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.

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_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.] Un i v e r s i t y of Rajshahi, 1965 M. Com., Unive r s i t y of Rajshahi, 1966 M.B.A., Univerity of 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 Faculty of. COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1972. In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Finan c i a l assistance for the study was- provided by the Institute of Indu s t r i a l Relations, the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The Association of U n i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges of Canada sponsored my entire graduate work i n Canada. Words f a i l to describe my gratitude to Professor Vance F. Mit c h e l l who was not only the chairman of my doctoral committee, but was also the architect of my whole graduate career at U.B.C. The continuing guidance and assistance provided throughout the study by Professors Ronald Taylor and Merle E. Ace deserve a special note of gratitude. My sincere appreciation i s due also to Professor Karl E. Sarndal for his help i n s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. Professor Susan Butt of the Department of Psycgology rendered many help f u l suggestions which I deeply acknowledge. There are many others who contributed toward making t h i s study possible. Special thanks are due to Professors Gordon Walter and Richard T. Barth for encouraging t h e i r students to par t i c i p a t e i n the study. Ian Goldie served as an observer i n the experiments. Edward McMullan and Wayne Smith, two doctoral students at the Faculty of Commerce, helped me i n various ways. Mrs. M. Neilson typed the f i n a l manuscript with expertise i n the very limited time available to her. F i n a l l y , my deepest thanks are to my mother, Mrs. Sukhada Rani Saha. She s a c r i f i c e d a l l she had to send me to school. ABSTRACT Fied l e r ' s Contingency Model suggests that task-oriented leaders are more e f f e c t i v e where the leadership s i t u a t i o n i s either very favourable or very unfavourable and that r e l a t i o n s -oriented leaders are more e f f e c t i v e i n situations of i n t e r -mediate f a v o u r a b i l i t y . This model was put here to an empirical te s t using three-man laboratory group performing either a struc-tured or an unstructured task. An e f f o r t was also made to extend the model by investigating the ef f e c t of three new variables, namely, i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and motivation as determinants of sit u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y for a leader. Based on e a r l i e r conjec-tures by H i l l and F i e d l e r , i t was predicted that the degree of in t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y as well as the l e v e l of motivation of leaders and group members w i l l determine how e f f e c t i v e a leader would be i n achieving higher group productivity. One hundred and forty^-seven Commerce undergraduate students of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia participated i n the inves-t i g a t i o n . They were assigned to 49 groups of three people. One of the three people i n each group was appointed as leader on the basis of a sociometric preference r a t i n g . Leadership situations were created by manipulating task structure, leader p o s i t i o n power, leader 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 motiv-ation. Group productivity was rated using two c r i t e r i a of per-formance T speed and quality of. group decision. It was hypo-thesized that group decisions of higher q u a l i t y and greater speed w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h higher 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 of l e a d e r s and group members. The r e s u l t s p r o v i d e d moderate support f o r the Contingency Model p r e d i c t i o n s i n terms of d i r e c t i o n and magnitude of c o r -r e l a t i o n s 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 . Most of the c o r r e l a t i o n s , however, f a i l e d t o s a t i s f y the t e s t of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . In the ex t e n s i o n p a r t of the study, the r e s u l t s showed t h a t CD m o t i v a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d the speed of group d e c i s i o n and c o n t r i b u t e d t o the l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; 12) i n t e l l i g e n c e o f l e a d e r s 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 de-c i s i o n ; C3) 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 by a s e l f - e s t e e m measure d i d not i n f l u e n c e e i t h e r the speed or the q u a l i t y o f group problem s o l v i n g ; C4) m o t i v a t i o n d i d not i n f l u e n c e 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 i n CD, (2), (3) and C4) above, i t wa,s 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 and perhaps a b i l i t y should be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s of the Contingency Model as parameters of s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y . i v TABLE 'QF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements . i Abstract i i L i s t of Tables v i L i s t of Figures v i i i Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research on Leadership Effectiveness; A Review 3 1.2 The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 8 1.3 Motivation, Intelligence and A b i l i t y as Moderators of Leadership Effectiveness 13 1.4 Summary 15 Chapter 2: METHOD 2.1 Setting and Subjects 17 2.2 The Measures: Their R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y 2 0 2.3 Description of the S t a t i s t i c a l Procedure 4 0 2.4 Description of the Experimental Design 42 Chapter 3: RESULTS 3.1 Introduction 44 3.2 Leadership Style, S i t u a t i o n a l Favourability and Group Productivity 47 3.3 Motivation, Intelligence and A b i l i t y as Moderators of Leadership Effectiveness 51 3.4 Summary of Findings 59 Chapter 4: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Findings Relevant to the Hypotheses . 58 4.2 Relevance and V a l i d i t y of the Measures 72 4.3 Further Research Recommendations 7 6 4.4 Conclusion 79 APPENDIX I-: Berger's Acceptance of, Self Scale 81 APPENDIX IT: Sociometric Preference Rating 84 V Page APPENDIX STI: The Least Preferred .Coworker Scale 8 5 APPENDIX XV: Task 23 87 APPENDIX y.; Task 59 8 8 APPENDIX VI; Rating Position Power and Motivation: Leaders Only1 90 APPENDIX V i i : Leader Behaviour, Position Power and Motivation: Co-workers Only 91 APPENDIX VIII: The Group Atmosphere Scale 92 APPENDIX IX: Rating Quality of Group Solution 93 APPENDIX X: Leader Behaviour Rating: Observers Only 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY 95 LTSTNOF- T A B L E S -Medj;a,n Correlation for the Development Steadies1 of the Contingency Model of Leadership Mean Perception of Group Members about Leader Position Power Mean GA Scores for Conditions of Good and Poor Leader Member Relations Mean of the Subjects' Rating of t h e i r Motivation Inter-correlations between Observers' Ratings of Leader Behaviour Inter-correlation between Observer Rating of Leader Behaviour and the LPC Scores Inter-Rater Agreement on the Rating of Group Output Design for Experiment - A Design for Experiment - B Spearman Rank Order Correlation between the LPC and Quality of Group Decision Spearman Rank Order Correlation between the LPC and Speed of Group Decision E f f e c t of Motivation, Intelligence and A b i l i t y on the Speed of Group Decision E f f e c t of Intelligence, A b i l i t y and Motivation on the Quality of Group Decision E f f e c t of Motivation, Intelligence and A b i l i t y on the Relationship between the LPC and Speed of Group Decision E f f e c t of Intelligence, A b i l i t y and Motivation on the Relationship between LPC and Quality of Group Decision Summary of Correlations between LPC and Group Performance Reported i n 'Field and Laboratory Studies Testing the Contingency Model Comparison of Antecedent and Evi d e n t i a l Correlation between LPC and Group Performance v i i Page 18. Comparison of Results Reported By F i e d l e r and the Present Study- 66 19. Comparison of Results Reported By Graen et a l . , and th_e Present Study 67 y i i i LIST OF' FIGURES - Page 1. Si t u a t i o n a l Favourability, Leadership Style and Group Productivity 71 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One of the most perplexing problems confronting the manager as well as the behavioural s c i e n t i s t has been to deter-mine the leadership s t y l e most conducive to promoting e f f e c t i v e work groups. Leadership effectiveness and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to productivity and s a t i s f a c t i o n have been examined from the stand-points of, t r a i t s , functions, styles and s i t u a t i o n s . The con-cept of leadership ha,s been viewed anthropologically, economic-a l l y , psychologically and s o c i o l o g i c a l l y , as well as from the vantage points of p o l i t i c a l power and experience. Despite the scope and magnitude of these e f f o r t s , we s t i l l know l i t t l e about what makes one superior more e f f e c t i v e than another or why 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. Empirical studies directed toward finding that s t y l e which i s most e f f e c t i v e have yielded inconclusive and often contra-dictory r e s u l t s Ce.g., Blake and Mouton, 1964; F i e d l e r , 1958; Lewin, L i p p i t and White, 1939; L i k e r t , 1961; Shaw, 1955). Be-haviour s c i e n t i s t s have been amazed to f i n d that both the d i -r e c t i v e , authoritatian, task oriented leader and his counterpart, the democratic, human relations 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 leadership effectiveness recently advanced by Fiedler (1964, 1967) suggests a t h e o r e t i c a l explan-ation for the confusion which now exists 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 insights of many managers. Fiedler's theory suggests that leadership i s an influence process where the ease or d i f f i c u l t y of exerting influence i s a function of the fayourableness of the group task s i t u a t i o n for the leader. Although i t has been recognised that the favourableness of each group task s i t u a t i o n may depend on d i f f e r e n t variables, the three most commonly acknowledged determinants, stated i n the i r order of importance are leader member r e l a t i o n s , task structure and pos i t i o n power. While the empirical basis from which the contingency theory was induced i s impressive (over 50 studies of 21 d i f f e r -ent groups!, v a l i d a t i o n studies of the theory have yielded mixed and confusing r e s u l t s . For example, Graen et a l . (1971) found results contrary to the predictions of the contingency model. They made a d i s t i n c t i o n between antecedent and eviden-t i a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s . On the other hand, Fiedler and his co-workers reported r e s u l t s supporting the predictions of his 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 research done on the contingency model leave the readers i n confusion. Accordingly, the study reported here was designed to provide further empirical evidence on the contingency model. Three new variables were also examined to fin d out i f they a f f e c t the so-cal l e d "leadership favourableness" dimension of the contingency model. 3 1.1 Research on Leadership Effectiveness: A Review Modern psychological research on leadership i s usually thought of as beginning with the Ohio State Leadership Studies CHemphill and Coons, 1957; Halpin and Winer, 1957). The Ohio State investigators found from a factor a n a l y t i c a l study of a 150-item questionnaire widely known as the Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), two p r i n c i p a l dimensions of leadership behaviour which they named 'consideration 1 and ' i n i t i a t i n g structure'. Subsequently, scores of behavioural s c i e n t i s t s have worked with the LBDQ and a related instrument, the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ) attempting to iden-t i f y the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of "Consideration" and " I n i t -i a t i n g Structure" i n a variety of situations. Two excellent re-views of t h i s work have been reported by Korman (1966) and House (1972). Both reviews concluded that the research concern-ing these two styles of leader behaviour i s inconsistent and y i e l d s contradictory findings. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the two leader behaviours on the one hand and subordinate s a t i s f a c t i o n and/or productivity on the other, f a i l e d to reveal a clear pat-tern i n one d i r e c t i o n or another. In another series of investigations, Katz et a l . (1950, 1951) and Kahn (1951, 1956 and 1958) of the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan studied r a i l r o a d and i n -surance employees extensively and i d e n t i f i e d two leadership styles which they c a l l e d "employee orientation" and "production orientation". Cartwright and Zander (1950) of the Research Center for Group Dynamics described leadership i n terms of two 4 sets of group functions, "Group Maintenance" and "Goal Achievement". Mann (1965) offered a t r i o l o g y of "human re-l a t i o n s " , "technical" and "administrative" s k i l l s as required of e f f e c t i v e supervisors. L i k e r t (1961) found f i v e conditions for e f f e c t i v e supervisory behaviour i n a study of insurance agents; supportive r e l a t i o n s , group methods of supervision, high performance goals, technical knowledge and co-ordinating, scheduling and planning. Bowers and Seashore (1966) advanced a "Four Factor Theory of Leadership" based on four dimensions of leader behaviour which they named "support", "interaction f a c i l i t a t i o n " , "goal emphasis" and "work f a c i l i t a t i o n " . Because of the d i v e r s i t y of terms and focus on d i f f e r e n t facets of the leadership process, i t i s didrficult to meaning-f u l l y compare and assess the contributions of these various schools of thought. 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 be said that two dimensions of leader behaviour, that may be c a l l e d "people" and "task" orientations, have attracted more attention from the various research groups than have any others. However, e f f o r t s to assess the r e l a t i v e importance of these two dimensions have yielded c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s . For example, while Katz and Kahn (1953), Argyle et a l . (1958), Day and Hamblin (1964), Comery et a l . (1954) and McGregor (1960) reported evidence i n favour of a democratic, employee oriented general s t y l e of supervision; Hawkins (1962), Solem (1952), and Shaw (1955) found that autocratic task oriented leadership produced better performance. On the other hand, Morse and Reimer (1956), Spector and Suttel (1956), McCurdy and Eber 5 C 1 9 5 3 ) , and Sales (1964) found no: difference i n terms of produc-t i v i t y between the two styles- of .leadership. At the height of the confusion concerning the r e l a t i v e ef-fectiveness of the two styles of leadership, researchers turned to s i t u a t i o n a l variables i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to explain the con-f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s coming from leadership research. Vroom and Mann Q.960) argued that supervisory behaviour varied according to the size of organizational u n i t s . Fleishman et a l . (1955) hypothesized that "organizational climate" moderated the re-l a t i o n s h i p between leadership and productivity. Katz et a l . C1961) suggested that the effectiveness of p a r t i c u l a r kinds of leadership practices would depend on variables such as the size of a company and the degree of urbanization of the company's location. Vroom (1964) has suggested further that the degree of acceptance which p a r t i c u l a r kinds of supervisory practices receive might be determined by the wishes and expectancies of the leader's subordinates and c i t e s research by himself and others i n support of t h i s hypothesis. In his careful review of studies of the "consideration" and " i n i t i a t i n g structure" dimensions, Korman favoured the introduction of s i t u a t i o n a l variables into leadership research. In t h i s regard, House (.197.1, 1972) has shown that rank and f i l e employees prefer more structure than i s preferred by s c i e n t i s t s and technicians i n research and development a c t i v i t i e s . Most of the studies reviewed so far lacked an adequate con-ceptualization of the relevant variables and were carried on without the benefit of a comprehensive theory of leadership 6 phenomena. Further, inyestigators- us.ed -measures'- suited to t h e i r own. research- interests and their.choices' frequently- have pre-r eluded meaningful comparisons of .results-. Also, l i t t l e attempt has- Been made to systematize the information necessary for iden-t i f y i n g the s o c i a l context within, which groups operate. Con-sequently, it..frequently- has- Been impossible to t e l l whether findings from one study do or do not support the results of a purportedly s i m i l a r study. A review of leadership research i s incomplete without con-sidering, the recent contributions made by Robert House and his associates C r e f : 1971a, 1971b, 1971c and 1972). House, et a l . advanced a "Path Goal Theory of Leadership" i n th e i r e f f o r t s to explain the confusing and contradictory findings from e a r l i e r research based on the dimensions of "consideration" and " i n -i t i a t i n g structure". For example, correlations between structure and subordinate performance were found to be consistently pos-i t i v e at high occupational lev e l s while they were consistently negative at low occupational l e v e l s . House's Path Goal Theory explains t h i s finding i n terms of task structure. The theory hypothesizes that structure i s p o s i t i v e l y related to higher l e v e l jobs because they are ambiguously defined. Lower l e v e l jobs, because of t h e i r routine nature, are negatively related to structure because any structure i s perceived by employees as an "imposition of external control". The Path Goal Theory of Leadership, has been developed from Expectancy- Theory (Atkinson, 19.581, the Path Goal Theory of Mo-t i v a t i o n CGeorgopoulos et a l . 