s associate's observed: ... 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 c l e a r l y has l o s t the capa b i l i t y o f d i r e c t i n g meaningful r e s e a r c h . (p. 295) . X t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that F i e d l e r  (1971a), a f t e r a  c a r e f u l review of the Contingency Model studies r e p o r t e d to date obseryed: A s e r i e s of s t u d i e s , extending the theory was reviewed. Taken as a group, these s t u d i e s p r o v i d e s t r o n g evidence t h a t the s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness dimension does indeed moderate the r e l a t i o n s h i p - between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and group performance and t h a t i t p r o v i d e s an imp o r t a n t c l u e to our understanding of l e a d e r s h i p phenomena, (p. 147.) Confusing and c o n t r a d i c t o r y as the above two o p i n i o n s are, more p u z z l i n g are the data p r o v i d e d by both r e s e a r c h e r s i n supp o r t of t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n .  To put the i s s u e i n t o proper per-  s p e c t i v e , some f i n d i n g s from F i e d l e r  (1971a) and Graen et a l .  (1970) are reproduced here i n Tables 16 and 17 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  TABLE 16 Summary o f C o r r e l a t i o n s Between LPC and Group Performance Reported i n F i e l d and Laboratory Studies T e s t i n g the Contingency Model  Study  I  II  III  Octants IV V  VI  VII  VIII  F i e l d Studies Hunt  (1967)  Hill  C1969) a  -.64 -.51  .21  -.80 .60 -.10  -.24  -.29  e t a l . C1969)  -.21  .00  O'Brien e t a l . (1969)  -.46  .47  Fiedler  .30 -.30 .62 -.51  .67*  .14  -.45  Laboratory Experiments B e l g i a n Navy Shima  -.72  (1968) a  Mitchell Fiedler Skrzpek  -.16 -.54  -.26  (1969) exec, a  .37 .50  -.43  .08 .13  .07 .14  .26 -.27  -.37 .60  .28  .13  .08  -.33  .71*  .24 .17  .43 .38  .34  .51  -.32  .16 .03  .10  .35  VI  VII  VIII  Median: AH  studies  -.64  .17  -.22  .38  .22  .10  .26  -.35  -.57  -.21  -.29  .23  .21  -.24  .30  -.33  Laboratory experiments  -.72  .24  -.16  .38  .16  .13  .08  -.33  Median c o r r e l a t i o n s of F i e d l e r ' s o r i g i n a l studies (.1964)  ^.52  -.58  .33  .47  .42  .05  -.44  Field  NOTE:  studies  Number o f c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the expected d i r e c t i o n ( e x c l u s i v e of Octant VI, f o r Which no p r e d i c t i o n had beeb made) = 34; number o f c o r r e l a t i o n s o p p o s i t e to expected d i r e c t i o n = 1 1 ; p by binomial t e s t = .01. S t u d i e s not conducted by the w r i t e r or h i s a s s o c i a t e s . P ±  .05.  Source:  Fiedler  (1971a, p. 140),  TABLE 17  +  Comparison of Antecedent and E v i d e n t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s Between LPC and Group Performance  Statistic  I  II  III  Antecedent  -.54  -.60  -.17  Evidential  -.16  .08  t  1.83*  -2.44*  Octant IV  V  VI  VII  VIII  .50  .41  -  .15  -.47  -.12  .04  .09  -.21  .15  .08  -.19  2.02*  2.56*  -  .00  -2.81*  Mean:  means  Standard  deviation;  Antecedent  .25  .12  .56  .39  .15  -  .28  .35  Evidential Number:  .62  .51  .52  .62  .29  .52  .38  .55  Antecedent  8  3  12  10  6  0  12  12  Evidential  12  13  9  8  11  13  9  8  *  p f. . 05.  **  p *• .01.  +  Source;  Graen e t a l . (1970, p. 293).  65 Table 16 p r e s e n t s data t h a t F i e d l e r has p r o v i d e d as- a summary of a l l studies, done on the Contingency c e p t i o n of those by Graen et a l .  Model w i t h the  Data from the Graen Study were  r e j e c t e d by F i e d l e r on grounds of "flaws i n the method of imentation".  exper-  On the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s shown i n the l a s t  rows of Table 16, F i e d l e r concluded  four  t h a t the f i n d i n g s from Con-  t i n g e n c y Model s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d a f t e r 1964  provided  and c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s except f o r o c t a n t s 2 and s u l t s were c o n t r a r y t o the Contingency  meaningful  6, where some r e -  Theory p r e d i c t i o n s .  Graen et a l . (1970), on the other hand, r e p o r t e d t h e i r f i n d i n g s which are reproduced  ex-  i n Table 17.  own  These i n v e s t i g a t o r s  computed a mean of c o r r e l a t i o n s found  from a l l the s t u d i e s up to  1964  correlation.  which they named as  'antecedent'  They a l s o  computed a mean c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d a f t e r which they l a b e l l e d between the  'evidential' correlation.  'antecedent  1  and  1964  The i n c o n s i s t e n c y  ' e v i d e n t i a l ' c o r r e l a t i o n s i s obvious  when one compares the f i r s t two rows of Table 4 of the Graen et al.  (.1970) study as reproduced  here i n Table 17.  such a wide d i s c r e p a n c y between antecedent i n favour of the Contingency  Since t h e r e  and e v i d e n t i a l  support  Model, Graen and h i s a s s o c i a t e d sug-  gested t h a t the model should be  rejected.  I t w i l l be i n t e r e s t i n g to compare the f i n d i n g s from present experiment  was  w i t h the f i n d i n g s of both r e s e a r c h e r s .  the present study examined o n l y 3 o c t a n t s  (octants 1, 4 and  the Since 8),  data r e l e v a n t o n l y t o these three o c t a n t s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d . Tables 18 and 19 p r o v i d e such a  comparison.  66 TABLE 18 Comparison o f R e s u l t s Reported by F i e d l e r C1971a, Table 6, p. 140]. and the Present Study  Nature o f Studies  Octant 1  Octant 4  Octant 8  r=-.64  r=.3 8  r=-.3 5  r=-.57  r=.23  r=~.33  Laboratory Experiment  r=-.72  r=.3 8  r=-.33  Present Study: Q u a l i t y & LPC  r=-.10  r^.34  r=-.10  r=-.69*  r=.48  r=-.51  r=-.52  r=.47  r=-.44  All  Studies  Field  Studies  Speed & LPC Median c o r r e l a t i o n s of Fiedler's original studies (1964)  67  TABLE 19 Comparison of R e s u l t s Reported by Graen e t a l . (1970, Table 4, p. 293) and tile Present Study  Octant 1  Octant 4  Octant 8  Antecedent  r= -.54  r= .50  r= -.47  Evidential  r= -.16  r= .04  r= .08  r= -.10  r= .34  r= -.10  r= -.69*  r= .48  r= -.51  Nature o f S t u d i e s Mean  Mean  Quality  & LPC  Speed & LPC  R e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n Table 18 i n d i c a t e the c o n s i s t e n c y o f findings  from the present study with those r e p o r t e d by F i e d l e r  (1971a) i n h i s summary o f s t u d i e s based on the Contingency Model. Of the 6 c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d by the present study, 4 were of the same magnitude as found i n both antecedent and e v i d e n t i a l All  studies.  6 c o r r e l a t i o n s were i n the same d i r e c t i o n p r e d i c t e d by the  model. R e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n Table 19, however, show a d i s c r e p a n c y between f i n d i n g s of the present study and those r e p o r t e d by Graen et a l . (1970).  While the c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d by the present  study compare f a v o u r a b l y w i t h 'mean antecedent' c o r r e l a t i o n s r e ported by Graen, they d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n terms o f both d i r e c t i o n and magnitude from the 'mean e v i d e n t i a l ' c o r r e l a t i o n s .  68 Comparative r e s u l t s as; r e p o r t e d  i n Tables 18 and 19 tend  to complement the cumulative f i n d i n g s ' r e p o r t e d c o n t r a d i c t those r e p o r t e d  by Graen.  by- 'Fiedler and  T h i s , however, should not  be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t the evidence i n favour t i n g e n c y Theory hypotheses are devoid  o f the Con-  of any bone of c o n t e n t i o n .  Two f a c t o r s which continue t o c a s t doubt on the v a l i d i t y of Contingency- Model p r e d i c t i o n s are;  1) the low magnitude o f r e -  l a t i o n s h i p found between LPC and group p r o d u c t i v i t y ;  and 2) l a c k  of s t a t i s t i c a l  F i v e out  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the r e p o r t e d  results.  of the s i x c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d may be c r i t i c i z e d t o have been obtained  by chance.  The  evidence that has been r e p o r t e d  here on the q u e s t i o n  of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s may be c r i t i c i s e d as not a p p l i c a b l e to  ' r e a l world' l e a d e r s h i p s i t u a t i o n s .  present  study were students.  tificially  created.  The e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y o f most i n v e s t i g -  of  (Weick, 1965).  The r e -  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , however, complement what has  been found i n numerous f i e l d present  i n the  The l e a d e r s h i p s i t u a t i o n s were a r -  a t i o n s of t h i s nature i s u s u a l l y suspect s u l t s o f the present  The s u b j e c t s  s t u d i e s and f i e l d experiments.  The  f i n d i n g s , t h e r e f o r e , may be accepted with a f a i r degree  confidence. In the extension  p a r t of the study, i t was e s t a b l i s h e d  t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e o f a l e a d e r and group members ought to be considered i n defining s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y f o r a leader. Leaders o f groups under the c o n d i t i o n of h i g h i n t e l l i g e n c e achieved  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  w i t h low i n t e l l i g e n c e .  