1957); and also extensions of both 7 Path Goal Theory and Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964; P o r t e r and Lawle r , 1967; G a l b r a i t h and Cummings, 1967; Graen, 1969 and L a w l e r , 1971). The Path Goal Leadersh ip Theory s p e c i f i e s three c l a s s e s of s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s which are hypothes ized to moderate the e f f e c t s of s p e c i f i c dimensions of leader behaviour ; subord ina te s ' task c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , envi ronmenta l v a r i a b l e s , and subordinate preferences for d i f f e r e n t k inds of l eader be-haviour . The Path Goal Theory has p o t e n t i a l fo 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 of concepts from Expectancy and M o t i v a t i o n t h e o r i e s , i t can a l s o b r i n g these t h e o r i e s c l o s e r to l e a d e r s h i p t h e o r i e s and thereby entxance the p r e d i c t i v e power of l e a d e r s h i p t h e o r i e s . For example, i n the Pa th Goal Leadersh ip Theory a c l e a r e r l i n k 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 of the leader and m o t i v a t i o n and expec tanc ies of the subord ina te s . At the present s tage , However, House's theory i s very g e n e r a l . 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 of l eader behaviour are expected to i n t e r a c t w i t h the moderators tha t are hypothes ized 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 of these moderators or how the theory may be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d . Another r ecen 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 p l ane , has b:een made by Hol l ande r et a l . (1969) and Hol l ander (1971) . Ho l l ander p rov ided an overview of s e v e r a l l i n e s of development i n the study of l e a d e r s h i p . 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 process growing out of a system of exchange r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the leader and the f o l l o w e r s , 8 with, the e f f e c t i v e n e s s - of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p determined both by the l e a d e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of h i s f o l l o w e r s and by the f o l l o w e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n of the l e a d e r . T h i s view of l e a d e r s h i p phenomenon may r e v e a l sources of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n or l e g i t i m a c y of a l e a d e r ' s p o s i t i o n or r o l e . H o l l a n d e r ' s view of 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 o f i n t e r a c t i o n of s t y l e , s t r u c t u r e , and s i t u a t i o n i s not new. T h i s l i n e of work has been pursued f o r a long time by s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s , and e s p e c i a l l y by F i e d l e r (1964, 1965, 1967). The f o r m u l a t i o n i s novel i n the sense t h a t i t opens up aspects o f l e a d e r s h i p processes such as sources of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , l e g i t -imacy and i n f l u e n c e systems which have not been s y s t e m a t i c a l l y e x p l o r e d i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . 1.2 The Contingency Model of L eadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s S t a r t i n g from an i n t e r e s t i n the o p e r a t i o n a l measurement of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , F i e d l e r (1964, 1967) s t u d i e d v a r i o u s aspects of l e a d e r s h i p f o r over 15 y e a r s . His Contingency Theory of L e a d e r s h i p was i n d u c t i v e l y d e r i v e d from a program of 12 separate but r e l a t e d s t u d i e s conducted over t h i s lengthy p e r i o d and has been o f f e r e d as a p a r t i a l answer to a number of the c o n c e p t u a l problems concerning l e a d e r s h i p phenomena. The Contingency Model s t a t e s t h a t a "group's performance w i l l be c o n t i n g e n t upon the a p p r o p r i a t e matching of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and the degree of favourableness of the group s i t u a t i o n f o r the l e a d e r , t h a t i s , the degree to which the s i t u a t i o n pro-v i d e s the l e a d e r w i t h i n f l u e n c e oyer h i s group members"(Fiedler 9 1967). The model assumes three variables, i . e . , "position power", "task structure" and "leader member r e l a t i o n s " as af> fecting leadership effectiveness. Fiedler's theory- of leadership effectiveness i s i n t u i t i v e -l y appealing. The inductive reasoning behind the theory also appears reasonable. His research program not only upholds the position that leadership effectiveness i s a j o i n t product of st y l e , structure, and s i t u a t i o n , but also has explored the con-ceptually d i f f i c u l t phenomena of leadership i n the f i e l d as well as i n the laboratory with a f a i r sampling of actors, be-haviours and behavioural contexts. Unfortunately, the evidence i n favour of the predictive power of the contingency model has been questioned (Graen et a l . 1970, 1971). The evi d e n t i a l studies reported by Fiedler (1965, 1966, 1967), Hunt (1967), M i t c h e l l (1969), H i l l , (1969), and Graen et a l . C1971) have obtained mixed r e s u l t s . Some of the resul t s s a t i s f y only d i r e c t i o n a l rather than s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f -icance; while some of the findings are contrary to what would be predicted by Fie d l e r ' s model. For example, i n Mitc h e l l ' s study of Unitarian Church groups, H i l l ' s study of department stores and Graen et al's study of students i n the laboratory at least . part of the re s u l t s were contrary to those hypothesized by the Contingency Theory. A very important flaw i n the contingency model as brought out by Graen et a l . (1970) i s the model's extreme s e n s i t i v i t y to s i t u a t i o n a l f a c tors. This s e n s i t i v i t y encourages the inves-tigators to ascribe any contrary findings from th e i r invest-10 igation to unaccounted situati;ona,i factors. For example, K i l l C1969). explained an i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t ; Since the work performed was of a highly technical nature, i t may Be that the technical a b i l i t y of the Supervisor should have been a factor i n the d e f i n i t i o n of the f a v o u r a b i l i t y dimension. The design of the study did not provide an opportunity to include t h i s con-d i t i o n . Cp. 516] . Again, F i e d l e r (1967] suggested: We require a scale which i s based not only on the presence or absence of good leader member r e l a t i o n s , homogeneity, leader position power, and task structure but which takes account also of other factors that 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 to include the leader's and his member's i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s and tech-n i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , the motivation of the group, and the conditions of stress under which the group i s forced to operate, (p. 262). Every time F i e d l e r and his associates find a r e s u l t either s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t or contrary to the model's predic-t i o n , they tend to explain the discrepancy i n terms of some un-i d e n t i f i e d or uncontrolled s i t u a t i o n a l moderators. This search for additional moderators may sometimes lead the investigator to experimenter bias e f f e c t . Graen et a l . (1970) observed: the Contingency Model overdetermines the 'meaningful' r e s u l t s of empirical studies the model prescribes that we should continue to search for additional homogenizing variables u n t i l our results converge upon those sp e c i f i e d by the model. Once we have discovered the additional variable or variables that produce the 'meaningful' p a r t i t i o n s (our observed re-sults converge upon those predicted by the models), we should discontinue search and proclaim empirical support for the model. Cp. 294). 11 According to Graen et a l . , t h i s procedure produces expert imenter bias e f f e c t (Barber and S i l v e r , 1968a, 1968b,; Rosenthal 1968}. Another exchange between Graen et a l . and Fiedler centered on the question of methodology' i n testing the Contingency Model (Graen et a l . , 1971; F i e d l e r , 1971a). F i e d l e r argued that Graen's experimental manipulations of the relevant variables were not strong enough to produce the intended e f f e c t s . In an-other review C1971b) Fi e d l e r reported that there was a great d i s -crepancy i n re s u l t s between laboratory and f i e l d studies on the Contingency Model. Notwithstanding the p o s s i b i l i t y of weaknesses i n Graen 1s manipulation of the contingency variables, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to accept the p o s i t i o n that laboratory studies 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. If the a b i l i t y of college students to assume functional roles i s questioned, much of the small group research, past and present, would be brought into question (Davis, 1969). A theory which i s method bound (in t h i s instance limited to f i e l d studies) cannot be ac-cepted. It was f e l t therefore, that further laboratory tests of the model were necessary with an improved methodology. The study reported here was designed to r e p l i c a t e the r e s u l t s found i n the f i e l d studies. As already noted, Fiedler defines s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y i n terms of three yariables: task structure, p o s i t i o n power and leader member r e l a t i o n s . Research based on Fiedler's model has measured po s i t i o n power i n established groups by a simple eighteen item c h e c k l i s t containing various indices pf pos i t i o n power, Task structure has been measured.By four of the ten dimensions used By Shaw C1963) , i,e.', decision y e r i f i a B i l i t y , goal c l a r i t y , goal path m u l t i p l i c i t y and solution m u l t i p l i c i t y . Leader memBer r e l a t i o n s have Been categorized i n terms of a Group Atmosphere (GAI Score, which purports to indicate the degree to which the leader feels accepted By the group and relazed and at ease i n his r o l e (Fiedler, 1962). Leader memBer r e l a t i o n s , task structure and position power are dichotomized to form e i g h t / c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s (octants) of si t u a t i o n a l favouraBleness. 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 with the predicted r e l a t i o n s h i p Between leadership s t y l e and perform-ance as found i n the antecedent studies of the Contingency Model are shown i n TaBle I. TABLE I Median Correlation for the Development Studies of the Contingency Model of Leadership Situation C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Octant (OCT) Group AtmoS' phere CGA) Task Structure CTS) Position Power CPP) More E f f e c t i v e Leadership Style (orientation) Median r n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor High High Low Low High High Low Low Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Task Task Task People People People People Task -.52 -.58 ^.33 .47 .42 .05 -.44 8 3 12 10 6 0 12 12 13 Research. ba.sed on the Contingency- Model, has always measured leadership s t y l e by using a psychological test widely- known as the Lea,s+_ Preferred Co-worker CLPCI. The LPC has been subject to several interpretations, According to the most popular i n -terpretation, low LPC scores ; mean "task orientation" while high LPC scores s i g n i f y "people orientation". Chapter 2 of the study w/ill take a closer look at the LPC. According to F i e d l e r a task oriented leader w i l l be e f f e c -t i v e i n highly favourable (octants 1, 2, 3) or highly unfavour-able Coctant 8) situations; whereas a people oriented leader w i l l be successful i n situations of intermediate favourableness Coctants 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) . Because of li m i t e d number of subjects available the present study examined only a limited number of octants - octants 1, 4 and 8. A part of the study was concerned with testing the v a l i d -i t y of the Contingency Model. The following proposition was used to test the v a l i d i t y of predictions of the model: Hypothesis I: Task oriented leaders (low LPC) w i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n octants 1 and 8, while people oriented leaders (high LPC) w i l l be successful i n octant 4. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC score and group performance should be of the same magnitude and d i r e c t -ion as predicted by the Contingency Model. 1.3 Motivation, Intelligence and A b i l i t y as Moderators of Leadership Effectiveness . • \ The Contingency Model measures- s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness for a leader i n terms- of three variables- v leader member ref-l a t i o n s , leader position power and task structure. The present 14 study, however, raised two separate issues related to such a de^ 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 . 'First, do the three variables adequately measure the s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness para-meter? Second, i f leadership effectiveness i s defined i n terms of group productivity as i s done i n the Contingency Model, may we not conceive of other variables affecting group performance and thereby make a leader's task harder or easier? Position power measures how much power (e.g., capacity to reward, hire and f i r e , etc.) a leader i s given by the employing organization. Task structure measures whether the job i s routine or a novel one. Leader member re l a t i o n s indicate the climate i n the work group between the leader and the led. It requires but l i t t l e imagination to conceive of other variables that may af-fect the favourableness of a leader's s i t u a t i o n (for example, motivation, i n t e l l i g e n c e or a b i l i t y ) . The variables just named may af f e c t leadership e f f e c t i v e -ness, but then, so may many other variables. The question may be raised related to the c r i t e r i o n or c r i t e r i a of choice - how does one go about adding or subtracting variables from a model? The question raised i s relevant, but the answer may not be obvious at a l l . It i s not possible to be c e r t a i n that some variables are the  only variables determining s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness for a leader. Such a determination may well be beyond the o r i g i n a l intent of the contingency model. P a r t i c u l a r leaders w i l l face p a r t i c u l a r lead-ership contingencies i n terms of 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 at least two of the e a r l i e r studies on the Contingency Model ( H i l l , 1969; F i e d l e r , 1967), the investigators f e l t that three more variables ('intelligence,' ab i l i t y / and motivation) may a f f e c t leadership effectiveness. These variables were thought to be responsible for explaining more of the variance i n the s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness dimension of the contingency model. Encouraged by such conjectures, the present study was designed to e m p i r i c a l l y test the e f f e c t of the three variables on leader-Ship effectiveness, notwithstanding the fact that any contingen-cy, theory i s always open to.alternative explanations i n terms of the adequacy of the s i t u a t i o n explored. Accordingly, the f o l -lowing three hypotheses were accepted for t e s t i n g . Hypothesis I I : A l l other things remaining the same, a leader of motivated groups w i l l achieve higher productivity i n terms of speed and quality of group decisions than W i l l a leader of non-motivated groups. Hypothesis I I I : Higher productivity i n terms of speed and qual-i t y w i l l be associated with leaders of groups with higher i n t e l -ligence, a l l other group inputs remaining constant. Hypothesis IV: A leader managing a group with higher a b i l i t y w i l l generate higher quality group decisions i n a shorter time than w i l l a leader managing a group of low a b i l i t y , a l l other s i t u a t i o n a l e f f ects remaining the same. 1.4 Summary In t h i s chapter the development of enquiry concerning leadership effectiveness has been traced very b r i e f l y . Several l i n e s of work were reviewed with special emphasis on two major developments; the Path Goal Theory of Leadership and the Con-tingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. The controversial and c o n f l i c t i n g nature of findings from the Contingency Model studies were mentioned b r i e f l y . The need for a further t e s t of thi s model with an improved methodology was emphasized, and Hypothesis I of the present study, was stated. An extension of the " s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness" parameter of the Contingency Model i n terms of three more variables (motivation, a b i l i t y and intelligence) also was proposed. The t h e o r e t i c a l framework, ar i s i n g from the works of H i l l and F i e d l e r , supporting t h i s kind of extension was b r i e f l y reviewed. F i n a l l y Hypotheses I I , III and IV were proposed to describe the moderating e f f e c t s of the three additional variables on leadership effectiveness. CHAPTER 2 METHOD 2.1 Setting and Subjects The investigation was carried out i n the Small Groups Lab-oratory- at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Subjects for the experiment were drawn from second year undergraduate Commerce classes i n the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment was voluntary, but each subject earned some bonus points for his course by p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the present experiment. There were 147 subjects divided into 49 groups of 3 people. Procedure: The data c o l l e c t i o n for the present study was divided into two separate sessions: testing and experimental. In an approximately one hour long testing session the subjects were asked to complete the following questionnaires: 1. Wesman Personnel C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Test. 2. Berger's Acceptance of Self Scale. (Appendix I) 3. Sociometric Preference Rating of Group Members. (Appendix II) 4. The Least Preferred Co-worker Scale (LPC). (Appendix III) The scores from tests No. 1 and 2 were dichotomized at the median to assign the subjects into various c e l l s of the study. Data on the LPC were f i l e d as soon as they were co l l e c t e d and were not considered u n t i l the end of the experiment and'begin-18 ning of the analysis of data. The Sociometric Preference Rating was used to create groups where the leader of the group was either l i k e d or d i s l i k e d By his fellow members. It was as-sumed that the assignment of subjects into experimental groups on the basis of a preference rating would manipulate group at-mosphere. A group where the leader was preferred by his two other group members was assumed to have good leader member re-lations Chigh GA). The reverse was assumed to be true for the groups where a non-preferred person was appointed as the leader of the group. In the experimental session, the pre-assigned subjects were brought to .a. Small Groups Laboratory which has two rooms (observation and experimental) separated by a two-way mirror. In two experimental conditions, namely, high motivation and strong p o s i t i o n power, a reward of f i v e d o l l a r s was attached to exceptional performance. In strong position power condition, the capacity to reward was entrusted with the leader. In high motivation condition, they were to be rewarded by the E. While the subjects sat around a table to do the assigned task, they were observed from the observation room by two observers, one of whom was the E himself. As the experimental session progressed, the behaviour of the leader i n int e r a c t i o n with two of his fellow members was ob-served c a r e f u l l y by the E and his assistant, both of whom i n -dependently completed the Leader Behaviour Rating questionnaire developed by Graen et a l . (1971). The Leader Behaviour Rating was a six-item rating form having 8-point bipolar adjectives l i k e 'Permissive-Strict', 1 Reguesting-Ordering' , 'Considerate-^ 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 indicated task orientation whereas high scores meant people orientation. Ac-cording to Graen, comparison of scores between LPC and Leader Behaviour Rating would indicate whether LPC measured what i t was supposed to measure. The v a l i d i t y of the Leader Behaviour Rating was unknown. S t i l l , i t provided an experimental check on the v a l i d i t y of the LPC scale. At the end of the experiment, the leader of the group sub-mitted a written solution for the problem the group was given to solve. These solutions were co l l e c t e d by E and evaluated l a t e r by two independent judges as to t h e i r q u a l i t y . Rating was done on a 5^point L i k e r t type scale for each of the four anchors [adequacy, issue involvement, exclusiveness and c l a r i t y of pre-sentation) provided to the judges. Quality of solution was de-fined as the mean of the sum of scores obtained from the two i n -dependent judges. After the solutions were co l l e c t e d , the subjects were asked to complete three post-experimental questionnaires: Group Atmos-phere, Position Power and Motivation. The Group Atmosphere Scale (See Appendix VIII) was the same as used i n e a r l i e r Contingency Model studies. Motivation and Position Power questionnaires (See Appendices VI and VII) were developed here. These questionnaires were completed by the subjects independently without any consult-ation. In the Group Atmosphere questionnaire they rated the quality of interpersonal 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 rate the power the leader had over the members. The question on motivation was answered by both the leader and his co-workers. A l l the members rated t h e i r state of motiv-ation to do an e f f e c t i v e job i n the experiment. The subjects were debriefed after they completed the questionnaires. In two experimental conditions, namely, 'strong position power1 and 'high motivation', they were paid a 5-dollar b i l l as was promised to them at the beginning of the experiment. 2.2 The Measures: Their R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y To carry on the investigation of leadership effectiveness as conceived i n the present study, measures were needed of task structure, position power, group atmosphere, a b i l i t y , i n t e l l i g -ence, motivation, leadership style and also measures of group output. The huge task of manipulation and measurement involved with so many variables deterred the investigator from developing o r i g i n a l measures. However, every attempt was made to use measures with adequate r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . A description of the measures i s given below: Task Structure: As already mentioned i n Chapter I, the degree of task structure was operationally defined by Fiedler (1967) i n terms of four dimensions developed by Shaw (1963). These dimen-sions are: 1) goal c l a r i t y ; 2) decision v e r i f i a b i l i t y ; 3) s o l -ution s p e c i f i c i t y ; 4) goal path m u l t i p l i c i t y . A structured task i s defined as one which has a s p e c i f i c v e r i f i a b l e goal; that i s , 21 one for which there are few alternatives to the solution. An un-structured task i s vague, having no s p e c i f i c -verifiable solution; t h i s type of solution may Be attained By pursuing a number of d i f f e r e n t courses of action. The usual procedure adopted By F i e d l e r f o r measuring task structure i s to oBtain ratings of structure of a task from a number of independent judges. Moreover, he dichotomizes task structure By setting a cutting point of 5.0 on the mean rating oyer a l l the four scales. If the mean sum of judges' rating f a l l s Below- 5.0, i t i s considered as a structured task. A task having a, mean sum of rating 5*0 or aBove i s considered unstructured. For the purpose of the present experiment, the degree of task structure was manipulated By task selection from Taxonomy  of Experimental Tasks (Shaw, 1963). Two tasks were selected from the Book. Task 23 (See Appendix IV) having a mean rating of 3.73 was accepted as structured. Task 59 (See Appendix V) was regarded as unstructured, since i t had a mean rating of 4.93 which f a l l s close to the cutting point of 5.0. It i s desiraBle to maximize the difference Between mean rating of structure and the cutting point to increase the e f f e c t of task structure on group performance. Due to the no n - a v a i l a B i l i t y of suitaBle tasks having highly r e l i a B l e ratings on structure, task 59 was selected, although i t was very close to the cutting point. Shaw found i n t e r ^ r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of .80 to .88 for his taxonomy of Task Structure. This was regarded a^ s: acceptable. Position Poyer: In an ongoing group, position power was measured i n e a r l i e r studies of the Contingency Model by a simple eighteen item check l i s t which provides various indices of position power. But, i n an ad hoc group, position power must be provided by i n -duction. Position power was defined for the present study as having two dimensions: 1) the capacity to reward the members of the groups; 2) some meaningful external symbol of status. Leaders having strong position power i n the present experiment were given the power to reward group members with cash. They were also given the o v e r a l l charge of carrying on the task. Ad-d i t i o n a l l y , they had an external symbol of status l i k e a sign with the word "Chairman" i n front of t h e i r seat. The E desig-nated the leader as i n charge of group operations i n the presence of other group members. These special p r i v i l e g e s and status were withheld from leaders of groups assigned to the weak position power experimental condition. In order to learn whether the induction was e f f e c t i v e i n activating strong or weak leader position power, the participants were asked to complete a questionnaire at the end of the exper-imental session giving t h e i r perception of the leader's position power. The leader as well as his group members rated position power on a five-point scale. (Please see Appendix VI and Appendix VII). An analysis was done to determine the mean perception scores i n three octants of the Contingency Model. The res u l t s are shown i n Table 2. TABLE 2 23 • S V V « s Mean perception of group members about leader p o s i t i o n power Oct. 1 Oct. 4 Oct. 8 ( s t r o n g ) ( w e a k ) (weak) Exp A 2.4 2.3 2.8 ( V a l i d a t i o n ) N = 8 N=8 N=9 Exp ^ B 3.0 2.5 2.7 (Extension) N=8 N=8 N=8 The o v e r a l l mean for strong power condition was 2.7, whereas the same for weak condition was 2.4. This w i l l suggest that the induction worked very s l i g h t l y , since the difference was only .3 on a 5-point scale. This i n a b i l i t y to induce strong p o s i t i o n power supports Fiedler's contention that i t i s very 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 s i t u a t i o n . Leader Member Relations: Both i n ongoing and ad hoc groups the q u a l i t y of leader member re l a t i o n s was measured i n past Contingency Model studies by an instrument c a l l e d Group Atmosphere (GA). The GA i s highly related to the group members' lo y a l t y to the leader (McNamara, 1967) since i t measures only the leader's perception of group atmosphere. Leader member re l a t i o n s i s one of the c r u c i a l variables a f f e c t i n g s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness, according to F i e d l e r . The GA score has obtained i n previous studies from a set of scale items (number of items varying between ten and seventeen! asking the leader to rate h i s group on a s e r i e s of bipolar items such, as friendlyvunfriendly,. cooperatives-uncooperative, tense-relaxed, etc. (Appendix VIII). "A summation of the item scores y i e l d s a quite r e l i a b l e and meaningful Group Atmosphere score, which indicates the degree to which the leader feels accepted by the group and relaxed and at ease i n his r o l e " . CFiedler, 1967). One c r i t i c i s m to which the GA score has been subjected.is the fact that i t may be confounded by group performance (Graen et a l . 1970). For example, the high or low performance of a group may influence the leader's perception as to the kind of r e l a t i o n he had with his group members. In an established de-partment noted for high performance the boss may f i n d i t d i f -f i c u l t to admit that his influence on the group was minimal. To minimize the l i k e l i h o o d of t h i s c r i t i c i s m i t was decided for the purpose of the present experiment that the group atmos-phere would be created by some kind of manipulation i n addition to measuring i t after the experiment was over. This e f f o r t was possible because the subjects for the experiment were drawn from a class where they had previously worked together for f i v e to six weeks. The plan involved.devising a sociometric preference rating where the subjects were asked to mention which members of the class he would l i k e as his workmates. (See Appendix I I ) . Subjects were assigned to groups i n a fashion where a pre-ferred subject would be given the position of leadership i n a group where he was l i k e d by his workmates, It was assumed that t h i s procedure would enable the leader to have some 'influence on his workmates. Where poor leader member rel a t i o n s were desired, the group was constituted of members who did not prefer each other. The assumption i n this- case was that the non-preference of the leader by group members would reduce the leader's i n -fluence oyer the group. To check whether the manipulation of group atmosphere was successful, the leaders as well as the group members were asked to complete the ten item G A Scale developed by F i e d l e r . These data were analyzed to determine the difference of G A scores be-tween the conditions of good and bad leader member re l a t i o n s . Table 3 shows the r e s u l t s : TABLE 3 Mean G A scores for conditions of good and poor leader member relations (Based on the leader perception) Experiment Good Poor Exp - A Oct. 1 Oct. 4 Oct. 8 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 the condition of leader member rel a t i o n s was 68.6 while that for the condition of poor leader member relations was- 63.5. From the above Table, i t appears the manipulation of leader influence by sociometric preference rating was successful to a certain extent. But the small difference between the two means suggests that the manipulation f a i l e d to achieve a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between good and poor leader member r e l a t i o n s . The small difference i n group atmosphere i n terms of G A scores may be due to two reasons: f i r s t , the degree of manipu-l a t i o n of group atmosphere by way of subject assignment was not strong enough, or, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , the G A scale as developed by F i e d l e r did not adequately measure the quality of leader i n -fluence. The second explanation seems plausible i n view of the following observation by A l l a n B. Posthuma (1970): The G A scale produces some intere s t i n g comparisons. In comparison to laboratory groups, rea 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 greater variance (F=3.61, P 01). This difference can probably be attributed to the a r t i f i c i a l nature of laboratory groups where i t would be d i f f i c u l t to de-velop strong negative feelings and where the attitude toward the group would produce any severe differences i n opinion among group members. In a laboratory group, mem-bers are aware of the temporary nature of the experience and are involved with tasks they know w i l l l a s t only for a certain length of time. This 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 hold t h e i