p r o d u c t i v i t y than l e a d e r s of groups  T h i s achievement of higher  productivity  69  was n o t i c e d both, i n terms of q u a l i t y and speed o f the group d e c i s i o n making. The  r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t a b i l i t y o f the l e a d e r and  group members as o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by- s e l f esteem d i d not a f f e c t the s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y f o r the l e a d e r . c o n d i t i o n s o f h i g h and low a b i l i t y achieved i d e n t i c a l q u a l i t y and speed. IV was r e j e c t e d .  operationally  because o f the way i n which a b i l i t y was  was found i n favour of the hypothesis  that  o f l e a d e r s and group members i n f l u e n c e s the e f f e c t -  iveness o f a l e a d e r ' s r o l e . the assigned  Leaders o f motivated groups solved  problem w i t h i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y s h o r t e r time than d i d  l e a d e r s o f non-motivated groups. motivation  however, t h a t these r e s u l t s  defined.  Some support motivation  p r o d u c t i v i t y with  Because of t h i s f i n d i n g Hypothesis  I t was s p e c u l a t e d ,  may have been obtained  Groups under  T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between  and group p r o d u c t i v i t y , however, f a i l e d t o a f f e c t the  q u a l i t y o f group output.  That i s , no d i f f e r e n c e was found i n the  q u a l i t y o f group output between the motivated and non-motivated groups.  Thus evidence r e p o r t e d here i n favour o f the hypothesized  e f f e c t of motivation ed as p a r t i a l  on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s can be c o n s i d e r -  only.  I t should be p o i n t e d out t h a t the f i n d i n g s o f the present study concerning and m o t i v a t i o n  the moderating e f f e c t s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  ability  on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s should be c o n s i d e r e d  as t e n t a t i v e and e x p l o r a t o r y .  This study was the f i r s t i n v e s t i g -  a t i o n which t e s t e d these three v a r i a b l e s i n framework o f the Contingency Theory o f l e a d e r s h i p .  Further  studies including  70 these v a r i a b l e s are needed b e f o r e a p p r e c i a b l e confidence may p l a c e d on the present One  be  findings.  aspect of the f i n d i n g s i n Experiment B concerned  how  the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s would r e a c t on the e i g h t o r i g i n a l c e l l s of the Contingency  Model.  I t was  not p o s s i b l e to answer the ques-  t i o n here because of the l i m i t e d number of c e l l s t h a t were studied.  A more comprehensive study i n v o l v i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  ability  and m o t i v a t i o n as w e l l as the three o r i g i n a l contingency v a r i a b l e s i s needed to show how also i n  the v a r i a b l e s i n t e r a c t on one  another  and  combination. I t i s b e l i e v e d however, t h a t a reasonable  ence was  generated  amount of e v i d -  here to i n d i c a t e t h a t m o t i v a t i o n ,  intelligence  and a b i l i t y should be c o n s i d e r e d as parameters o f l e a d e r s h i p favourability.  The present study p r o v i d e d e m p i r i c a l support  the c o n t e n t i o n s of F i e d l e r  (.1967) and H i l l  to  (1969) t h a t these  v a r i a b l e s do indeed moderate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and group p r o d u c t i v i t y .  Based on what has been l e a r n e d  from the present study, an e x t e n s i o n of the model i s recommended as shown i n F i g u r e I. The present f i n d i n g s a l s o added to the growing body of evidence r e g a r d i n g the i n t e r a c t i v e nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p tween l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and v e s t i g a t i o n was Theory. The  situational favourability.  c a r r i e d out i n the context of the  But the message was  study may  be-  The i n -  Contingency  c a r r i e d beyond t h i s s p e c i f i c  theory.  be c o n s i d e r e d as i n union w i t h other r e s e a r c h t h a t  supports the contemporary viewpoint  that leadership effectiveness  i s not j u s t an outcome of s t y l e , but t h a t i t i s a j o i n t of s t y l e , s t r u c t u r e and  situation.  product  FIGURE  I  Situational Favourability, Leadership and Group Productivity  1  Cal  Leadership LPC  The C o n t i n g e n c y Model style  (b)  Variables: --  Situation  Group Productivity  favourability  Position power  Task structure  1  Style  Leader member relations  Extension:  Intel-** ligen.ce  T  Situation  Task structure  Indicates  weak  Motivation  favourability  "Position power  empirical  Group productivity  Leader memberrelations  support.  72 4.2  Relevance and V a l i d i t y of the Measures: I t seems worthwhile to. e x p l o r e why  Hypothesis  XV  regard-  ing the p o s t u l a t e d e f f e c t of a b i l i t y on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s was  not supported  by the r e s u l t s .  As a l r e a d y mentioned i n Chap-  t e r 2, a s a t i s f a c t o r y measure, of task r e l a t e d a b i l i t y f o r the k i n d of t a s k s used f o r the present find.  A measure of s e l f esteem was  d e f i n i t i o n of a b i l i t y .  study was accepted  very d i f f i c u l t  to  as an o p e r a t i o n a l  S e l f esteem indeed r e f l e c t s an  individ-  u a l ' s permanent c a p a c i t i e s which he has a c q u i r e d over a long p e r i o d of time.  On a post hoc b a s i s , i t may  be s p e c u l a t e d t h a t the  k i n d of a b i l i t y measure most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a t h i r t y to f i v e minute experiment should be something more c l o s e l y to the task at hand. the present study  I t may  fortyrelated  w e l l be t h a t the instrument  used i n  f a i l e d to tap the v a r i a b l e i t purported  to  measure. A measure which had f i n d i n g s was  a g r e a t d e a l of i n f l u e n c e on  the Least P r e f e r r e d Co-worker measure.  As  the explained  e a r l i e r i n Chapter 2, the c o n t r o v e r s y on the v a l i d i t y of the measure has not been s e t t l e d .  An e f f o r t was  made here to v a l i d -  ate the measure by means of a panel r a t i n g of a c t u a l l e a d e r haviour.  I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the panel r a t i n g was  to be s a t i s f a c t o r y but the v a l i d i t y was  unknown of the  n a i r e known as Leader Behaviour R a t i n g t h a t was rating.  Consequently, i t was  r e l a t i o n between LPC  scores and panel r a t i n g s .  measured by the LPC  be-  found  question-  used i n panel  d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n the low  c l u s i o n t h a t c o u l d be drawn was  LPC  The  cor-  o n l y con-  t h a t l e a d e r s h i p behaviour  d i d not c o r r e l a t e w i t h what a panel of  as  observers thought to be the demonstrated ers.  behaviour o f the leadT-  The t r u e meaning o f the LPC measure remains unknown. M o t i v a t i o n as e x p e r i m e n t a l l y manipulated  by cash rewards  a f f e c t e d group p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms of speed but not i n terms of q u a l i t y .  T h i s might be due t o two reasons:  1) The s u b j e c t s '  understanding o f what c o n s t i t u t e d q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n was probably weaker than t h e i r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f speed o f d e c i s i o n . For example, i n the u n s t r u c t u r e d task which r e q u i r e d the groups to come up w i t h a l i s t o f the f i v e most important t r a i t s needed f o r success i n a c u l t u r e , i t was d i f f i c u l t  f o r the s u b j e c t s t o  d i s t i n g u i s h good q u a l i t y from poor s o l u t i o n s . Speed o f s o l u t i o n , on the other hand, was o b j e c t i v e l y recorded.  The s u b j e c t s knew  that a l l they had to do t o s a t i s f y the c r i t e r i o n o f q u a l i t y was to minimize  time t o the best of t h e i r c a p a c i t y .  2) M o t i v a t i o n was d e f i n e d i n terms of a t t r a c t i o n some monetary i n c e n t i v e . Vroom ation.  (1964) , Campbell  toward  Such a d e f i n i t i o n i n c l u d e d o n l y what  e t a l . (1970) have c a l l e d e x t r i n s i c  motiv-  No e f f o r t was made t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e and measure i n t r i n -  s i c m o t i v a t i o n from e x t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n .  In completing the  post experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e on t h e i r l e v e l of m o t i v a t i o n , some s u b j e c t s r a t e d themselves had been working  as 'motivated' when i n f a c t  under a 'non-motivated'  experimental  they  condition.  When asked about the d i s c r e p a n c y , they admitted t h a t they were motivated to do a good job simply f o r the enjoyment o f doing a good job. could.  They d e r i v e d p l e a s u r e i n performing as best they  A more adequate m a n i p u l a t i o n and measurement o f motiv-  a t i o n was needed.  74 Task s t r u c t u r e was m a n i p u l a t e d i n the experiment by means of task s e l e c t i o n .  