r jobs for a v a r i e t y of reasons, and where tensions build up over a considerable period and a complex series of experiences, (pp. 10-13). If the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the G A scale i n measuring group atmosphere i n laboratory groups as brought out by Posthuma i s granted, i t i s to be expected that the difference of G A scores between the two good and poor conditions created i n the present experiment w i l l be small, no matter how strong the degree of manipulation by the experimenter. No matter which of the two reasons are accepted for the smaller mean difference between the two conditions of the present experiment, i t appears that the manipulation of leader member relations i n a laboratory ex-periment w i l l remain a hard task to accomplish. Mot i v at'lon: It has been demonstrated repeatedly that t h i s variable may be manipulated by providing some incentive for ef-f e c t i v e performance. What provides an adequate incentive i r r e s -pective of i n d i v i d u a l differences i s , of course, subject to debate. However, both theory and empirical studies support the effectiveness of cash as an e f f e c t i v e incentive for higher per-formance. There i s a well documented body of research which indicates that cash has c o n v e r t i b i l i t y to other valued psychic and material outcomes (e.g., Whyte, 1955; Lawler, 1971). Subjects were assigned to two d i f f e r e n t motivational con-d i t i o n s ; high and low. The subjects i n the high motivation condition were t o l d at the beginning of the experimental session by E that each of the group members would receive a cash prize of f i v e d o l l a r s for reaching decisions of higher qu a l i t y i n the minimum possible time. No time l i m i t was given. They were t o l d to minimize time and maximize qu a l i t y . Whether t h e i r decision 2 8 s a t i s f i e d the requirement of quality- and time/ was le£t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the experimenter. In the case of subjects under the low motivation condition no incentive was given. They were told only to minimize time and maximize qua l i t y as best they could. They were not promised any reward for doing so. To f i n d out whether the manipulation of high and low motiv-ation conditions as devised by the above experimental procedure was successful, each subject was asked to rate his motivation on a 5r-point scale. ." (See Appendices VI and VII for the rating form). Table 4 shows the mean ratings: TABLE 4 Mean of the Subjects' Rating of Their Motivation Octants High Motivation N = 1 2 Low Motivation N = 1 2 1 4 . 3 3 4 . 1 7 4 4 . 7 5 2 . 5 8 8 4 . 6 6 2 . 5 8 Mean over octants 4 . 5 8 3 . 1 1 From the above Table i t appears that the manipulation with respect to motivation was quite successful with the exception of the groups i n the octant 1 experimental condition. A d i f f e r -erence of (.4.58 ^ 3.11)' 1.47 scale points on a 5-point scale may be considered s a t i s f a c t o r y given the short term duration and a r t i f i c i a l i t y involved i n the experiment. A b i l i t y : Vroom (1964) defines a person's a b i l i t y to perform a ta,sk as "... the degree to which he possesses a l l the psycho-l o g i c a l attributes necessary for a high l e v e l of performance, excluding those of a motivational nature", (p. 198). To Porter and Lawler C1968) a b i l i t i e s are "... r e l a t i v e l y stable 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., personality 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 . ) , that represent the i n d i v i d -ual's currently developed power to perform", (p. 22). Pursuing these two d e f i n i t i o n s a l i t t l e further, one may argue that a test having relevance to an individual's capacity for e f f e c t i v e performance may be used as a measure of a b i l i t y . The problem, however, i s how many tests to use? One? Two? One hundred? What has been the experience with such tests i n the past? Campbell et a l . (1970) showed that the predictive v a l i d i t y of such tests r a r e l y exceeds .40. M i t c h e l l (1971) feels that an operationally s a t i s f a c t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of task related a b i l i t i e s has been elusive. A b i l i t y was operationally defined for the purpose of the present experiment as the individual's o v e r a l l capacity for ef-f e c t i v e functioning i n a given environment. This capacity was assumed to be strongly influenced by an individual's s e l f con-cept or degree of s e l f esteem as acquired through a series of successes or f a i l u r e i n tasks performed over a long period of 3Q time. Kaufman (1962) ,. Vroom, 0-9,61, 1962, 19641 and Lawler, (1971) have provided empirical evidence that an ind i v i d u a l ' s l e v e l of performance tends to vary with the degree of s e l f esteem he possesses. Self esteem i s usually considered to be more a personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c than a task related a b i l i t y . Notwithstanding, Self esteem was used i n the present study because of the f o l -lowing considerations: 1) although not task related, s e l f es-teem does influence a person's o v e r a l l capacity to cope with his environment. Thus i t may be argued that t h i s measure of a b i l i t y i s more comprehensive (in the macro sense of the term) than any other task related a b i l i t y measure; 2) given that the p r i n c i p a l purpose of the present study was not to develop predictors for e f f e c t i v e performance, a workable measure l i k e s e l f esteem was considered acceptable; 3) considering the tasks that were used i n the present experiment, i t appeared a l -most impossible to come up with a workable number of predictors. A combination of predictors could be used but at the cost of an overly complex design. Several measures of s e l f esteem were considered, and that developed by Berger (1952) was selected for use i n the present investigation. This measure i s one of the most c a r e f u l l y devel-oped measures of attitude toward s e l f with r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging from .776 to .884 ( s p l i t half r e l i a b i l i t y for f i v e groups). Va l i d a t i o n of the scale scores against judges' ratings on s e l f acceptance yielded a c o r r e l a t i o n of r = .897. Berger's s e l f acceptance measure consists of 36 attitude statements (both, p o s i t i v e and negative) which the respondents rate on a 5-point L i k e r t type scale. When scoring, the answers to negatively/ worded statements are reversed. The scores on a l l statements are added together to obtain a scale score. The higher the score the better the respondent's s e l f esteem and v i c e versa. The scores for the 7 2 subjects for Exp - B were dis t r i b u t e d normally, with a range of 105 - 162, and a median of 138. The subjects were divided at the median score for .assign-ment into high and low a b i l i t y groups. Subjects scoring up to 13 8 were considered as having low s e l f esteem, and those Scoring beyond 138 were c l a s s i f i e d as having high s e l f esteem. Intelligence: General mental a b i l i t y or i n t e l l i g e n c e i s a multi-dimensional concept. Two dimensions which were considered important for the present experiment were: verbal reasoning and numerical a b i l i t y . Proficiency in reasoning and numerical capacity were necessary to do an e f f e c t i v e job i n the problems that were chosen for 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 Person-nel C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Test. The test has consistently produced r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n the upper 80's. It correlated well with other reputable tests such as the Otis General Intelligence Examination (r = .68), and the Wonderlic Personnel Test ( r = .76). The test has been used with subjects i n a number of d i f -ferent occupations and settings ranging from university students to mechanical apprentices. A few words are i n order about the structure of the test. Items used to measure verbal reasoning a b i l i t y were designed to f u l f i l l c ertain requirements. Both reasoning through analogy and perception of relationships 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 subject matter and a consequent reduction of emphasis on mere vocabulary knowledge. The chances of guessing correct a,nswers are only one i n sixteen, as against one i n four or f i v e for more multiple choice t e s t s ; this considerably increases the r e l i a b i l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l items. Although timed, the test i s e s s e n t i a l l y a measure of power rather than of speed. The numerical items have been devised to te s t command of basic arithmetic s k i l l s and processes plus general f a c i l i t y i n the use of numerical concepts. The content has been so arranged that a premium i s placed on the a b i l i t y to perceive r e l a t i o n -ships and to operate with ingenuity; the importance of sheer figure handling speed, or number perception, better measured by simple c l e r i c a l tests i s minimized. There are no t r i c k ques-tions; however, some problems are included which are easy for a person with a ready understanding of p r i n c i p l e s and r e l a t i o n -ships involved. This test 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 just mentioned were essen-t i a l for doing a good job i n the tasks selected for the present experiment. For example, one of the tasks required the subjects to assign f i v e people to f i v e machines using time and motion 33 study data about the whole operations. _To make an e f f e c t i v e assignment a command of arithmetic s k i l l s and reasoning a b i l i t y -are e s s e n t i a l . The WPCT measured these mental capa c i t i e s . A t o t a l of 147 subjects were administered t h i s t e s t but only 72 were used i n the Exp - B part of the study. Their scores ranged from 20 to 54 with a median of 43. Sunjects were assigned based on a cutting score of 43. Subjects scoring 43 or more were considered to possess 'high' i n t e l l e c t u a l capacity, and those who scored less than 43 were considered 'low' i n i n -t e l l i g e n c e . Leadership Style: This variable was measured by the LPC instrument developed by F i e d l e r . The LPC score i s obtained by asking a per-son to think of a l l the individuals with whom, he has worked. He then describes the person whom he considers his least preferred co-worker. The descriptions are made on 8-point, bi-polar adjective check l i s t s , similar i n form to Osgood's Semantic D i f -f e r e n t i a l (Osgood et a l . , 1957), using items descriptive of per-sonality a t t r i b u t e s , e.g: Friendly: 8 : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Unfriendly Co-operative: 8 : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Uncooperative Cold: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : Warm. (Pie-a-s-e-see Exhibit III for the LPC instrument used) . According to F i e d l e r , 1967): ... the Least Preferred Co-worker score, LPC, i s an almost i d e a l psychological measure. It takes no more than 5 minutes to administer; i t consists of a short set of scale items (usually 16 to 20); 34 has s p l i t half r e l i a b i l i t y of above . 90, a test retest r e l i a b i l i t y - f o r adults ranging from .5 to .8; and i t arouses l i t t l e i f any resistance on the part of subjects. On the other hand, the LPC score has been extremely r e s i s -tant to any meaningful interpretation despite a persistent and intensive e f f o r t which has extended over nearly two decades. LPC has been uncorrelated with most personality test scores and various attempts to r e l a t e the score to s e l f descriptions, des-cr i p t i o n s by others, or behavioural observations have led to complex or inconsistent r e s u l t s . The LPC score has been interpreted d i f f e r e n t l y over periods of time. F i r s t i t has been suggested that LPC i s a simple measure of leadership s t y l e , e.g., high LPC leaders are r e l a t i o n -ship oriented, low LPC leaders are task oriented (Fiedler, 1967). However, standard measures of leadership style such as I n i t i a t i o n of Structure or Consideration have f a i l e d to correlate consisten-t l y with LPC (Fiedler, 1971). Accordingly, F i e d l e r (1970) i n a technical report from the University of Washington gave a new i n -terpretation of the LPC score. He re-analyzed most of his leader-ship studies and observed: ... the Leastt Preferred Co-worker (LPC) score ... suggests that the score r e f l e c t s a hierarchy of goals. High LPC persons have as th e i r primary goal the establishment and maintenance of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s and as a secondary goal the attainment of prominence and s e l f enhancement. The low LPC person i s seen as having as his primary goal the achievement of task and material rewards while he has as his secondary goal the development of good interpersonal r e l -ations. The i n d i v i d u a l w i l l seek to achieve his primary as well as secondary goals i n Situations i n which his control and influence 35 i s r e l a t i v e l y great; he w i l l concentrate on securing h i s primary- goals 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 inte r e s t i n g interpretations of the LPC score are available. In a series of analyses, M i t c h e l l (1970) has presented evidence suggesting that LPC measures cognitive com-ple x i t y ; high LPC subjects make greater d i s t i n c t i o n s between Stimulus objects than the low LPC persons. Thus, low LPC leaders are e f f e c t i v e i n very favourable or very unfavourable situations, because of the fact that the situations are cognitively simple (e.g., either favourable or unfavourable). But the high LPC leaders because of t h e i r higher capacity to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between stimulus objects become successful i n situations of intermediate favourableness (cognitively complex). Sample and Wilson (1965) found that high and low LPC leaders showed a similar amount of i n i t i a t i o n of structure over the duration of a small group task experiment. But, the patterns of behaviour s h i f t e d as the task neared completion. F i e d l e r i n t e r -preted t h i s finding i n terms of a stress/non-stress difference i n the s i t u a t i o n . In a recent study by Evans et a l . (1972), the authors observed: The research reported here suggests an alternative explanation. It has been found that low LPC was consistently an indicator of cognitive s i m p l i c i t y i n that i t was as-sociated with high dogmatism and with high intolerance for uncertainty. However, the high LpC i n d i v i d u a l could be one of several types: a) cogn i t i v e l y complex — undogmatic but uncomfortable with uncertainty; b) cogn i t i v e l y mixed i : undogmatic but uncomfortable with uncertainty, i i : dogmatic but comfortable with uncertainty. (p. 18). 36 On the basis of the above evidence the authors suggested that LPC may not be a measure of cognitive complexity-, as e a r l i e r research showed i t to be. The LPC scale i s an in t e g r a l part of any study on the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness, but the LPC as a measuring instrument s t i l l appears to be uninterpretable or Subject to several interpretations. Considering t h i s , i t was decided to use the instrument at i t s face value. A plan was, however, made to check the v a l i d i t y of the LPC scale i n terms of Observation and rating of the behaviour of leaders i n the exper-iment. Two observers independently rated the bahaviour of the leaders i n each group using the Leader Behaviour Rating instrum-ent developed by Graen et a l . '(1971). This rating form has six bi^polar adjectives similar i n form to the LPC scale, a low rating meaning that the leader i s observed to be task oriented, a high rating i n d i c a t i n g the people orientation. (Appendix X). One problem faced i n using the Leader Behaviour Rating was lack of any r e l i a b i l i t y information about the instrument. To over-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 was computed between two sets of ratings done by the two independent observers. Table 5 shows various c o r r e l a t i o n a l values between the two ratings. TABLE 5 Jnter^correlation between the ratings of two observers on: CNF=35);  Item i l r - ,04 Item 12 r R Item 13 r R item 14 -r R Item 15 r -,31 .86 ,42 .