According to F i e d l e r , a c u t t i n g score of  points distinguished structured  from -unstructured  tasks.  five  The  two t a s k s s e l e c t e d f o r the experiment p a n e l r a t i n g on s t r u c t u r e were v e r y c l o s e t o the c u t t i n g p o i n t s t r e n g t h e n the e f f e c t n e s s , the d i f f e r e n c e imized.  (e.g.,  4.95 and 3 . 7 3 ) .  of t a s k s t r u c t u r e on l e a d e r s h i p  To  effective-  s c o r e on r a t i n g o f s t r u c t u r e s h o u l d be max-  T h i s was not p o s s i b l e because s u i t a b l e t a s k s w i t h  larger difference  s c o r e s were not a v a i l a b l e .  Construction of  s u i t a b l e t a s k s t o meet the s p e c i f i c demands o f an e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n probably could a l l e v i a t e t h i s  problem.  A c c o r d i n g to the C o n t i n g e n c y M o d e l , p o s i t i o n power i s d e f i n e d i n terms o f two i n d i c e s : fire; it  and 2) symbol o f s t a t u s .  i s very d i f f i c u l t  leader  1)  c a p a c i t y t o r e w a r d , h i r e and  In an e x p e r i m e n t a l  situation,  t o p r o v i d e a l e a d e r w i t h such power.  The  i n the p r e s e n t study had but l i t t l e f a t e c o n t r o l over  group members who know the ad hoc n a t u r e o f the l e a d e r ' s power.  In the s t r o n g p o s i t i o n power c o n d i t i o n , a l l the  c o u l d o f f e r t o i n f l u e n c e the members was a f i v e d o l l a r  position leader bill.  M a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h i s v a r i a b l e would i n a r e a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , much more  the  be  feasible.  The d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered  i n the m a n i p u l a t i o n o f group  atmosphere were i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h o s e f a c e d i n the attempted i n d u c t i o n o f p o s i t i o n power.  Because the s u b j e c t s knew t h a t  were i n an experiment f o r o n l y a s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e , they ed not t o e x p r e s s workers.  they tend-  f e e l i n g s of h o s t i l i t y to the l e a d e r and c o -  Only i n r a r e cases where a s u b j e c t  held a strong  75 o p i n i o n on an i s s u e were 'these s u b j e c t t o censure by the group. Time tended to have some e f f e c t even on the care used i n com-r p l e t i n g the Group Atmosphere  questionnaire.  Posthuma  (1970)  hypothesizes t h a t because the s u b j e c t s meet f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d of  time and may never meet again as a group, they tend to g i v e  a f a v o u r a b l e r a t i n g t o the group e x p e r i e n c e . I n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d i n the assignment of  s u b j e c t s t o groups.  I t was thought t h a t such i n t e r p e r s o n a l  r e f e r e n c e s would help t o strengthen the q u a l i t y o f the group a t mosphere and counter the e f f e c t o f the a r t i f i c i a l i t y o f the exp e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n and s h o r t l e n g t h of time p e r i o d .  Such ex-  p e r i m e n t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n had some e f f e c t , but to a f a r l e s s degree than was a n t i c i p a t e d .  C o n t r o l of group atmosphere  i n an exper-  imental study remains a d i f f i c u l t task to be accomplished. The Contingency Model d e f i n e s l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n terms of group p r o d u c t i v i t y .  A c c o r d i n g l y , s i g n i f i c a n c e o f any  f i n d i n g from r e s e a r c h on the model depends on the v a l i d i t y w i t h which group p r o d u c t i v i t y i s measured.  Two c r i t e r i a of group p r o -  d u c t i v i t y accepted f o r the study were speed and q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n making.  The measurement of speed was o b j e c t i v e ,  a c t u a l time taken by each o f the groups was recorded. validity  of the measurement o f speed was beyond  since  Thus the  doubt.  Q u a l i t y o f group p r o d u c t i v i t y on the other hand, was r a t e d by a p a n e l o f judges i n terms of four anchors (e.g., adequacy, i s s u e involvement, e x c l u s i v e n e s s , c l a r i t y o f p r e s e n t a t i o n ) p r o v i d e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r .  The c h o i c e o f anchors was s u b j e c t  to the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s b i a s e s and a c c o r d i n g l y r e s u l t o b t a i n e d  76 under the c r i t e r i o n  'quality-' was  s u b j e c t to the  particular  d e f i n i t i o n of q u a l i t y as adopted by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . ;  4.3  F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h Re c omme nd a t i o n s : For the past few decades, more q u e s t i o n s have been r a i s e d  i n r e s e a r c h on l e a d e r s h i p than  i t has been p o s s i b l e to answer.  What a t t r i b u t e s made l e a d e r s h i p p o s s i b l e , was  probably  q u e s t i o n to s t a r t a s e r i e s of r e s e a r c h undertakings.  the  first  Hundreds  of p h y s i c a l and mental q u a l i t i e s were c o r r e l a t e d with l e a d e r s h i p positions.  In the p r o c e s s , the need f o r c o n s i d e r i n g the  became apparent.  Before the s i t u a t i o n a l approach could d i v e r t  r e s e a r c h a t t e n t i o n to the extreme, the movement emerged.  situation  The  'Personality x Situation'  present r e s e a r c h focus on l e a d e r s h i p i s  concerned w i t h s p e c i f y i n g c l e a r l y what p e r s o n a l i t y or s t y l e  will  marry w i t h what s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . As mentioned e a r l i e r , there has been no l i t t l e  debate  whether the r e s e a r c h program on the Contingency Model should continued  CGraen et a l . , 1970,  ed here was  F i e d l e r , 1971).  study r e p o r t -  c a r r i e d on i n the b e l i e f t h a t more r e s e a r c h was  q u i r e d before f i n a l judgment c o u l d be reached the model.  The  re-  on the v a l i d i t y of  F u r t h e r e f f o r t s were needed to s p e c i f y c a r e f u l l y  r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s to be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e f i n i n g s i t u a t i o n ability.  The  r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d here lend some support  tingency Model hypotheses.  Three new  e f f e c t of these v a r i a b l e s met  the  favour-  to the Con-  variables, intelligence,  a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n were examined as a t t r i b u t e s of the meter c a l l e d s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y .  be  The  para-  e f f o r t to examine the  w i t h v a r i o u s degrees of  success.  More and b e t t e r c o n t r o l l e d s t u d i e s , however, are necessary- £ef o r e we can p l a c e confidence i n the f i n d i n g s of the present investigation. I t was ' a b i l i t y * was  s p e c u l a t e d t h a t measurement of the v a r i a b l e not s a t i s f a c t o r y - .  F u t u r e r e s e a r c h should examine  t h i s v a r i a b l e as a contingency f o r l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n a more t a s k r e l a t e d sense s e l f esteem).  ( t e c h n i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n r a t h e r than  F u r t h e r , the v a r i a b l e  'motivation' should be mani-  p u l a t e d more adequately  i n both the  sense of the term.  i n f l u e n c e of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s t a t e of  The  ' i n t r i n s i c ' and  'extrinsic'  m o t i v a t i o n as a moderator o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s was l i s h e d here.  Future s t u d i e s may  estab-  be able to e s t a b l i s h even  stronger e f f e c t s f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e i f i t i s measured more adequately. Because of sampling  and design l i m i t a t i o n s , i t was  not  p o s s i b l e to examine the e f f e c t of the three added v a r i a b l e s the o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s of the Contingency a l l combinations conducted.  Model.  on  A study using  of the s i x v a r i a b l e s should be designed  A p p r o p r i a t e measurement of the main and  and  interaction  e f f e c t s of the s i x v a r i a b l e s on l e a d e r s h i p and group performance will  i n d i c a t e the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t may  the s i x s i t u a t i o n a l I t was  e x i s t among  parameters.  observed  e a r l i e r t h a t experimental  manipulations  w i t h regard to group atmosphere and l e a d e r p o s i t i o n were not strong because of the b r e v i t y of the experimental time p e r i o d . I t would a l s o be worth e x p l o r i n g whether time as an  independent  78  v a r i a b l e has and  any  e f f e c t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between LPC  group p r o d u c t i v i t y .  A l o n g i t u d i n a l study would answer  q u e s t i o n as to whether s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y of a changes over time.  score the  leader  A l o n g i t u d i n a l study i n v o l v i n g a long  period  of time, of course, cannot be conducted i n the context of a laboratory  experiment.  .be needed to study- the  A f i e l d experiment or a f i e l d study w i l l e f f e c t s of time on l e a d e r s h i p  effective-  ness , One  concern u n i v e r s a l l y v o i c e d  from s t u d i e s  by c r i t i c s of  on the Contingency Model regards the  l i a b i l i t y - of the f i n d i n g s . Statistically  significant results.  Statistical  not been f e a s i b l e f o r most i n v e s t i g a t o r s  S i z e sample f o r s t u d i e s  statistical  S t u d i e s thus f a r have not  however, i s a f u n c t i o n of l a r g e sample s i z e . has  findings re-  produced  significance,  Unfortunately, i t to o b t a i n  a  large  of the Contingency Model w i t h i t s e i g h t  c e l l s a,nd requirement f o r one  group to p r o v i d e a s i n g l e obser-  vation.  In the present study, c o r r e l a t i o n s as high as r =  were not  statistically  s i g n i f i c a n t s i n c e the r e s u l t s were  ed w i t h sample s i z e of e i g h t o b s e r v a t i o n s . sample s i z e s seem needed i f s t a t i s t i c a l  .52 obtain-  Studies with larger  s i g n i f i c a n c e i s to  be  achieved. The  present i n v e s t i g a t o r concurs with the o p i n i o n  et a l . C19.70I t h a t a n . i n d u c t i v e l y tingency- :Model, should be i n terms of new  findings.  accept m o d i f i c a t i o n s  derived  theory such as the Con-  s e n s i t i v e to " c o r r e c t i o n a l The  t h a t may  of Graen  influences"  t h e o r i s t should be prepared to be proposed from time to time on  the b a s i s of ongoing r e s e a r c h experience.  The  study  reported  79 here e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t at l e a s t three a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s may needed to d e f i n e reveal s t i l l  situational favourability.  Future s t u d i e s  f u r t h e r leaders-hip c o n t i n g e n c i e s  be may  than were hypothe-  s i z e d here. 4.4  Conclusion Based on data provided  i n Chapter 3 and  Chapter 4, the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s  may  discussion in  be drawn from  the  present study: 1.  The  study provided  a d d i t i o n a l evidence on the  o f the Contingency Model of l e a d e r s h i p R e s u l t s reported  i n Tables 10 and  validity  effectiveness.  11 provided  support f o r the p r e d i c t i o n s of the model.  moderate  From a  comparison of f i n d i n g s of the present study with those of F i e d l e r  C1971a) and  Graen et a l . (1970), i t may  be  concluded t h a t the present study tended to complement the e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d Graen et a l ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s 2.  In the extension a)  b)  study, i t was  s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected  speed of group d e c i s i o n and leader's  contradict  on the v a l i d i t y of the model.  p a r t of the  that motivation  by F i e d l e r and  contributed  to  found: the the  effectiveness;  t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e of the  leaders  and  group  members s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d both the q u a l i t y and  speed o f group d e c i s i o n ;  c)  t h a t a b i l i t y as o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d  s e l f esteem measure d i d not  a f f e c t either  by the  a  80  speed or the q u a l i t y o f group d e c i s i o n ; dl  that, m o t i v a t i o n  d i d not i n f l u e n c e the q u a l i t y  of group output. On the B a s i s of f i n d i n g s 2 Cal , , 2 CB) , 2 Cc) , 2 Cd) , i t may concluded t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e , m o t i v a t i o n should Be i n c o r p o r a t e d  and perhaps  Be  aBility  i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s of the Contingency Model  a,s parameters of s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a B i l i t y . 3.  The study a l s o added i n d i r e c t l y to our knowledge of l e a d e r s h i p Behaviour By showing iveness  that leadership  effect-  i s a j o i n t product o f s t y l e , s t r u c t u r e and  situation. The study has t e s t e d the e f f e c t of three  leadership  con-  t i n g e n c i e s and has a l s o added to the p l a u s i B i l i t y of one of the advanced  theories of leadership  ( i . e . , the Contingency Model).  I t i s expected t h a t f u t u r e s t u d i e s w i l l c o n t i n u e e x p l o r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s that may  e x i s t Between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e ,  p r o d u c t i v i t y and s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a B i l i t y .  group  APPENDIX I  BERGER"S ACCEPTANCE OF SELF SCALE  81  F o l l o w i n g are questions of some of your a t t i t u d e s . Of, course there i s no r i g h t answer f o r any statement. The best answer i s t h a t you f e e l i s t r u e of yourself;. You are to respond to each q u e s t i o n by c i r c l i n g a number preceding each q u e s t i o n a c c o r d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g scheme: 1  2  3  Not at a l l t r u e of myself  Slightly t r u e of myself  About h a l f way t r u e of -myself  4  5  Mostly t r u e of myself  True of myself  Remember, the best answer i s the one which a p p l i e s to  you.  12  3 4 5  Cl)  I'd l i k e i t i f I c o u l d f i n d someone who would t e l l me how to s o l v e my p e r s o n a l problems.  12  3 4 5  C2)  I don't q u e s t i o n my worth as a person, I t h i n k others do.  12  3 4 5  C3)  When people say n i c e t h i n g s about me, I f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to b e l i e v e they r e a l l y mean i t . I t h i n k maybe they're k i d d i n g me or j u s t aren't being s i n c e r e .  12  3 4 5  C4)  I f t h e r e i s any c r i t i c i s m or anyone says anything about me, I j u s t can't take i t .  12  3 4 5  C5)  I don't say much at s o c i a l a f f a i r s because I'm a f r a i d t h a t people w i l l c r i t i c i z e me or laugh i f I say the wrong t h i n g .  12  3 4 5  C6)  I r e a l i z e t h a t I'm not l i v i n g very e f f e c t i v e l y but I j u s t don't b e l i e v e I've got i t i n me to use my e n e r g i e s i n b e t t e r ways.  12  3 4 5  C7)  I look on most of the f e e l i n g s and impulses I have toward people as being q u i t e n a t u r a l and acceptable.  12  3 4 5  C8)  Something i n s i d e me j u s t won't l e t me be s a t i s f i e d w i t h any job I've done -- i f i t turns out w e l l , I get a very smug f e e l i n g t h a t t h i s i s beneath me, I should not be s a t i s f i e d with t h i s ; t h i s i s n ' t a f a i r t e s t .  12  3 4 5  C9]  I f e e l d i f f e r e n t from other people. I'd l i k e to have the f e e l i n g of s e c u r i t y t h a t comes from knowing I'm not too d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r s .  even i f  82 1 2 3 4 5  (10). I'm a f r a i d f o r people t h a t I l i k e t o f i n d out what I'.m r e a l l y l i k e , f o r .fear they' d be d i s a p p o i n t e d i n -me.' ''  1 2 3 4 5  [11]  I am f r e q u e n t l y bothered b y feelings- o f inferiority.  12 3 4 5  (12)  Because of other people, I haven't been a b l e to achieye as- much as I should have.  12 3 4 5  (13)  I am q u i t e shy and s e l f - c o n s c i o u s i n s o c i a l situations,  12  (14)  In order t o get along and be l i k e d , I tend to be what people expect me to be r a t h e r than anything e l s e .  1 2 3 4 5  (15)  I seem t o have a r e a l i n n e r s t r e n g t h i n handling things. I'm on p r e t t y s o l i d founda t i o n and i t makes me p r e t t y sure o f myself.  12 3 4 5  (16)  I f e e l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s when I'm w i t h people who have a s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n t o mine i n business or a t s c h o o l .  12  3 4 5  (17)  I t h i n k I'm n e u r o t i c o r something .  12  3 4 5  (18)  Very o f t e n I don't t r y t o be f r i e n d l y with people because I t h i n k they don't l i k e me.  12  3 4 5  (19)  I f e e l t h a t I'm a person of worth, on an equal plane w i t h o t h e r s .  12 3 4 5  (20)  I can't a v o i d f e e l i n g g u i l t y about the way I f e e l toward c e r t a i n people i n my l i f e .  12  3 4 5  (21)  I'm not a f r a i d o f meeting new people. I feel t h a t I'm a worthwhile person and t h e r e ' s no reason why they should d i s l i k e me.  12 3 4 5  (22)  I s o r t of only h a l f - b e l i e v e i n myself.  12  3 4 5  (23)  I'm very s e n s i t i v e . People say t h i n g s and I have a tendency f o t h i n k t h e y ' r e c r i t i c i z i n g me or i n s u l t i n g me i n some way and l a t e r when I t h i n k o f i t , they may not have meant anyt h i n g l i k e t h a t at a l l .  12 3 4 5  (24)  1 t h i n k I have c e r t a i n a b i l i t i e s and other people say so too, but I wonder i f I'm not g i v i n g them an importance way beyond what t h e y deserve.  3 4 5  83 1 2 3 4 5  (_2 5)  I f e e l c o n f i d e n t t h a t I c a n do s o m e t h i n g problems^ t h a t may a r i s e i n t h e f u t u r e .  12  3 4 5  C26)  I g u e s s 1 p u t on a show t o i m p r e s s p e o p l e . know I'm n o t t h e p e r s o n I p r e t e n d t o be.  12  3 4 5  (27)  I do n o t w o r r y o r condemn m y s e l f i f o t h e r p e o p l e p a s s judgment a g a i n s t me.  12  3 4 5  (28)  1 don't normal.  12  3 4 5  (29)  When I'm i n a g r o u p I u s u a l l y d o n ' t s a y much f o r f e a r o f s a y i n g t h e wrong t h i n g .  