-66 Item 16 x = .71 TOTAL r R .76 Since the interpreter r e l i a b i l i t y on the in d i v i d u a l items varied from a low- of .0.4 to ,8 6" with a median of ,54, i t was-decided not to use these for further analysis. But, the inter - r rater r e l i a b i l i t y on the sum of ratings was .7562. This was considered acceptable with caution. A c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis was carr i e d on the LPC scores and the ratings of leader behaviour as submitted by two indepen-dent observers. Four sets of observations were used: (1) rating sum from observer No ..1.) (2) rating sum from observer No .2 ; (3) mean of ratings from both observers; (4) LPC scores. Table 6 shows the r e s u l t of the analysis. TABLE 6 Inter c o r r e l a t i o n between observer rating of leader behaviour and Least Preferred Co-worker scores CN=35) Observer #1 r .07 Observer #2 r = .12 Mean of rating from #1 and #2 r = .08 It i s d i f f i c u l t to interpret the low c o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC scores and observer rating of leader behaviour. The low co r r e l a t i o n a l values indicated that there was l i t t l e association between leadership s t y l e as predicted by LPC and that the two observers rated as the demonstrated behaviour of the leader. But any strong doubt on the v a l i d i t y of the LPC i n terms of the rating by observers would be unwarranted since 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 Productivity: Solutions from the two group tasks were scored using two c r i t e r i a Ci.e., quality of solution and time taken to reach the solution) as was suggested by the authors of the tasks. As mentioned i n the section on experimental procedure, time for solution was recorded by the experimenter. The quality of solution was rated by two independent judges i n the case of task 59 (unstructured): for task 23 (structured) the qua l i t y of Solution was measured according to the i n s t r u c t i o n provided by the author of the task. Task 23 was an assignment problem where the groups were asked to assign as e f f i c i e n t l y as they could f i v e men to f i v e machines. The assignment was to be done according to a time and motion study data provided to the group. There was one best solution for the problem and t h i s was ten minutes. The worst solution could be f i f t e e n minutes. Since the r e s u l t provided by various groups varied between ten and f i f t e e n minutes, i t was de-cided to rate the quality of the output on a 10-point scale. Accordingly, groups that came up with a solution of ten minutes got rated as perfect (10 points); whereas the group deciding on a 15 minute solution was rated as wrong (0 points). Task 59 was a discussion task i n which the group members were asked to figure out the f i v e most important t r a i t s needed for success i n a culture. Tt was very d i f f i c u l t to define the c r i t e r i o n 'quality', because there was no 'the solution'. The 39 author of the task did not have any- rating instructions on t h i s c r i t e r i o n . I t was therefore decided to develop our own rating form. This was done as described Below.' Quality was defined as the sum of ratings on the four anchors of: 1) adequacy Chow adequate t h e . f i v e t r a i t s are for attaining success): 2) issue invo1vernent (how relevant the solution i s to the problem): 3) exclusiveness (defined as i n -dependence of the l i s t e d t r a i t s from one ano the r ) : 4) c l a r i t y  of presentation (defined as c l a r i t y of expression). A rating form was created where two judges were asked to rate each of the group solutions independently on a 5-point L i k e r t type scale using the four anchors as described. (^Lea_se see Appendix IX). The two judges were doctoral students i n Organizational Behaviour at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Before they were assigned to the rating job, they were in v i t e d to a j o i n t session with the E for b r i e f i n g and t r i a l . The meaning of the anchors was explained to them. After a reasonable agreement had been reached on the meaning of anchors, the judges were asked to make a few t r i a l ratings. At the end of the b r i e f i n g and practice sessions, the judges went home with the group solutions which were printed on a separate piece of paper. (Solutions were printed to avoid the rating bias a r i s i n g from the qual i t y of handwritten solutions). Rating was done p r i v a t e l y and independently. When a l l the ratings were received from the two judges, an inter-^rater 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 four anchors as well as on the sum of scores: TABLE 7 Inter-rater Agreement on the Ratings of .Group Output CN=47) ; Rating Anchor R e l i a b i l i t y Lr) 1. Adequacy .75 2. Issue Involvement .68 3, Exclusiveness .80 4. C l a r i t y of Presentation .50 5, Sum of the Anchors .74 Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y on the sum of scores (r = .74) was considered s a t i s f a c t o r y . A l l further analyses were done on the sum of scores. 2,3 Description of the S t a t i s t i c a l Procedure Hypothesis I was concerned with testing the e a r l i e r predic-tions from the Contingency Model. Three steps were involved i n the t e s t : 1) Convert the scores on the LPC and Group Productiv-i t y into ranks; 2) compute the Spearman Rank Order Correlation between the two ranks; 3) compare the rho's found i n the present study with those from the model, A test of significance was done. The .05 l e v e l of significance was accepted as the basis for r e j e c t i n g the n u l l hypothesis. 41 Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 respectively were to test the moder-ating e f f e c t of motivation, i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y on leader-ship effectiveness. Each of the three variables had two level s and the re s u l t i n g experimental design was a 2 x 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l . This design f a c i l i t a t e d two important analyses; 1) three-way analysis of variance end; and 2) a covariance analysis. In the three-way ANOVA the objective was to determine the main and in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of the three proposed moderators on group performance. The s t a t i s t i c a l model was of the form: Y; = ACM + BCJl + C(k) + DU) + AB(ij) + AC(ik) + BCCjk). + ABCCijkl) + E Where: A = Intelligence, B = A b i l i t y , C = Motivation, D = Replication, i = 1,2 j = l , 2 k = l , 2 L- = 1,2,3 Y = Group Performance. In the analysis of covariance, the objective was to deter-mine i f the three proposed variables did indeed moderate the re-latio n s h i p between the LPC and Group Productivity. Accordingly, the following covariance model was used where LPC was the co-variate: Y = ACi) + B(J) + C(k) + /LPC + E where: Y = Group Output A = Intelligence i = 1,2 B = A b i l i t y j ~ 1,2 C = Motivation k = 1,2 E f= Error Results from the three-way- ANOVA and analysis of covariance were subjected to a test of. significance at the ,10 l e v e l of cpn^ fidence, 2.4 Description" of' the '^per^meRta,^,Pe^jfen The reader may r e c a l l from .Chapter I that tyhe present i n -vestigation was concerned with two prime objectives; one, to t e s t the Contingency- Model with an improved methodology and design; two, to ascertain whether the v a r i a b l e s of motivation, i n t e l l i g e n c e and 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-ship s t y l e and group pro d u c t i v i t y as e a r l i e r theorists predicted. In order to s a t i s f a c t o r i l y carry out the investigation of the two research questions, an experimental design consisting of two parts was conceived. One part of t h i s design was to validate the Contin-gency Model, the other, to examine the moderating effects of motivation, a b i l i t y and i n t e l l i g e n c e i n combination with the three o r i g i n a l variables of the Contingency Model of leadership effectiveness. The o v e r a l l design and that of the two separate parts was as follows: Design Overall: Leadership Style Group Output (measured by the LPC) . (measured by rating ^ ' of output) Situ a t i o n a l Variables Part I C 1. Task Structure (TS) C 2. Position Power (PP) C 3. Leader Member Relations (GA) Part II ( 4. Intelligence ClNTi ( 5. A b i l i t y (SE) C 6, Motivation (MOTI According to the Contingency Model, the s i t u a t i o n modern ates the relat i o n s h i p between leadership s t y l e and group out-come. The o v e r a l l design, therefore, consisted of assigning groups to laboratory created situations on the basis of the yariables under examination, measuring the leadership s t y l e of the p a r t i c u l a r leader, and the output of the p a r t i c u l a r group. The broken l i n e above separates the variables under examination C4, 5, 6) i n the present study from those contained i n the Con-tingency Model Cl/ 2 and 3). The s i t u a t i o n a l variables were dichotomized to provide d i f f e r e n t combinations of degrees of task structure, position power, quality of leader member re-la t i o n s , l e v e l s of a b i l i t y , i n t e l l i g e n c e and motivation. Lead-ers were assigned to groups. The covariation between leadership st y l e and group productivity provides evidence for the predic-t i v e power of the Contingency Model. The two parts of the ov e r a l l design which w i l l be referred to as Experiment A and Experiment B, were as described below: Experiment A: This part of the design was concerned with testing the Contingency Model. Attempts were made to create leadership situations as close to the Model as possible. Methodological c r i t i c i s m s by Graen et a l . (1971) and Fiedler (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 variables. In pa r t i c u l a r , care was taken that the strength of manipulation of variables such as position power and leader member re l a t i o n s were not di l u t e d . This point has been elaborated e a r l i e r i n Section 2.2 of t h i s Chapter. The Contingency Model contains eight c e l l s derived, by-a 2 x 2 x 2 breakdown of the three s i t u a t i o n a l moderators CTS, PP and GA]. Leaders are hypothesized to be e f f e c t i v e or in e f -f e c t i v e depending on the s i t u a t i o n a l octants to which they are assigned and also t h e i r LPC scores. For example, leaders with low LPC scores (meaning task orientation) may be more e f f e c t i v e i n octants 1, 2 , 3 and 8 whereas leaders with high LPC scores (meaning people orientation) are predicted to be more e f f e c t i v e i n octants 4, 5 and 7. Research on the Contingency Model has a l i m i t a t i o n i n terms of the number of subjects required because observations are made on the basis of groups rather than on the basis of i n -dividuals i n the groups. Facing t h i s constraint, i t was de-cided to test only three octants of the Contingency Model. These octants are described i n Table 8. TABLE 8 Design for Experiment A Octant Si t u a t i o n a l Measures GA TS PP Ef f e c t i v e Leadership Style N = No. of Groups Perform-ance Oct. 1 Good High Strong Task (low LPC) 8 Group product Oct. 8 Poor Low Weak Task Clow LPC) 8 Group product Oct. 4 Good Low Weak People Chigh LPC) 8 Group product - , L 45 Experiment B: This experiment was concerned with examining the moderating effects of three new variables for the Contingency Model. The three proposed variables ( i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and motivation) were dishotomized into high and low. This provided eight d i f -ferent combinations. Nesting the three Contingency Model variables i n each of these eight new combinations resulted i n the following design, as shown i n Table 9. TABLE 9. Design for Experiment B Intelligence (Int.) HIGH LOW A b i l i t y SE High Low High Low High Int-High Int-High Int-Low Int-Low SE -High SE -Low SE -High SE -Low Mot-High Mot-High Mot-High Mot-High (TS,PP,GA) (TS,PP,GA) (TS,PP,GA)(TS,PP,GA) MOTIVATION (MOT) Low Int-High Int-High Int-Low Int-Low SE -r-High SE -Low SE -High SE -Low MotT-Low Mot-Low Mot-Low Mot-Low (TS,PP,GA) CTS,PP,GA) (TS,PP,GA)(TS,PP,GA) Since the new variables were superimposed on the octant conditions (1, 4 and 8) as hypothesized by the Contingency Theory, there were twenty-four c e l l s of observations, eight observations for each of octants 1, 4 and 8. This design made i t possible to do anlysis of variance and covariance to deter-mine the eff e c t s of the three variables on the three octants of the Contingency Model. CHAPTER 3 RESULTS 3,1 INTRODUCTION In t h i s chapter the data relevant to the four hypotheses of the study are examined. Hypothesis I was concerned with a test of the v a l i d i t y of the predictions of the Contingency Model. This t e s t was done by the assignment of leaders into d i f f e r e n t octants of the model indicating d i f f e r e n t degrees of s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness and computation of covariation be-tween the LPC scores of the assigned leader and group produc-t i v i t y . Both the LPC scores and group productivity scores (de-rived by panel rating) were converted into ranks. The Spearman Rank Order Correlation was computed between the two ranks. The c o r r e l a t i o n found was tested for significance at the .05 l e v e l . F i n a l l y , the results were compared with the e a r l i e r pre-dictions . Hypotheses I I , III and IV, which examined the moderating effects of motivation, i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y , respectively, on leadership effectiveness, were tested by an analysis of variance. As mentioned e a r l i e r , each of the three variables had two l e v e l s , high and low. The three-way ANOVA enabled determin-ation of the main and int e r a c t i o n effects of the three variables on group productivity-. Level means also provided an ind i c a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t i a l effects of the two levels under each 47 variable. The moderating effects of these three variables were established by subjecting the LPC and group productivity scores to an analysis of covariance. The effects of the three variables as moderators were found by examining the analysis of covariance Table. A test of significance at the .10 l e v e l was used as a basis to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis. Because of the Small number of observations under each experimental condition, a lower l e v e l of confidence Csuch as .10) was accepted to test the hypothesis. Group productivity was measured i n two ways; the q u a l i t y of solution, and the time needed for the decision. The scores derived under the two c r i t e r i a could be combined into a com-posite score. But, t h i s involved making ar b i t r a r y assumptions about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two c r i t e r i a , e.g., the time for decision and the q u a l i t y of solution. It was decided there-fore to perform separate analyses for each of the two c r i t e r i a . One very important advantage of t h i s separate analysis was that i t enabled a study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between leadership, and group productivity using two very p r a c t i c a l c r i t e r i a applied by re a l l i f e organizations to assess the productivity of t h e i r em-ployees, namely, speed and quality of performance. 3.2 Leadership Style, Situational Favourability and Group Productivity  Experiment A was designed to test the v a l i d i t y of the Con-tingency Model i n terms of d e f i n i t i o n s , methods and predictions of the model. Experiment A, leadership s t y l e was operationally defined i n terms of the Least Preferred Co-worker Score Ce.g., 48 low LPC R Task Oriented; . high LPC R People Oriented).. Leader Member Relations, Leader position Power and Task Structure w ere considered as- determining s i t u a t i o n a l favour ability-. Group pro-^ d u c t i y i t y was measur ed i n terms of two c r i t e r i a ; speed and q u a l i t y of group decision. Tn t h i s Section of Chapter 3 eyidence i n support of Hypothesis I i s examained. Hypothesis 1 predicted that task oriented leaders (low LPC) W i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n octants 1 and 8, while people oriented lead-ers (high LPC). w i l l be successful i n octant 4. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC and group performance should be of the same mag-nitude and d i r e c t i o n as predicted by the Contingency Model. As mentioned e a r l i e r , Hypothesis I was tested by computing the Spearman Rank Order Correlation between the LPC and group per-formance. The LPC scores and speed and q u a l i t y scores were con-verted into ranks. A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n indicated that high LPC scores were associated with high performance scores; con-versely, a negative c o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i e d that high LPC scores were associated with low performance scores. According to the Contingency Model, po s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n indicated success of people oriented leaders while negative c o r r e l a t i o n would be as-sociated with effectiveness of task oriented leaders. Octants numbered 1, 4 and 8 were examined. The r e s u l t s found from Experiment A for the three octants with two c r i t e r i a of group performance Ce.g., speed and quality) are reported i n Tables 10 and 11. Results as described i n Tables 10 and 11 gave moderate sup-port to the predictions of the lontingency Model. The negative c o r r e l a t i o n i n octants 1 and 8 showed that task oriented leaders were more e f f e c t i v e than people oriented leaders- i n the two octants. The p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n octant 4 indicates that people oriented leaders were more successful than task oriented leaders. The comparison of r values between column 3 and column 4 of Tables 10 and 11 f a i r l y attested to the v a l i d i t y of e a r l i e r predictions of the Contingency Model. TABLE 10 Spearman Rank Order Correlation Between the LPC x ^ x 7 . V V . Scores and Quality of Group Decision Octant N r_ found i n the "present study Predicted_r_ i n the Contingency Model 1 4 8 8 8 9 T.10 + .34 -.10 -.52 + .47 -.43 TABLE 11 Spearman Rank Order Correlation Between the LPC Scores and Speed of Group Decision Octant N r_ found i n the present study E a r l i e r Predicted r i n the Contingency Model 1 4 8 '.. CO CO 00 -.69* + .48 -.51 -.52 + .47 -.43 S i g n i f i c a n t at .0.5 l e v e l . 50 A few trends to be noticed i n the res u l t s concern: 1) d i r e c t i o n of; the relationship? 21 magnitude of the re-lationship; and 3) s t a t i s t i c a l significance of the r e s u l t s . As far as the d i r e c t i o n of rel a t i o n s h i p was concerned, strong support was provided by the results described i n Tables 10" and J l l , A l l six revalues found i n the present study were in the same d i r e c t i o n as was predicted by the Contingency Model. A part of Hypothesis I concerning the d i r e c t i o n of relat i o n s h i p between the LPC and group performance scores was, therefore, considered as confirmed by the present findings. Not so clear a picture emerged when one compares the results with reference to the magnitude of rela t i o n s h i p . In case of qua l i t y of group decision (see Table 10), the degree of corre-l a t i o n was very small i n octants numbered 1 and 8, while i t was moderate i n octant 4. On the other hand, i n case of speed of group decision (see Table 11), a l l c o r r e l a t i o n a l values were very strong and of the same magnitude as was hypothesized. When tested for s t a t i s t i c a l s ignificance, a l l but one cor-r e l a t i o n value were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Lack of s t a t i s t i c -a l s i gnificance may cause concern i n some quarters. But, i t should not be surprising i n the present case when one considers the small N values i n column 2 of both Tables 10 and 11. Few of the e a r l i e r findings from the Contingency Model studies sat-i s f i e d the canon of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . A large enough sample size may enable future investigators to overcome t h i s problem. In summary, the findings 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 ; the magnitude of r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to Be s a t i s f a c t o r y . If lack of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i e s ance is- not considered too formidable a shortcoming, i t may Be concluded that a further degree of support was provided By the present study to the Contingency Theory hypothesis ( i . e . , Hypo-thesis X of the present study]. 3 . 3 Motivation, Intelligence and A B i l i t y as Moderators of Leadership Effectiveness. Results reported i n th i s section were derived from Exper-iment B as tests of Hypotheses I I , III and IV. It may Be re-ca l l e d from Chapter I that Experiment B was designed to test whether three new variaBles, 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 i n defining s i t u a t i o n a l favour-a B i l i t y for a leader. Hypotheses i l , III and IV were proposed i n this; connection. Hypothesis II predicted that leaders of motivated groups w i l l achieve higher productivity (in terms of speed and q u a l i t y of output] than leaders of non-motivated groups. Hypothesis III forecast that leaders of groups with high i n t e l l i g e n c e w i l l turn out Better and quicker group decisions than leaders of groups with low i n t e l l i g e n c e . Hypothesis IV predicted that a leader managing a group with higher a B i l i t y w i l l produce greater group output than a leader managing a group of low a b i l i t y . Hypotheses I I , III and IV were tested by subjecting the data derived from Experiment B to two p r i n c i p a l s t a t i s t i c a l analyses; a Three Way Analysis of Variance and an Analysis of Covariance. The Three Way ANOVA assessed the main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s 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 and q u a l i t y of group output. T h i s s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s d i d not p r o v i d e a d i r e c t t e s t of the t h r e e hypotheses. I t was c a r r i e d out o n l y to a s c e r t a i n the. e f f e c t of the three v a r i a b l e s on group performance. 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 . The comaprison of the l e v e l means pro v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n as to the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of the l e v e l s under each v a r i a b l e . Tables 12 and 13 r e p o r t the r e s u l t s found. Tables 12 and 13 present the mean group performance scores and a l s o the r e s u l t s of the Three Way A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e . The group p r o d u c t i v i t y scores i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e were d i f f e r -ences i n output between the two l e v e l s of the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s under examination. For example, the average group p r o d u c t i v i t y scores i n Tables 12 (a) and 13 Ca) i n d i c a t e t h a t groups with high 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 performed b e t t e r than groups with low 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 . The degree of d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t of two l e v e l s of the t h r e e v a r -i a b l e s v a r i e d between the two c r i t e r i a of group performance, namely, speed and q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n s . The d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t of two l e v e l s of i n t e l l i g e n c e was s t r o n g e r on the q u a l i t y of d e c i s i o n than the speed of s o l u t i o n . On the other hand, m o t i v a t i o n had a stronger e f f e c t on the speed of d e c i s i o n than on the q u a l i t y of d e c i s i o n . The two l e v e l s of a b i l i t y had a weak e f f e c t on both the speed and q u a l i t y of d e c i s i o n . R e s u l t s from ANOVA as r e p o r t e d i n Tables 12 Cb) and 13 (b) supported what was shown i n T a b l e s 12 Ca) and 13 Ca). I n t e l -53 e had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t ( p * .02 level) on groups' ' TABLE 12 Ef f e c t of Motivation, Intelligence and A b i l i t y on the Speed of Group Decision a. Mean Group Performance Score • LOW HIGH Intelligence (A) (n=12) 14.8 18.7 (n=12) A b i l i t y (B) (n=12) 16.3 17.1 (n=12) Motivation (C) Cn=12) 12.8 20.6 (n=12) b. Analysis of Variance Source Df Mean Square F Significance Intelligence (A) 1 9.2 1.49 N.S . Self 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 X C 1 7.1 0.11 N.S. A x B x C 1 5.1 0.08 N.S. Octant 2 7.8 1 26 N.S. .. Error 14 6.2 54 ..TABLE 13 Eff e c t of Intelligence, A b i l i t y - and Motivation on the Ouality. of Group Decision a. Mean Group Performance Scores LOW ' — - HIGH Intelligence (Al 9 . 8 ( n = 1 2 ) 12.3 (n=12) A b i l i t y (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 A b i l i t y (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 achieving higher pro d u c t i v i t y i n terms: of higher qua l i t y but not i n terms of 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 of A b i l i t y on group produc-t i v i t y either i n terms of qual i t y or i n speed of solution. Motivation affected the speed of group solution s i g n i f i c a n t l y C )> < .02). Quality of solution was not affected by motivation. The model of ANOVA used Cas reported i n Chapter 2) made possible the study of the f i r s t l e v e l (AB, BC, AC) as well as the second l e v e l of inte r a c t i o n (ABC) of the three variables. The small size of the F values for these interactions as re-ported i n Table 12 Cb) and 13 Cb) indicate the i n s i g n i f i c a n t nature of these interactions. Octant effects reported i n the two ANOVA Tables separated the e f f e c t of the o r i g i n a l variables of the Contingency Model from the eff e c t s of the three additional variables introduced i n t h i s study. The scope of the present investigation included only a subset of the eight combinations of Fiedler variables of the Contingency Model. This l i m i t a t i o n of 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 of each of the Con-tingency Model variables separately. But, the octant 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 variables; which was found to 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 respect to quali t y but not with respect to speed of group decision. Data d i r e c t l y relevant to Hypotheses II , III and IV were analyzed by analysis of coyariance. LPC was used as the covar-i a t e , speed and quality of group decision as the dependent var-iab l e s , i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and motivation as the moderating 56 variables. Tables 14 and 15 present the" mean group performance scores and also the res u l t s from the analysis- of covariance. As found e a r l i e r i n the ANOVA, the two level s of the three variables d i f f e r e n t i a l l y affected the speed and qual i t y of group decision. The magnitude of the differences 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]. This may be due to the fact that the group perfor-mance scores were adjusted by the differences i n the LPC scores. Moderate support was found for Hypothesis I I I , which stated that leaders of high i n t e l l i g e n c e groups w i l l achieve higher productivity than leaders of low i n t e l l i g e n c e groups. Data re-ported i n Tables 14 Cb) and 15 (b) revealed that i n t e l l i g e n c e s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected the qu a l i t y and speed of group decision a f t e r the l a t t e r were adjusted for the differences i n the LPC scores. The res u l t s were tested for significance at .10 l e v e l . No support was received for Hypothesis IV which stated that group productivity w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r between groups of high a b i l i t y as compared to groups of low a b i l i t y . F values for the variable were very low under both the c r i t e r i a of speed and q u a l i t y of group solution. Hypothesis II stated that higher productivity in terms of speed and quality w i l l be associated with the state of motiv-ation of the leader and his co-workers. Support for t h i s hypo-thesis was p a r t i a l . Table 14 Cb] repors that speed of decision was s i g n i f i c a n t l y diferent C 15.04) between motivated and non-motivated groups. On the other hand, motivation did not make a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the q u a l i t y of group decision CSee TABLE 14 Eff e c t of Motivation, Intelligence' and A b i l i t y on the Relationship Between LPC and Speed of Group Decision Mean Group Performance Scores HIGH LOW Intelligence 18.7 (n=12) 13.3 (n=12) A b i l i t y 16.3 (n=12) 15.6 (n=12) Motivation 19.2 Cn=12) 12.8 (n=12) Analysis of Covariance Source Df Mean Square F Significance Intelligence 1 1.5 2.95 .10 A b i l i t y 1 2.5 0.05 N.S. Motivation 1 2.4 4.74 . 04 Octant 2 2.9 0.58 N.S. Error 17 2.9 58 TABLE 15 Ef f e c t of Intelligence, A B i l i t y and Motivation on the Relationship Between LPC and Quality of Group Decision Mean' Group Performance Scores HIGH LOW Intelligence 11.9 Cn=12) 10.3 (n=12) A B i l i t y 11.3 Cn=12) 10.9 (n=12) Motivation 11.5 (n=12) 10.7 (n=12) Analysis of Covariance Source Df Mean Square F Significance Intelligence 1 1.16 2. 99 .09 A B i l i t y 1 4.59 0.11 N.S. Motivation 1 3.56 0.91 N.S. Octant 2 8.06 20.68 0.00 Error 17 8.07 Table 15 Cb). Thus, i t was found that leaders o% .motivated groups achieved higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms of .  speed but f a i l e d to do so i n terms of qual i t y . The e f f e c t of the Fiedler variables on the rel a t i o n s h i p between leadership s t y l e and group productivity remained the same as was found i n the ANOVA reported e a r l i e r i n t h i s section. The octant e f f e c t (differences i n task structure, p o s i t i o n power and leader member relations) 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 for the quality of group decision t P - P5* ) but not for the speed of group decision. 3.4 Summary of Findings Results reported i n the present chapter provided moderate support i n terms of d i r e c t i o n and magnitude of co r r e l a t i o n for the Contingency Theory hypotheses. A l l but one r e s u l t f a i l e d to s a t i s f y the test of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . In the extension part of the study the a b i l i t y variable f a i l e d to demonstrate the e f f e c t hypothesized. The hypothesized e f f e c t of i n t e l l i g e n c e was supported. However, the evidence pro-vided i n favour of the hypothesized e f f e c t of motivation as a s i t u a t i o n a l variable was only p a r t i a l . Motivation s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected the speed of group decision, but f a i l e d to show any strong e f f e c t on the qual i t y of group decision. CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1. Findings Relevant to the Hypotheses The findings from the present study provided moderate sup-port for the Contingency Theory hypotheses. It was found that task oriented leaders were more e f f e c t i v e i n extremely favour-able [Oct. 1) or extremely unfavourable (Oct. 8) situations, whereas people oriented leaders were successful i n situations of intermediate favourableness (Oct. 4). This finding was, Of course, subject 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,ayourability' , 'leadership s t y l e ' and 'leadership effectiveness 1 as s p e c i f i e d i n the Contingency Model of leadership e f f e c t i v e -ness . The r e s u l t s reported here also added to the mass of evid-ence that has been gathered over the past two decades on the contingency nature of leadership effectiveness. Results i n d i c -ated that effectiveness of leader behaviour i n achieving higher group productivity i s dependent upon task structure, leader position power and leader member r e l a t i o n s . Three characteris-t i c s of the r e s u l t s were noticed: 1) low c o r r e l a t i o n i n two instances; 2) lack of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g nificance with the excep-t i o n of one case; but 3) consistency i n terms of d i r e c t i o n of the present findings with those of e a r l i e r tests of the Con-tingency Model. Some doubt has been cast on the p l a u s i b i l i t y of the 61 Contingency- Theory hypotheses By several studies, notably those by- Graen et a l , (1970,1971) , Because of the lack of what Graen et a l . c a l l e d 'evidential p r o b a b i l i t y ' , lack of s e n s i t i v i t y of the model to "correctional inf luences", and also because of "experimenter bias e f f e c t " , Graen and his associate's observed: ... the Contingency Model of leadership effectiveness c l e a r l y has l o s t the cap-a b i l i t y of d i r e c t i n g meaningful research. (p. 295) . X t i s inte r e s t i n g to note that Fiedler (1971a), after a careful review of the Contingency Model studies reported to date obseryed: A series of studies, extending the theory was reviewed. Taken as a group, these studies provide strong evidence that the s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness dimension does indeed moderate the relationship- between leadership style and group performance and that i t provides an im-portant clue to our understanding of leader-ship phenomena, (p. 147.) Confusing and contradictory as the above two opinions are, more puzzling are the data provided by both researchers i n sup-port of t h e i r contention. To put the issue into proper per-spective, some findings from F i e d l e r (1971a) and Graen et a l . (1970) are reproduced here i n Tables 16 and 17 respectively. TABLE 16 Summary of Correlations Between LPC and Group Performance Reported i n F i e l d and Laboratory Studies Testing the Contingency Model Study Octants I II III IV V VI VII VIII F i e l d Studies Hunt (1967) H i l l C1969) a Fiedler et a l . O'Brien et a l . C1969) (1969) -.64 -.51 -.10 -.21 -.46 -.80 .60 -.29 .21 .00 .47 -.24 .67* -.45 .30 -.30 .62 -.51 .14 Laboratory Experiments Belgian Navy -.72 .37 -.16 .08 .16 .07 .26 -.37 .50 -.54 .13 .03 .14 -.27 .60 Shima (1968) a -.26 .71* M i t c h e l l (1969) .24 .43 .17 .38 Fie d l e r exec, a .34 .51 Skrzpek -.43 -.32 .10 .35 .28 .13 .08 -.33 VI VII VIII Median: A H studies -.64 .17 -.22 .38 .22 .10 .26 -.35 F i e l d studies -.57 -.21 -.29 .23 .21 -.24 .30 -.33 Laboratory experiments -.72 .24 -.16 .38 .16 .13 .08 -.33 Median correlations of Fiedler's o r i g i n a l studies (.1964) ^.52 -.58 .33 .47 .42 .05 -.44 NOTE: Number of correlations i n the expected d i r e c t i o n (exclusive of Octant VI, for Which no prediction had beeb made) = 34; number of correlations opposite to expected d i r e c t i o n =11; p by binomial test = .01. Studies not conducted by the writer or his associates. P ± .05. Source: F i e d l e r (1971a, p. 140), + TABLE 17 Comparison of Antecedent and Evidential Correlations Between LPC and Group Performance Octant  S t a t i s t i c I II III IV V VI VII VIII Mean: Antecedent -.54 -.60 -.17 .50 .41 - .15 -.47 Evi d e n t i a l -.16 .08 -.12 .04 .09 -.21 .15 .08 t means 1.83* -2.44* -.19 2.02* 2.56* - .00 -2.81* Standard deviation; Antecedent .25 .12 .56 .39 .15 - .28 .35 Evi d e n t i a l .62 .51 .52 .62 .29 .52 .38 .55 Number: Antecedent 8 3 12 10 6 0 12 12 Ev i d e n t i a l 12 13 9 8 11 13 9 8 * ** + p f. . 05. p *• .01. Source; Graen et a l . (1970, p. 293). 65 Table 16 presents data that F i e d l e r has provided as- a summary of a l l studies, done on the Contingency Model with the ex-ception of those by Graen et a l . Data from the Graen Study were rejected by F i e d l e r on grounds of "flaws i n the method of exper-imentation". On the basis of the re s u l t s shown i n the l a s t four rows of Table 16, F i e d l e r concluded that the findings from Con-tingency Model studies reported aft e r 1964 provided meaningful and consistent re s u l t s except for octants 2 and 6, where some re-sults were contrary to the Contingency Theory predictions. Graen et a l . (1970), on the other hand, reported t h e i r own findings which are reproduced i n Table 17. These investigators computed a mean of correlations found from a l l the studies up to 1964 which they named as 'antecedent' c o r r e l a t i o n . They also computed a mean co r r e l a t i o n of a l l studies reported aft e r 1964 which they l a b e l l e d 'evidential' c o r r e l a t i o n . The inconsistency between the 'antecedent 1 and 'evidential' correlations i s obvious when one compares the f i r s t two rows of Table 4 of the Graen et a l . (.1970) study as reproduced here i n Table 17. Since there was such a wide discrepancy between antecedent and e v i d e n t i a l support i n favour of the Contingency Model, Graen and his associated sug-gested that the model should be rejected. It w i l l be inte r e s t i n g to compare the findings from the present experiment with the findings of both researchers. Since the present study examined only 3 octants (octants 1, 4 and 8), data relevant only to these three octants w i l l be considered. Tables 18 and 19 provide such a comparison. 66 TABLE 18 Comparison of Results Reported by F i e d l e r C1971a, Table 6, p. 140]. and the Present Study Nature of Studies Octant 1 Octant 4 Octant 8 A l l Studies r=-.64 r=.3 8 r=-.3 5 F i e l d Studies r=-.57 r=.23 r=~.33 Laboratory Experiment r=-.72 r=.3 8 r=-.33 Present Study: Quality & LPC r=-.10 r^.34 r=-.10 Speed & LPC r=-.69* r=.48 r=-.51 Median corre-latio n s of Fi e d l e r ' s o r i g i n a l studies (1964) r=-.52 r=.47 r=-.44 67 TABLE 19 Comparison of Results Reported by Graen et a l . (1970, Table 4, p. 293) and tile Present Study Nature of Studies Octant 1 Octant 4 Octant 8 Mean Antecedent r= -.54 r= .50 r= -.47 Mean Evide n t i a l r= -.16 r= .04 r= .08 Quality & LPC r= -.10 r= .34 r= -.10 Speed & LPC r= -.69* r= .48 r= -.51 Results reported i n Table 18 indicate the consistency of findings from the present study with those reported by F i e d l e r (1971a) i n his summary of studies based on the Contingency Model. Of the 6 correlations reported by the present study, 4 were of the same magnitude as found i n both antecedent and ev i d e n t i a l studies. A l l 6 correlations were i n the same d i r e c t i o n predicted by the model. Results reported i n Table 19, however, show a discrepancy between findings of the present study and those reported by Graen et a l . (1970). While the correlations reported by the present study compare favourably with 'mean antecedent' correlations re-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 of 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 results as; reported i n Tables 18 and 19 tend to complement the cumulative findings' reported by- 'Fiedler and contradict those reported by Graen. This, however, should not be interpreted to mean that the evidence i n favour of the Con-tingency Theory hypotheses are devoid of any bone of contention. Two factors which continue to cast doubt on the v a l i d i t y of Con-tingency- Model predictions are; 1) the low magnitude of re-latio n s h i p found between LPC and group productivity; and 2) lack of s t a t i s t i c a l s ignificance of the reported r e s u l t s . Five out of the six correlations reported may be c r i t i c i z e d to have been obtained by chance. The evidence that has been reported here on the question of leadership effectiveness may be c r i t i c i s e d as not applicable to 'real world' leadership s i t u a t i o n s . The subjects i n the present study were students. The leadership situations were ar-t i f i c i a l l y created. The external v a l i d i t y of most i n v e s t i g -ations of thi s nature i s usually suspect (Weick, 1965). The re-sults of the present investigation, however, complement what has been found i n numerous f i e l d studies and f i e l d experiments. The present findings, therefore, may be accepted with a f a i r degree of confidence. In the extension part of the study, i t was established that i n t e l l i g e n c e of a leader and group members ought to be con-sidered 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 for a leader. Leaders of groups under the condition of high 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 productivity than leaders of groups with low i n t e l l i g e n c e . This achievement of higher productivity 6 9 was noticed both, i n terms of quality and speed of the group decision making. The r e s u l t s also indicated that a b i l i t y of the leader and group members as operationally defined by- s e l f esteem did not aff 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 for the leader. Groups under conditions of high and low a b i l i t y achieved productivity with i d e n t i c a l q u a l i t y and speed. Because of thi s finding Hypothesis IV was rejected. It was speculated, however, that these r e s u l t s may have been obtained because of the way i n which a b i l i t y was operationally defined. Some support was found i n favour of the hypothesis that motivation of leaders and group members influences the e f f e c t -iveness of a leader's r o l e . Leaders of motivated groups solved the assigned problem within a s i g n i f i c a n t l y shorter time than did leaders of non-motivated groups. This r e l a t i o n s h i p between motivation and group productivity, however, f a i l e d to a f f e c t the quality of group output. That i s , no difference was found i n the quali t y of group output between the motivated and non-motivated groups. Thus evidence reported here i n favour of the hypothesized e f f e c t of motivation on leadership effectiveness can be consider-ed as p a r t i a l only. It should be pointed out that the findings of the present study concerning the moderating effects of i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and motivation on leadership effectiveness should be considered as tentative and exploratory. This study was the f i r s t i n v e s t i g -ation which tested these three variables i n framework of the Contingency Theory of leadership. Further studies including 70 these variables are needed before appreciable confidence may be placed on the present findings. One aspect of the findings i n Experiment B concerned how the three variables would react on the eight o r i g i n a l c e l l s of the Contingency Model. It was not possible to answer the ques-tio n here because of the limited number of c e l l s that were stud-ied. A more comprehensive study involving i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and motivation as well as the three o r i g i n a l contingency variables i s needed to show how the variables interact on one another and also i n combination. It i s believed however, that a reasonable amount of evid-ence was generated here to indicate that motivation, i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y should be considered as parameters of leadership f a v o u r a b i l i t y . The present study provided empirical support to the contentions of F i e d l e r (.1967) and H i l l (1969) that these variables do indeed moderate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between leadership st y l e and group productivity. Based on what has been learned from the present study, an extension of the model i s recommended as shown i n Figure I. The present findings also added to the growing body of evidence regarding 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 be-tween leadership style and s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y . The i n -vestigation was c a r r i e d out i n the context of the Contingency Theory. But the message was carried beyond t h i s s p e c i f i c theory. The study may be considered as i n union with other research that supports the contemporary viewpoint that leadership effectiveness i s not just an outcome of s t y l e , but that i t i s a j o i n t product of s t y l e , structure and s i t u a t i o n . FIGURE I S i t u a t i o n a l F a v 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 Group P r o d u c t i v i t y 1 Cal The C o n t i n g e n c y M o d e l V a r i a b l e s : L e a d e r s h i p s t y l e --LPC S i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y G roup Produc-t i v i t y T a s k s t r u c -t u r e 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 1 (b) E x t e n s i o n : Intel-** l i g e n . c e T 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 T a s k s t r u c -t u r e " P o s i t i o n power Group produc-t i v i t y L e a d e r member-r e l a t i o n s I n d i c a t e s weak e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t . 72 4.2 Relevance and V a l i d i t y of the Measures: It seems worthwhile to. explore why Hypothesis XV regard-ing the postulated e f f e c t of a b i l i t y on leadership effectiveness was not supported by the r e s u l t s . As already mentioned i n Chap-ter 2, a s a t i s f a c t o r y measure, of task related a b i l i t y for the kind of tasks used for the present study was very d i f f i c u l t to f i n d . A measure of s e l f esteem was accepted as an operational d e f i n i t i o n of a b i l i t y . Self esteem indeed r e f l e c t s an i n d i v i d -ual's permanent capacities which he has acquired over a long period of time. On a post hoc basis, i t may be speculated that the kind of a b i l i t y measure most appropriate for a t h i r t y to f o r t y -f i v e minute experiment should be something more clos e l y related to the task at hand. It may well be that the instrument used i n the present study f a i l e d to tap the variable i t purported to measure. A measure which had a great deal of influence on the findings was the Least Preferred Co-worker measure. As explained e a r l i e r i n Chapter 2, the controversy on the v a l i d i t y of the LPC 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 rating of actual leader be-haviour. Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y of the panel rating was found 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 question-naire known as Leader Behaviour Rating that was used i n panel r a t i n g . Consequently, i t was d i f f i c u l t to explain the low cor-r e l a t i o n between LPC scores and panel ratings. The only con-clusion that could be drawn was that leadership behaviour as measured by the LPC did not correlate with what a panel of observers thought to be the demonstrated behaviour of the leadT-ers. The true meaning of the LPC measure remains unknown. Motivation as experimentally manipulated by cash rewards affected group productivity i n terms of speed but not i n terms of qu a l i t y . This might be due to two reasons: 1) The subjects' understanding of what constituted q u a l i t y of group decision was probably weaker than t h e i r appreciation of speed of decision. For example, i n the unstructured task which required the groups to come up with a l i s t of the f i v e most important t r a i t s needed for success i n a culture, i t was d i f f i c u l t for the subjects to dis t i n g u i s h good qua l i t y from poor solutions. Speed of solution, on the other hand, was objectively recorded. The subjects knew that a l l they had to do to s a t i s f y the c r i t e r i o n of qual i t y was to minimize time to the best of t h e i r capacity. 2) Motivation was defined i n terms of a t t r a c t i o n toward some monetary incentive. Such a d e f i n i t i o n included only what Vroom (1964) , Campbell et a l . (1970) have c a l l e d e x t r i n s i c motiv-ation. No e f f o r t was made to d i f f e r e n t i a t e and measure i n t r i n -s i c motivation from e x t r i n s i c motivation. In completing the post experimental questionnaire on t h e i r l e v e l of motivation, some subjects rated themselves as 'motivated' when i n fact they had been working under a 'non-motivated' experimental condition. When asked about the discrepancy, they admitted that they were motivated to do a good job simply for the enjoyment of doing a good job. They derived pleasure i n performing as best they could. A more adequate manipulation and measurement of motiv-ation was needed. 74 Task s t r u c t u r e was manipula ted i n the experiment by means o f task s e l e c t i o n . Accord ing to F i e d l e r , a c u t t i n g score of f i v e p o i n t s d i s t i n g u i s h e d s t r u c t u r e d from -unstructured t a s k s . The two tasks s e l e c t e d f o r the experiment panel r a t i n g on s t r u c t u r e were very c l o s e to the c u t t i n g p o i n t ( e . g . , 4.95 and 3 . 7 3 ) . To s t rengthen the e f f e c t of task s t r u c t u r e on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e -ness , the d i f f e r e n c e score on r a t i n g of s t r u c t u r e should be max-i m i z e d . Th i s was not p o s s i b l e because s u i t a b l e t a sks w i t h l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e scores were not a v a i l a b l e . C o n s t r u c t i o n of s u i t a b l e t a sks to meet the s p e c i f i c demands of an exper imenta l s i t u a t i o n probably cou ld a l l e v i a t e t h i s problem. Accord ing to the Contingency Mode l , p o s i t i o n power i s de-f i n e d i n terms o f two i n d i c e s : 1) capac i ty to reward, h i r e and f i r e ; and 2) symbol o f s t a t u s . In an exper imenta l s i t u a t i o n , i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to p rov ide a l eader w i t h such power. The leader i n the present study had but l i t t l e f a te c o n t r o l over the group members who know the ad hoc nature o f the l e a d e r ' s p o s i t i o n power. In the s t rong p o s i t i o n power c o n d i t i o n , a l l the leader cou ld o f f e r to i n f l u e n c e the members was a f i v e d o l l a r b i l l . M a n i p u l a t i o n of 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 , be much more f e a s i b l e . The d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n the man ipu l a t i on o f group atmosphere were i d e n t i c a l w i t h those faced i n the attempted i n -d u c t i o n of p o s i t i o n power. Because the sub jec t s knew tha t they were i n an experiment f o r on ly a shor t p e r i o d of t ime , they t end -ed not to express f e e l i n g s of h o s t i l i t y to the leader and c o -workers . Only i n r a r e cases where a subjec t he ld a s t rong 75 opinion on an issue were 'these subject to censure by the group. Time tended to have some e f f e c t even on the care used i n com-r pleting the Group Atmosphere questionnaire. Posthuma (1970) hypothesizes that because the subjects meet for a short period of time and may never meet again as a group, they tend to give a favourable rating to the group experience. Interpersonal a t t r a c t i o n was considered i n the assignment of subjects to groups. It was thought that such interpersonal references would help to strengthen the qual i t y of the group at-mosphere and counter the e f f e c t of the a r t i f i c i a l i t y of the ex-perimental s i t u a t i o n and short length of time period. Such ex-perimental manipulation had some e f f e c t , but to a far less degree than was anticipated. Control 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 defines leadership effectiveness i n terms of group productivity. Accordingly, significance of any finding from research on the model depends on the v a l i d i t y with which group productivity i s measured. Two c r i t e r i a of group pro-d u c t i v i t y accepted for the study were speed and qual i t y of group decision making. The measurement of speed was objective, since actual time taken by each of the groups was recorded. Thus the v a l i d i t y of the measurement of speed was beyond doubt. Quality of group productivity on the other hand, was rated by a panel of judges in terms of four anchors (e.g., ade-quacy, issue involvement, exclusiveness, c l a r i t y of presentation) provided by the investigator. The choice of anchors was subject to the investigator's biases and accordingly r e s u l t obtained 76 under the c r i t e r i o n 'quality-' was subject to the p a r t i c u l a r d e f i n i t i o n of qu a l i t y as; adopted by the investigator. 