f e e l v e r y normal,  but  I want t o  about  I  feel  1 2 3 4 5  C 3 0 ) I have a t e n d e n c y  12  3 4 5  (31)  E v e n when p e o p l e do t h i n k w e l l o f me, I f e e l s o r t o f g u i l t y b e c a u s e I know I must be f o o l i n g them — t h a t i f I were r e a l l y t o be m y s e l f , t h e y w o u l d n ' t t h i n k w e l l o f me.  12  3 4 5  (32)  I f e e l t h a t I'm on t h e same l e v e l as o t h e r p e o p l e and t h a t h e l p s t o e s t a b l i s h g o o d r e l a t i o n s w i t h them.  12  3 4 5  (33)  I f e e l that people are apt to r e a c t d i f f e r e n t l y t o me t h a n t h e y w o u l d n o r m a l l y r e a c t t o other people.  12  3 4 5  (34)  I live  12  3 4 5  (3 5)  When I have t o a d d r e s s a g r o u p , I g e t s e l f c o n s c i o u s and have d i f f i c u l t y s a y i n g t h i n g s well.  (36)  I f I d i d n ' t a l w a y s have s u c h h a r d l u c k , a c c o m p l i s h much more t h a n I h a v e .  1 2 3 4 5  t o s i d e s t e p my  t o o much by o t h e r p e o p l e '  problems.  standards.  I'd  APPENDIX I I  SOCIOMETRIC PREFERENCE RATING  SOCIOMETRIC PREFERENCE RATING  NAME:  Suppose you are g i v e n a group assignment.  Name, i n  order o f p r e f e r e n c e , f i v e students from Com. 2 21 you would enjoy working w i t h .  (YOUR OPINIONS WILL BE  KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL).  1. _ 2. 3.  4.  5.  APPENDIX  III  THE LEAST PREFERRED COWORKER SCALE  85 People d i f f e r i n the ways t h e y t h i n k about those w i t h whom t h e y work. T h i s may be important i n working w i t h others,, Please g i y e your immediate, f i r s t r e a c t i o n t o the' items- on the f o l l o w i n g pa,ge. On the f o l l o w i n g sheet are p a i r s o f words which are o p p o s i t e i n meaning, such as V e r y Neat a,nd Not Neat. You a r e asked t o d e s c r i b e someone w i t h whom you have worked by p l a c i n g an "X" i n one o f the e i g h t spaces on the l i n e between the two words. Each space r e p r e s e n t s how w e l l the a d j e c t i v e f i t s are d e s c r i b i n g , as i f i t were w r i t t e n : Very Neat:  8 Very Neat  : 7 6 Quite Neat  :  :  : :  :  5 : 4 3 Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Somewhat Neat Untidy what Neat Untidy  :  the person you  2 Quite Untidy  :  Not : Neat  1 Very Untidy  FOR EXAMPLE: I f you were t o d e s c r i b e the person with whom you a r e able t o work l e a s t w e l l , and you o r d i n a r i l y t h i n k o f him as being q u i t e neat, you would put an "X" i n t h e second space from the words Very Neat, l i k e t h i s : Very Neat: 8 Very Neat  :  X 7 Quite Neat  : : : : : : 6 5 : 4 3 Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Somewhat Neat Untidy what Neat Untidy  : 2 Quite Untidy  Not :_Neat  1 Very Untidy  I f you o r d i n a r i l y t h i n k o f the person w i t h whom you can work l e a s t w e l l as being o n l y s l i g h t l y neat, you would put your "X" as f o l l o w s : Very Neat: 8 Very Neat  : Not X : : : : :_Neat 7 . 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 Quite Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y SomeQuite Very Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy Neat Untidy :  :  :  I f you would t h i n k o f him as being very u n t i d y , you would use the space nearest the words Not Neat. Very Neat: : 8 7 Very Quite Neat Neat  :  :  ; ;  5 5~ 1 4 Some- S l i g h t l y Slightly what Neat Untidy Neat  :  3 2 Some- Q u i t e what Untidy Untidy  Not ; X :Neat 1 yery Untidy  Look a t the words a t both ends o f t h e l i n e before you put i n your "X". Please remember t h a t t h e r e a r e no r i g h t o r wrong answers. Work rapidly; your f i r s t answer i s l i k e l y t o be t h e b e s t . Please do not omit any items, and mark each item o n l y once.  86 • LPC T h i n k o f t h e p e r s o n with, whom y o u c a n work l e a s t w e l l . He maybe someone y o u work w i t h now, o r he may- be someone y o u knew i n the p a s t . He d o e s n o t have t o be t h e p e r s o n y o u l i k e l e a s t w e l l , b u t s h o u l d be t h e p e r s o n w i t h whom y o u had t h e most d i f f i c u l t y i n g e t t i n g a j o b done. D e s c r i b e t h i s p e r s o n as he a p p e a r s t o y o u . Pleasant:  ':' ' v  8  7  ^ :' - ' :  6 ' 5  Friendly:  :  8 Rejecting:  6  1  6  7  6  *  8 :  Helpful:  8 Unenthusiastic  7  :  5 J  4 4  J  5  •  3  ^ -:  2  ' :'  4  J  :  3  2  1  3  2  1  3  2  1  3  2  1  3  2  1  *  5  4 :  8  7  6  5  4  8  7  6  5  4  : :  Distant:  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1  x  Cold:  8 Cooperative  6  1  5  4  ;  8  Supportive  1  ;  6  5  4  3  2  1  1  6  5  4  3  2  1  4  3  2  1  4  3  2  1  *  8  :  8  Selfassured  2  7  Boring: Quarrelsome  3  7  6  :  5 :  8  7  6  ;  5  *  8  Efficient Gloomy:  7  5  4  *  8  7 • *  8 8  6 X  7  •  •  5  3  '4  3  2 ':  1  2  1  '2  1'  "~2  1  :  i i  6  :' ' ^ Y ' ':  N  ~  6  v  ' 7 6  •  vv  5  -  V '  4' " ' 3 ' i  . 5' • ' 4' ~T  Unpleasant  1  : ' '  Tense:  Open:  Y  Unfriendly  :  Accepting  :  Frustrating  :  Enthusiastic  :  Relaxed  :  Close  : Warm :  Uncooperative  :  Hostile  :  Interesting  :  Harmonious  :  Hesitant  : Inefficient j  Cheerful  Guarded  APPENDIX IV  TASK 23  from M . E . Shaw's Taxonomy o f E x p e r i m e n t a l T a s k s ,  1963  "What makes f o r success i n our c u l t u r e ? " Your task i s t o d i s c u s s the q u e s t i o n you have been g i v e n and decide among yours e l v e s the f i v e most important t r a i t s a person needs f o r success i n our c u l t u r e . When you have a r r i v e d a t a d e c i s i o n , w r i t e the l i s t o f t r a i t s on a sheet o f paper and hand i t to me.  GOOD LUCK  APPENDIX -V  TASK 59.  from  M . E . Shaw's Taxonomy of E x p e r i m e n t a l T a s k s ,  (1963)  88  TASK fl,Hpr INSTRUCTIONS f Suppose you are a f i v e man  team whose job i s t o manufacture  a product, the completion o f which r e q u i r e s the o p e r a t i o n of f i v e machines.  In the p a s t you have r o t a t e d p o s i t i o n s to avoid  boredom, but each man  has spent most o f the time o p e r a t i n g the  machine t h a t he p r e f e r s .  John p r e f e r s machine 3, Steve machine 2,  Walt machine 4, Robert machine 1, and Denis machine 5. The Methods man man  has been around checking the time each  r e q u i r e s to complete the o p e r a t i o n on one product when he i s  o p e r a t i n g each of the f i v e machines. following  He has come up w i t h the  results: Machines 1  2  3  John  3 min.  3 min.  4 min.  3 1/2 min.  4 1/2 min.  Steve  2 min.  2 min.  5 min.  2 1/2 min.  3 1/2 min.  Walt  1 min.  2 min.  5 min.  2  1 1/2 min.  Robert  4 min.  1 min.  3 min.  3 1/2 min.  3  min.  Denis  5 min.  3 min.  2 min.  5  3  min.  4  5  min.  min.  Your foreman n o t i c e d t h a t when each man  runs the machine  he most p r e f e r s , the t o t a l time spent on each product i s 16 minutes.  I t seems to him t h a t a d i f f e r e n t  result  i n s u b s t a n t i a l savings.  ers  make t h e i r  own  method of o p e r a t i o n  He b e l i e v e s i n l e t t i n g  would  h i s work-  d e c i s i o n , i n so f a r as p o s s i b l e , and has  asked t h a t you c o n s i d e r the problem and t r y to come up w i t h a p l a n t h a t w i l l be more e f f i c i e n t  than the p r e s e n t mode of  89  operation. Your t a s k i s now methods man  to examine the data p r o v i d e d by  and decide which person  When you have reached  the  should operate which machine.  a d e c i s i o n , p l e a s e w r i t e your p l a n out i n  d e t a i l on the paper p r o v i d e d .  APPENDIX V I  Rating of P o s i t i o n Power & M o t i v a t i o n  For Leaders Only  Please respond to the f o l l o w i n g two questions number a c c o r d i n g t o the f o l l o w i n g scheme:  1)  5  A great deal  4  Somewhat l e s s than a g r e a t d e a l  3  More than a l i t t l e  2  Just a l i t t l e  1  None a t a l l  How much p o s i t i o n power (e.g., symbol o f your S t a t u s , c a p a c i t y to reward) d i d you have i n c a r r y i n g out the group assignment? A great deal: _  5  2)  by c i r c l i n g a  _  4  _  3  How motivated d i d you f e e l assignment?  _  2  _  1  :None a t a l l  t o do w e l l i n the group  APPENDIX V I I  Rating  of  Leader Behaviour, P o s i t i o n Power & M o t i v a t i o n  'For Co-workers Only  91 • LEADER" BEHAVIOUR' RATING . Please d e s c r i b e the behaviour o f the l e a d e r o f the present by checking the f o l l o w i n g items.: 1.  Permissive:  8  T z  2.  Requesting:  8  7  3.  Considerate:  F  7  4.  Participating: F  7  5.  Passive:  8"  7 i'6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : T  6.  Task Sharing:  F  7  6  « F  ; F ('? : F •: 2 : T : F  : ?  : F : 2  : F t 4 : J : : F : 5  2  :  group  .: S t r i c t  T  :Ordering :Rude  : T  i 4 : F : 2" : T  :Managing :Active  :. 6 : 5 : 4 : F : 2 : T  : Task Controlling  F o l l o w i n g are questions about your group. Please respond to each q u e s t i o n by c i r c l i n g a number according t o the f o l l o w i n g scheme:  1)  A great  deal  4  Somewhat l e s s than a g r e a t  3  More than a l i t t l e  2  Just a  1  None a t a l l  deal  little  How much p o s i t i o n power (e.g., symbol o f s t a t u s , c a p a c i t y to reward, etc.) the l e a d e r o f your group had i n c a r r y i n g out the group assignment? A great d e a l :  2)  5  How motivated assignment?  5  :None a t a l l  d i d you f e e l t o do w e l l i n the group  APPENDIX T i l l  Trie Group Atmosphere S c a l e  GROUP ATMOSPHERE SCALE Describe items:  the atmosphere of your group by checking the f o l l o w i n g  1. P l e a s a n t : 2. F r i e n d l y : 3. Bad: 4. Worthless: 5. D i s t a n t : 6. C o l d :  :  8  7  8  7  : 4  3  2  1 :Unfriendly  6  5 :  7  8  3  2  1  2  1  ; 5  6  : 4  :Good 4  3  : 7  8  5  6  : 4  3  : 7  8  6  8  5  : 4  7  6  5  6  7 7  • 4  6  :  : 8  2  1  : Warm  :  :  : 4  3  2  1  5  : 4  3  2  1 :  *  6  5  : 4  3  6  5  : 4  3  2 :  :  7  1  5  :  7  3  :Valuable :Close  2  •  :  8  3  :  :  :  :  1  2 :  :  J.  8. S e l f - a s s u r e d : 8  10 . Gloomy:  5  *  7. Ouarrelsome: 8  9. E f f i c i e n t :  6  :Unpleasant  :  1 *  2  1  :Harmonious :Hesitant :Inefficient :Cheerful  APPENDIX IX  R a t i n g Q u a l i t y of Group  Solution  93 QUALITY OF SOLUTION: T h i s p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n f o r group output'may be conceived as c o n s i s t i n g of the f o l l o w i n g : 1.  i  Adequacy-: f o r example/ how adequate the f i v e mentioned a r e f o r a t t a i n i n g success.  traits-  2.  Issue involvement: how r e l e v a n t the s o l u t i o n i s to the problem. For example/ a r e the f i v e t r a i t s mentioned r e l a t e d t o the attainment of success.  3.  ExclusivenesS': a r e the t r a i t s mentioned mutually e x c l u s i v e , t h a t i s , independent. A high q u a l i t y s o l u t i o n should have mutually e x c l u s i v e t r a i t s .  4.  C l a r i t y o f p r e s e n t a t i o n : d i d the group present ideas c l e a r l y ? Are the ideas well-expressed?  their  The f o l l o w i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme i s a p p l i c a b l e f o r the e v a l u a t i o n job t o be done by the judges: 5  very much  4  l e s s than very much  3  somewhat  2  just a l i t t l e  1  none  Please e v a l u a t e the present group's s o l u t i o n on adequacy: very much:  B.  Please e v a l u a t e the present group's s o l u t i o n on i s s u e involvement: very much:  C.  5^  4_  4  3_  3  2_  1_  1  :none  : none  Please e v a l u a t e the present group's s o l u t i o n on exclusiveness: very much:  D.  5_  2_  A.  5_  4_  3_  2_  1_  : none  Please e v a l u a t e the present group's s o l u t i o n on c l a r i t y of p r e s e n t a t i o n : v e r y much:  5  4_  3^  _2_  1  :none  APPENDIX X  Leader Behayiour Rating  Observers Only  LEADER BEHAVIOUR RATING Please d e s c r i b e the behaviour  o f the l e a d e r o f the present group  by, checking the f o l l o w i n g items-: 1. P e r m i s s i v e :  '''' : 8" 7  2. Requesting:  : 8  3. C o n s i d e r a t e :  : 6  : 7  4. P a r t i c i p a t i n g :  :  : 5  : 6  : 1 :  :  6  '  :  4 :  5 ;  1  2  : 4  {  : 3^ : 3  2  7  : 6  : 5  : 4  : 3  2  ' ' : 8 7  : 6  : 5  4  :  :  1  :  i_ :Managing 1  :  : 3  \_ :Rude 2  : 4  :  :Active  1 ;  2  :Ordering 1  :  : 5  8  : 2  : 6  5. P a s s i v e :  1  : 3  I  5  : Strict  3  7  8  6. Task Sharing:  •  1  }_ :Task Controlli  95 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T.W. , The A u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y , New and Row, 1950.  York:  Harper  A r g y l e , M., Gardner, G., and C i o f f i , F. , S u p e r v i s o r y methods r e l a t e d to p r o d u c t i v i t y , ' I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , 1958, I I ,  pp. 2 3 - 4 6 .  Aronson, E., and C a r l s m i t h , J . , Performance expectancy as a determinant of a c t u a l performance, J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1962, 6_5, pp. 1 7 8 - 1 8 2 . A t k i n s o n , J.W., Towards experimental a n a l y s i s of human motiva t i o n i n terms of motives, expectancies and i n c e n t i v e s , IN Motives and Fantasy, A c t i o n and S o c i e t y , Ed. J.W. A t k i n s o n , New York: Van Nostrand, 1958. Backstorm, C.H.,.and Hursh, G.D., Survey Research, Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. Barber, T.X., and S i l v e r , M.J., F a c t , f i c t i o n and the experimenter b i a s e f f e c t , P s y c h o l o g i c a l Bulletin,-1916 8';- 70 , C6) , pp. 1-29 ( a ) , Barber, T.X., and S i l v e r , M.J., P i t f a l l s i n data a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : A r e p l y t o Rosenthal, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1968 , 7_0, (6) ' ~~ Bass, B.M., L e a d e r s h i p , Psychology and O r g a n i z a t i o n Behaviour, New York: Harper & Row, 19 60. Bass, B.M., L e a d e r s h i p Opinions as F o r e c a s t s of S u p e r v i s o r y Success, J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1958, 40. Berger, E., The r e l a t i o n between expressed acceptance of s e l f and expressed acceptance of o t h e r s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1952, 4_7, pp. 7 7 8 - 7 8 2 . Besco, R.O. and Lawshe, C.H., Foreman l e a d e r s h i p as p e r c e i v e d by s u p e r v i s o r and s u b o r d i n a t e s , Personnel Psychology,  1959, 1 2 , pp. 5 7 3 - 5 8 2 .  Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S., The Managerial G r i d , G u l f , 1964. ^~  Houston:  Bowers, D.G., and Seashore, S.E., P r e d i c t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s w i t h a 'Four 'Factor Theory of L e a d e r s h i p , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1966, 1 1 , Q2\, 2 3 8 - 2 6 3 .  9.6 Campbell, P..T...^^e^dershl^ the-.Group, Bureau o f B u ^ i h e ^ § Research"," The' J?fe^9^^t^tjeutJii^eir-S-ity-, Columbus: 19.5 6, s  C a m p b e l l , J-. , Dunne.tte., M ~ D , L a w l e r , E , E , and W e i c k , K . E . , • M a n a g e r i a l B e h a v i o u r ) Performance and E f f e c t i v e n e s s , New . Y o r k ; ' McGraw-Hill",.: I n c . , 197 0 . ~y  y  Camp i o n , G . E . J r . , > .Ef f e c t ^ O^XM^n^tf'errla:!^ S t y l e on S u b o r d i n a t e s ' a t t i t u d e s and Performances i n a S i m u l a t e d O r g a n i z a t i o n S e t t i n g , Unpublished.doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of M i n n e s o t a , 1968. s  C a r t w r i g h t , D . , and Z a n d e r , . A . , (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research and T h e o r y , E v a n s t o n , 111: Row P e t e r s o n and C o . , 1960. C l e v e l a n d , S . E . , and F i s h e r , S . , P r e d i c t i o n o f S m a l l group b e h a v i o u r from a body image Schema, Human R e l a t i o n s , 1957, 1 £ , pp. 223^233. Comery, A . L . , P i f f n e r , J . M . and H i g h , W . S . , F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n a l E f f e c t i v e n e s s , U n i v e r s i t y o f South C a r o l i n a , 1954. D a v i s , J . H . , Group Performance, 1969. Day,  R e a d i n g , Mass:  Addison Wesley,  R . C , and H a m b l i n , R . L . , Some e f f e c t s o f c l o s e and p u b i t i v e s t y l e s o f s u p e r v i s i o n , American J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , 1964, 69_, p p . 499-510.  Dumbo, P . , Group congruency p a t t e r n s and l e a d e r s h i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 21_, ( 3 ) . E v a n s , M . G . , and Dormer, J . D . , What Does the L e a s t P r e f e r r e d Co-worker S c a l e R e a l l y Measure? A Cognitive Interpret a t i o n , London B u s i n e s s S c h o o l Working P a p e r , 1972. E v a n s , M . G . , A L e a d e r ' s A b i l i t y to D i f f e r e n t i a t e , the S u b o r d i n a t e s P e r c e p t i o n of the Leader and the S u b o r d i n a t e s P e r formance , U n p u b l i s h e d M a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1971. F e n e l o n , J . R . , and Megargee, E . I . , I n f l u e n c e of Race on the M a n i f e s t a t i o n of Leadership, J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychol o g y , 1971, 5 5 , C4), pp. 3 5 3 - 3 5 8 . F i e d l e r , F . E . , Assumed s i m i l a r i t y measures as p r e d i c t o r s o f team e f f e c t i v e n e s s , J o u r n a l ' of • Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1954, 49, pp. 381^388. ' ~~ !  97 F i e d l e r , F . E . , The. i n f l u e n c e o f leader^keyman r e l a t i o n s on combat crew, e f .f.e c t j y e n e s s;. .Journa 1: o f Abnorma,1• a nd Soc j a 1- -, P s y c h o l o g y , 1955 ," 5 1 , pp.\: 2!T7'-235, ^ .'- - - . . . F i e d l e r , F . E . , Leader A t t i t u d e s and Group E f f e c t i v e n e s s , 111: U n i v e r s i t y Illinois 1958. v  of  P.ressV  Urbana,  F i e d l e r , F . E . , Leader a t t i t u d e s , group c l i m a t e and group c r e a t i v i t y , J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, £ 5 , pp. 308-318. • •'• ~" " ~" F i e d l e r , F . E . , andMeuwese, W.A.T.. , The l e a d e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t a s k performance i n c o h e s i v e and u n c o h e s i v e g r o u p s , J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1963, 67, pp. 83-87. F i e d l e r , F . E . , A c o n t i n g e n c y model o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s , i n L . B e r k o w i t z (Ed.) Advances i n E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . I , New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1964. F i e d l e r , F . E . , E n g i n e e r i n g the j o b t o f i t the manager, Harvard B u s i n e s s R e v i e w , September, 1965, p p . 115-122. F i e d l e r , F . E . , The e f f e c t o f l e a d e r s h i p and c u l t u r e d homogenity on group performance: A t e s t o f the c o n t i n g e n c y m o d e l . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 2_, pp. 237-264. F i e d l e r , F . E . , A Theory o f L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s , New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1967. F i e d l e r , F . E . , O ' B r i e n , G . E . and I l g e n , D . R . , The e f f e c t o f l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e upon the performance and adjustment o f v o l u n t e e r teams o p e r a t i n g i n a s t r e s s f u l f o r e i g n e n v i r o n ment, Human R e l a t i o n s , 1969, 2_2, pp. 503-514. F i e d l e r , F . E . , P e r s o n a l i t y , M o t i v a t i o n a l Systems and B e h a v i o u r o f High and Low LPC P e r s o n s , T e c h n i c a l Report 7 0 - 1 2 , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington, 1970. F i e d l e r , F . E . , V a l i d a t i o n and e x t e n s i o n o f the c o n t i n g e n c y 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, 7_6, ( 2 ) , pp. 128-148, Ca). F i e d l e r , F . E . , Note on the methodology o f G r a e n , O r r i s and A l v a r e s s t u d i e s t e s t i n g , the c o n t i n g e n c y m o d e l , J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, V o l . 55, C3], pp. 202-204 ( b ) . •Fiedler'-, F . E . , P r e d i c t i n g , the e f f e c t s of l e a d e r s h i p t r a i n i n g and . experience .the c o n t i n g e n c y m o d e l , J o u r n a l Applied - P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 56, ( 2 ) . '  from  of  F i s h b e i n , M . , Landy, E . , and H a t c h , G . , C o n s i d e r a t i o n of two a s sumptions u n d e r l y i n g F i e d l e r ' s C o n t i n g e n c y Model for the p r e d i c t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s , American J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, £ , pp. 457-473.  9-8 F l e i s h m a n , E .• A- •(.•• H a r r i s / E , F , - . a n d B u r t t . H . E . . . L e ^ d ^ r s h i p and S u p e r v i s i o n i n I n d u s t r y , B . o f E d u c a t i o n Research," "The" Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1955. f  F o a , V . G . , M i t c h e l l , T . R . , and F i e d l e r , F . E . , D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n M a t c h i n g , B e h a v i o u r a l ' S c i e n c e , 1971, 1 6 , pp. 130-142. G a l b r a i t h , J . , and Cummings, L . . , An e m p i r i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the m o t i v a t i o n a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f p a s t performance: i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s between i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y - v a l e n c e , m o t i v a t i o n , a b i l i t y , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r and Human Performance, 1967, 2, ( 3 ) , pp. 237-257. G e o r g o p o u l o s , B . S . , Mahoney, G . M . , and J o n e s , W. J r . , A p a t h g o a l approach t o p r o d u c t i v i t y . Journal of A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1957, 4 1 , pp. 345-353. G h i s e l l i , E . E . , E x p i r a t i o n i n Managerial Talent, P u b l i s h i n g C o . I n c . , C a l i f o r n i a , 1971. G i b b , C . A . , i n Handbook of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . I I , A d d i s o n - W e s l e y , 1969.  Goodyear  (G. L i n d z e y , E d . )  G r a e n , G . B . , O r r i s , J . B . , and A l v a r e s , K . M . , The c o n t i n g e n c y model o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s : Some e x p e r i m e n t a l results, J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, V o l . 55, (3) , pp. 196-201, (a) Graen, G . B . , O r r i s , J . B . and A l v a r e s , K . M . , Contingency Model of Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s : Some M e t h o d o l o g i c a l I s s u e s , J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 5_5, ( 3 ) , pp. 205-210 ( b ) . G r a e n , G . B . , O r r i s , J . B . and A l v a r e s , K . M . C o n t i n g e n c y 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 results, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1970, 4_, ( 4 ) , 285-296. G r a e n , G . B . , I n s t r u m e n t a l t h e o r y of m o t i v a t i o n : Some e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s and suggested m o d i f i c a t i o n s , Journal of Applied P s y c h o l o g y , Monograph, 1969, 5_5, pp. 1-25. G r o s s , C . R . , An O b s e r v a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s of S u p e r v i s o r y B e h a v i o u r , U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s , Lansxng; M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1956. Hackman, J . R . , J o n e s , L . F . , and M c G r a t h , J . E . A . , A s e t of dimensions f o r d e s c r i b i n g the g e n e r a l p r o p e r t i e s o f group g e n e r a t e d w r i t t e n passages, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1967, 7 0 , pp. 379-390.  99 H a l p i n , A.W. , and Winer, J . , <!A f a c t o r i a l • Study- of the l e a d e r Behaviour d e s c r i p t i o n - q u e s t i o n n a i r e " , in- R,H. $ t o g d i l l and A.E. Coons .(Eds. I , Leader Behaviour: ^ I t s pe^c'rlp'tl'o'n' and Measurement, Research Monograph," No. '88", The Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1957. Hare, A.P., Handbook: of Small Group Research, New York: P r e s s , 196 2. '  Free  Hawkins, C.A., A Study of F a c t o r s M e d i a t i n g a R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Leader Rating Behaviour and Group P r o d u c t i v i t y , Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i n n e a p o l i s , Minnesota: U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1962. Hemphill, J.K., and Coons, A.E., "Development of the l e a d e r behaviour d e s c r i p t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e " , i n R.M. S t o g d i l l and A.E. Coons, (Eds.), Leader Behaviour: I t s D e s c r i p t i o n and Measurement, Research Monograph, No. 58, The Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1957. Hemphill, J.K., R e l a t i o n between the s i z e o f the group and the behaviour of s u p e r i o r l e a d e r s , J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1950, 32, pp. 11-12. H i l l , W., The v a l i d a t i o n and extension o f F i e d l e r ' s theory of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s , Academy o f Management J o u r n a l , 1969, pp. 33-47. H i l l , W., A s i t u a t i o n a l approach t o l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s , J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1969, 3_, (6). H o l l a n d e r , E.P., Leader, Groups and I n f l u e n c e , New Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964.  York:  Hollander, E.P., and J u l i a n , J.W., Contemporary trends i n the a n a l y s i s of l e a d e r s h i p processes, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1969, 71, ( 5 ) , pp. 387-397. H o l l a n d e r , E.P., S t y l e , s t r u c t u r e and s e t t i n g i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , March, 1971, pp. 1-9. House, R.J., A path-goal theory of l e a d e r behaviour, 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, 1_6, pp. 321-338. House, R.J. , F i l l e y , A . C , and Kerr, S. , R e l a t i o n of l e a d e r 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 t o R and D subordinate s a t i s f a c t i o n , 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, pp. 19-30.  IQO  House, R.J., F i l l e y , A . C , and G u j a r a t i , D.N., L e a d e r s h i p s t y l e , h i e r a r c h i c a l i n f l u e n c e and -the s a t i s f a c t i o n of. s u b o r d i n a t e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s : A test..of L i k e r t s i n f l u e n c e . .. p r o p o s i t i o n , J o u r n a l of; A p p l i e d Psychology-, 1971, 55, pp. 422-432. ' * " ' " - " 1  :  House, R.J., Wigdor, L.M., and S h u l z , K., P s y c h o l o g i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , l e a d e r Behaviour, performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n : An e x t e n s i o n of p r i o r r e s e a r c h and a motivation theory of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Proceedings o f the E a s t e r n Academy o f Management, U n i v e r s i t y o f Massachusetts, Amherst: 1970. House, R.J., Some new a p p l i c a t i o n s and t e s t s of the path-goal theory o f l e a d e r s h i p . Paper presented a t the F i r s t N a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r a l O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Conference, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1972. Hoyie, F r e d , e t a l . , (Eds.) Symposium: The Requirements f o r L e a d e r s h i p i n the 1980's. Chapel H i l l , U n i v e r s i t y of North C a r o l i n a , 1968. Hunt, J.G., A t e s t of the l e a d e r s h i p contingency model i n t h r e e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance, 1967, 2, pp. 290-308. Hunt, J.G., L e a d e r s h i p s t y l e e f f e c t s at two managerial l e v e l s i n a simulated o r g a n i z a t i o n , 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_, (4). Kahn, R.L., The p r e d i c t i o n of p r o d u c t i v i t y , J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Issues, 1956, 1_2, pp. 41-49. Katz, D., Maccaby, N., and Morse, N.C., P r o d u c t i v i t y , Superv i s i o n and Morale i n an O f f i c e S i t u a t i o n , D e t r o i t , Mich: D a r e l Press Inc., 1950. Katz, D., P r o d u c t i v i t y , S u p e r v i s i o n and Morale among R a i l r o a d Workers, Ann Arbor, M i c h i g a n : Survey Research Center, 1951. Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L., i n Readings i n S o c i a l Psychology, ( e d i t e d by) Swanson, G.E., e t a l . , New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1953. K a t z e l l , R.A., B a r r e t , R.S. and Parker, T.C., Job S a t i s f a c t i o n , Job Performance, and S i t u a t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Journa1 of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1961, 4_5, pp. 65-72. Kaufman, H., Task performance, expected performance and responses o f f a i l u r e as f u n c t i o n s of imbalance in" t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1962. 0  101 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 o r g a n i z e ati,onal c r i t e r i a : A Reyiew;. peX^onnel^ Psychology/ 1966, 19, pp, 349-363. ' ^- - - • Lawler, E.E, • I I I , Pay and: :prg^j'z:atXonal^ T,ff^dt^^ne:B[s:i\A P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review-, .New *focQraw^H£%l'y T971." Lewin, K. , Lippit., R. , and White, R.K.., P a t t e r n s o f a g g r e s s i v e behaviour i n e x p e r i m e n t a l l y c r e a t e d ' s o c i a l c l i m a t e s ' , J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l - Psychology, 1939, 10. L i k e r t , R., New P a t t e r n s Of Management, Inc., 1961. ' ' ' v  !  New York:  McGraw-Hill,  !  McCurdy, H.G., and Eber, H.W., Democratic vs. A u t h o r i t a r i a n s : A f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f group problem s o l v i n g , J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1953 , 22, McGregor, D.M., The Human Side o f E n t e r p r i s e , 1960, New York: McGraw-Hill, I n c . McNamara, V.D., A d e s c r i p t i v e - a n a l y t i c study of d i r e c t i v e p e r m i s s i v e v a r i a t i o n i n the l e a d e r behaviour o f elementary school p r i n c i p a l s . Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , 1967. Maier, N.R.F., An experimental t e s t of the e f f e c t o f t r a i n i n g on d i s c u s s i o n l e a d e r s h i p . Human R e l a t i o n s , 1953, 6_, pp. 161-173. Mann, F.C., Toward an understanding o f the l e a d e r s h i p r o l e i n formal o r g a n i z a t i o n . In Dubin, e t a l . (Eds.) Leadership and P r o d u c t i v i t y , 1965, Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Co. Mann, R.D., A Review o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e r s o n a l i t y and performance i n small groups, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1959, 56, pp. 241-270. M i t c h e l l , T.R., Leader complexity, l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and group performance, Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Urbana, 111: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1969. M i t c h e l l , T.R., Leader 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, 166-174. M i t c h e l l , V.F., Expectancy t h e o r i e s o f managerial m o t i v a t i o n , S t u d i e s i n Personnel Psychology, S p r i n g , 1972, V o l . 4, No. I , pp. 31-42. M i t c h e l l , T.R.-, B i g l a n , A., Onoken, G.R. and F i e d l e r , F.E., The contingency- model: c r i t i c i s m and suggestions. Academy of' Management J o u r n a l , 1970, 13 , pp. 253-268.  102 M i t c h e l l , T . R . and F o a , V . G . , An e x a m i n a t i o n o f the e f f e c t s o f c u l t u r a l t r a i n i n g on the i n t e r a c t i o n o f h e t e r o c u l t u r e t a s k g r o u p s , Urbana, I l l i n o i s : Group E f f e c t i v e n e s s R e s . L a b o r a t o r y , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1968. M o r s e , N . C . , and Reimer, E . , The e x p e r i m e n t a l change o f a major o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e , J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1956, 5 1 , pp. 120-129. M u l d e r , M . , and S t e m e r d i n g , A . , T h r e a t , a t t r a c t i o n t o group and need f o r s t r o n g l e a d e r s h i p : A l a b o r a t o r y experiment i n a n a t i o n a l s e t t i n g , Human R e l a t i o n s , 1963, 16, pp. 317-333. T  N e a l y , S . M . and B l o o d , M . , L e a d e r s h i p performance o f n u r s i n g s u p e r v i s o r s a t two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l s , J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1968 , 5_2, pp. 414-422. N e a l y , S . M . and Owen, T . M . , A m u l t i - t r a i t m u l t i - m e t h o d a n a l y s i s o f p r e d i c t o r s and c r i t e r i a o f n u r s i n g performance, O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r and Human Performance, 1970, 5_, pp. 348-365. ~ O ' B r i e n , G . E . , Group s t r u c t u r e and the measurement o f p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r i n f l u e n c e , A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 2 1 , pp. 277-289. Osgood, C . E . , S u c i , G . J . and Tannenbaum, P . H . , The measurement ~- o f meaning, Urbana, 111: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1957. P o r t e r , L . W . , and L a w l e r , E . E . , I I I , M a n a g e r i a l A t t i t u d e s and Performance, I r w i n , 1968. Posthuma, A l l a n B . , Normative Data on the L e a s t - P r e f e r r e d C o worker S c a l e (LPC) and the Group Atmosphere Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , CGA). T e c h n i c a l Report 7 0 - 8 , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, S e a t t l e , Washington: 1970. R o l a n d , K . M . and S c o t t , W . E . , P s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s o f e f f e c t i v e leadership i n a formal o r g a n i z a t i o n . Personnel P s y c h o l o g y , 1968 , 21_, (3) . Rosenblaum, et a l . , M o r a l e and p r o d u c t i v i t y consequences o f group l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e : S t r e s s and type o f t a s k . Journal o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 5_5, ( 4 ) , pp. 343-348. R o s e n t h a l , R . , E x p e r i m e n t e r expectancy and the r e a s s u r i n g n a t u r e o f the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s d e c i s i o n p r o c e d u r e . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1968, 70, ( 6 ) , pp. 3 0 - 4 7 . S a l e s , S . M . , S u p e r v i s o r y s t y l e and p r o d u c t i v i t y : A Review o f theory. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 1_9, ( 3 ) , pp. 275-288.  1Q3 S a l e s , S.M., A l a b o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of; the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of two i n d u s t r i a l s u p e r v i s o r y dimensions-, . Unpublished M.S. t h e s i s , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1964. Sample, J.A., and Wilson, T.R. Leader behaviour, group p r o d u c t i v i t y and r a t i n g o f l e a s t p r e f e r r e d co-worker, J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 19 65, I , pp. 266-270. Shaw, M.E., S c a l i n g Group Tasks: A Method f o r Dimensional A n a l y s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of F l o r i d a , Cmimeo.), 1963. Shaw, M.W., A comparison of two types of l e a d e r s h i p i n v a r i o u s communication n e t s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1955, 50, pp. 127-134. Shaw, M.E., and Blum, J.M., E f f e c t s o f l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e upon group performance as a f u n c t i o n of task s t r u c t u r e , J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1966, 3_, pp. 238-242. Skinner, E.W., R e l a t i o n s h i p s between l e a d e r s h i p behaviour p a t t e r n s 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_, pp. 485-494. Spector, P., and S u t t e l , L., An Experimental Comparison of the E f f e c t i v e n e s s of Three P a t t e r n s of L e a d e r s h i p Behaviour, Washington, D.C: American I n s t i t u t e f o r Research, 1957. S t o g d i l l , R.M., P e r s o n a l f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h l e a d e r s h i p : A survey of the l i t e r a t u r e . J o u r n a l of Psychology, 1948, 25, pp. 35-71. S t o g d i l l , R.M., V a l i d i t y o f l e a d e r s h i p behaviour Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22^, ( 2 ) .  descriptions,  Student, K u r t , R., S u p e r v i s o r y i n f l u e n c e and work group performance, J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology, June, 1968. Tuckman, B.W., Group composition and group performance of s t r u c t u r e d and u n s t r u c t u r e d t a s k s . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, 3_, pp. 25-40. Vroom, V., Ego involvement, job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job performance. Personnel Psychology» pp. 159-177 Vroom, V., The s e l f - c o n c e p t : Unpublished Manuscript. P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1969.  T  1962.  a balance t h e o r e t i c a l treatment. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of  104 Vroom, V., and Mann, F,C, a t t i t u d e s , " Person^^  f  Leader a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and employee 1960, 13, pp. 125-140.  Vroom, V. , Work and- Motivation,. New: York:  John Wiley, 1964.  Whyte, W.F., Money and M o t i v a t i o n : An A n a l y s i s o f - I n c e n t i v e s i n I n d u s t r y, New York.; Harper, 1955. ~ ' Wilson, Stephen R., L e a d e r s h i p , p a r t i c i p a t i o n and s e l f - o r i e n t a t i o n i n observed and non-observed groups, J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology, 1971, 55, C5J, pp. 433-438. Wofford, J.W., B e h a v i o u r a l s t y l e s and performance Personnel Psychology, 1967 , 20^, ( 4 ) .  effectiveness,  Z a l e z n i k , A., Human Dimensions of L e a d e r s h i p , New York: & Row, 19TFI  Harper  

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101404/manifest

Comment

Related Items