4.3 Further Research Re c omme nd a t i o n s : For the past few decades, more questions have been raised in research on leadership than i t has been possible to answer. What attributes made leadership possible, was probably the f i r s t question to s t a r t a series of research undertakings. Hundreds of physical and mental q u a l i t i e s were correlated with leadership positions. In the process, the need for considering the s i t u a t i o n became apparent. Before the s i t u a t i o n a l approach could divert research attention to the extreme, the 'Personality x Situation' movement emerged. The present research focus on leadership i s concerned with specifying c l e a r l y what personality or s t y l e w i l l marry with what s i t u a t i o n a l variables. As mentioned e a r l i e r , there has been no l i t t l e debate whether the research program on the Contingency Model should be continued CGraen et a l . , 1970, F i e d l e r , 1971). The study report-ed here was carried on i n the b e l i e f that more research was re-quired before f i n a l judgment could be reached on the v a l i d i t y of the model. Further e f f o r t s were needed to specify c a r e f u l l y the relevant factors to be considered i n defining s i t u a t i o n favour-a b i l i t y . The results reported here lend some support to the Con-tingency Model hypotheses. Three new variables, i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and motivation were examined as attributes of the para-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 . The e f f o r t to examine the e f f e c t of these variables met with various degrees of success. More and better controlled studies, however, are necessary- £e-fore we can place confidence i n the findings of the present investigation. It was speculated that measurement of the variable ' a b i l i t y * was not satisfactory-. Future research should examine thi s variable as a contingency for leadership effectiveness i n a more task related sense (technical q u a l i f i c a t i o n rather than s e l f esteem). Further, the variable 'motivation' should be mani-pulated more adequately i n both the ' i n t r i n s i c ' and ' e x t r i n s i c ' sense of the term. The influence of the individual's state of motivation as a moderator of leadership effectiveness was estab-lis h e d here. Future studies may be able to e s t a b l i s h even stronger effects for t h i s variable 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 possible to examine the e f f e c t of the three added variables on the o r i g i n a l variables of the Contingency Model. A study using a l l combinations of the six variables should be designed and conducted. Appropriate measurement of the main and int e r a c t i o n effects of the six variables on leadership and group performance w i l l indicate the nature of the rel a t i o n s h i p that may exist among the six s i t u a t i o n a l parameters. It was observed e a r l i e r that experimental manipulations with regard to group atmosphere and leader position were not strong because of the brevity of the experimental time period. It would also be worth exploring whether time as an independent 78 variable has any e f f e c t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between LPC score and group productivity. A longitudinal study would answer the question 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 leader changes over time. A longitudinal study involving a long period of time, of course, cannot be conducted i n the context of a laboratory experiment. A f i e l d experiment or a f i e l d study w i l l .be needed to study- the effects of time on leadership e f f e c t i v e -ness , One concern u n i v e r s a l l y voiced by c r i t i c s of findings from studies on the Contingency Model regards the s t a t i s t i c a l re-l i a b i l i t y - of the findings. Studies thus far have not produced S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . S t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , however, i s a function of large sample size. Unfortunately, i t has not been feas i b l e for most investigators to obtain a large Size sample for studies of the Contingency Model with i t s eight c e l l s a,nd requirement for one group to provide a single obser-vation. In the present study, correlations as high as r = .52 were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t since the r e s u l t s were obtain-ed w i t h sample size of eight observations. Studies with larger sample sizes seem needed i f s t a t i s t i c a l significance i s to be achieved. The present investigator concurs with the opinion of Graen et a l . C19.70I that an.inductively derived theory such as the Con-tingency- :Model, should be sensitive to "correctional influences" in terms of new findings. The t h e o r i s t should be prepared to accept modifications that may be proposed from time to time on the b a s i s of ongoing research experience. The study reported 79 here established that at least three a d d i t i o n a l variables may be needed to define s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y . Future studies may reveal s t i l l further leaders-hip contingencies than were hypothe-sized here. 4.4 Conclusion Based on data provided i n Chapter 3 and discussion i n Chapter 4, the following conclusions may be drawn from the present study: 1. The study provided additional evidence on the v a l i d i t y of the Contingency Model of leadership effectiveness. R e s u l t s reported i n Tables 10 and 11 provided moderate support for the predictions of the model. From a comparison of findings 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 that the present study tended to complement the e a r l i e r findings reported by Fiedler and contradict Graen et a l ' s observations on the v a l i d i t y of the model. 2. In the extension part of the study, i t was found: a) that motivation s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected the speed of group decision and contributed to the leader's effectiveness; b) that 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 affected both the q u a l i t y and speed of group decision; c) that a b i l i t y as operationally defined by a s e l f esteem measure did not a f f e c t either the 80 speed or the qu a l i t y of group decision; dl that, motivation did not influence the q u a l i t y of group output. On the Basis of findings 2 Cal , , 2 CB) , 2 Cc) , 2 Cd) , i t may Be concluded that i n t e l l i g e n c e , motivation and perhaps a B i l i t y should Be incorporated i n future studies 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 also added i n d i r e c t l y to our knowledge of leadership Behaviour By showing that leadership e f f e c t -iveness i s a j o i n t product of s t y l e , structure and  s i t u a t i o n . The study has tested the e f f e c t of three leadership con-tingencies and has also 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). It i s expected that future studies w i l l continue exploring the relationships that may ex i s t Between leadership s t y l e , group productivity and s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a B i l i t y . APPENDIX I BERGER"S ACCEPTANCE OF SELF SCALE 81 Following are questions of some of your attitudes. Of, course there i s no r i g h t answer for any statement. The best answer i s that you f e e l i s true of yourself;. You are to respond to each question by c i r c l i n g a number preced-ing each question according to the following scheme: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at a l l S l i g h t l y About h a l f - Mostly True of true of true of way true of true of myself myself myself -myself myself Remember, the best answer i s the one which applies to you. 1 2 3 4 5 Cl) I'd l i k e i t i f I could f i n d someone who would t e l l me how to solve my personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5 C2) I don't question my worth as a person, even i f I think others do. 1 2 3 4 5 C3) When people say nice things about me, I f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to believe they r e a l l y mean i t . I think maybe they're kidding me or just aren't being sincere. 1 2 3 4 5 C4) If there i s any c r i t i c i s m or anyone says anything about me, I just can't take i t . 1 2 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 that people w i l l c r i t i c i z e me or laugh i f I say the wrong thing. 1 2 3 4 5 C6) I r e a l i z e that I'm not l i v i n g very e f f e c t i v e l y but I just don't believe I've got i t i n me to use my energies in better ways. 1 2 3 4 5 C7) I look on most of the feelings and impulses I have toward people as being quite natural and acceptable. 1 2 3 4 5 C 8 ) Something inside me just won't l e t me be s a t i s f i e d with any job I've done -- i f i t turns out well, I get a very smug fee l i n g that 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 . 1 2 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 security that comes from knowing I'm not too d i f f e r e n t from others. 82 1 2 3 4 5 (10). I'm a f r a i d f o r people that I l i k e to f i n d out what I'.m r e a l l y l i k e , for .fear they' d be disappointed i n -me.' ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 [11] I am frequently bothered by feelings- of i n f e r i o r i t y . 1 2 3 4 5 (12) Because of other people, I haven't been able to achieye as- much as I should have. 1 2 3 4 5 (13) I am quite shy and self-conscious i n s o c i a l situations, 1 2 3 4 5 (14) In order to get along and be l i k e d , I tend to be what people expect me to be rather than anything else. 1 2 3 4 5 (15) I seem to have a r e a l inner strength i n handling things. I'm on pretty s o l i d found-ation and i t makes me pretty sure of myself. 1 2 3 4 5 (16) I f e e l self-conscious when I'm with people who have a superior position to mine i n business or at school. 1 2 3 4 5 (17) I think I'm neurotic or something . 1 2 3 4 5 (18) Very often I don't t r y to be f r i e n d l y with people because I think they don't l i k e me. 1 2 3 4 5 (19) I f e e l that I'm a person of worth, on an equal plane with others. 1 2 3 4 5 (20) I can't avoid fe e l i n g g u i l t y about the way I f e e l toward certain people i n my l i f e . 1 2 3 4 5 (21) I'm not a f r a i d of meeting new people. I f e e l that I'm a worthwhile person and there's no reason why they should d i s l i k e me. 1 2 3 4 5 (22) I sort of only half-believe i n myself. 1 2 3 4 5 (23) I'm very sensitive. People say things and I have a tendency fo think they're 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 think of i t , they may not have meant any-thing l i k e that at a l l . 1 2 3 4 5 (24) 1 think I have ce 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 giving them an importance way beyond what they deserve. 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 can do something about problems^ t h a t may a r i s e i n the f u t u r e . 1 2 3 4 5 C26) I guess 1 put on a show to impress people. I know I'm not the person I pretend to be. 1 2 3 4 5 (27) I do not worry or condemn myself i f other people pass judgment a g a i n s t me. 1 2 3 4 5 (28) 1 don't f e e l v e r y normal, but I want to f e e l normal. 1 2 3 4 5 (29) When I'm i n a group I u s u a l l y don't say much f o r f e a r of saying the wrong t h i n g . 1 2 3 4 5 C 3 0 ) I have a tendency to s i d e s t e p my problems. 1 2 3 4 5 (31) Even when people do t h i n k w e l l of me, I f e e l s o r t of g u i l t y because 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 to be myself, they wouldn't t h i n k w e l l of me. 1 2 3 4 5 (32) I f e e l t h a t I'm on the same l e v e l as other people and t h a t helps to e s t a b l i s h good r e l a t i o n s w i t h them. 1 2 3 4 5 (33) I f e e l t h a t people are apt to r e a c t d i f f e r e n t -l y t o me than they would normally r e a c t to other people. 1 2 3 4 5 (34) I l i v e too much by other people' standards. 1 2 3 4 5 (3 5) When I have to address a group, I get s e l f -c o n scious and have d i f f i c u l t y saying t h i n g s w e l l . 1 2 3 4 5 (36) I f I d i d n ' t always have such hard l u c k , I'd accomplish much more than I have. APPENDIX II SOCIOMETRIC PREFERENCE RATING SOCIOMETRIC PREFERENCE RATING NAME: Suppose you are given a group assignment. Name, i n order of preference, f i v e students from Com. 2 21 you would enjoy working with. (YOUR OPINIONS WILL BE  KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL). 1. _ 2. 3 . 4. 5. APPENDIX I I I THE LEAST PREFERRED COWORKER SCALE 85 People d i f f e r i n the ways they think about those with whom they work. This may be important i n working with others,, Please giye your immediate, f i r s t reaction to the' items- on the following pa,ge. On the following sheet are p a i r s of words which are opposite i n meaning, such as Very Neat a,nd Not Neat. You are asked to describe someone with whom you have worked by placing an "X" i n one of the eight spaces on the l i n e between the two words. Each space represents how well the adjective f i t s the person you are describing, as i f i t were written: Very : Not Neat: : : : : : : : : Neat 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 Very Quite Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Some- Quite Very Neat Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy Neat Untidy FOR EXAMPLE: If you were to describe the person with whom you are able to work least well, and you o r d i n a r i l y think of him as being quite neat, you would put an "X" i n the second space from the words Very Neat, l i k e t h i s : Very : Not Neat: : X : : : : : : :_Neat 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 Very Quite Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Some- Quite Very Neat Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy Neat Untidy If you o r d i n a r i l y think of the person with whom you can work least well as being only s l i g h t l y neat, you would put your "X" as follows: Very : Not Neat: : : : X : : : : :_Neat 8 7 . 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 Very Quite Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Some- Quite Very Neat Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy Neat Untidy If you would think of him as being very untidy, you would use the space nearest the words Not Neat. Very ; Not Neat: : : : ; : ; X :Neat 8 7 5 5~ 1 4 3 2 1 Very Quite Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Some- Quite yery Neat Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy Neat Untidy Look at the words at both ends of the l i n e before you put i n your "X". Please remember that there are no ri g h t or wrong answers. Work rapidly; your f i r s t answer i s l i k e l y to be the best. Please do not omit any items, and mark each item only once. 86 • LPC Think of the person with, whom you can work l e a s t w e l l . He may-be someone you work w i t h now, or he may- be someone you knew i n the p a s t . He does not have to be the person you l i k e l e a s t w e l l , but should be the person w i t h whom you had the most d i f f i c u l t y i n g e t t i n g a job done. D e s c r i b e t h i s person as he appears to you. Ple a s a n t : ':' ' v ^ :' - ' : Y ^ -: ' :' Unpleasant 8 7 6 ' 5 4 3 2 1 F r i e n d l y : : : : ' ' : U n f r i e n d l y 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R e j e c t i n g : * J J J : A c c e p t i n g 8 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 H e l p f u l : : • * : F r u s t r a t i n g 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Unenthus- : : E n t h u s i a s t i c i a s t i c 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Tense: : : Relaxed 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 D i s t a n t : : : C l o s e 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C o l d : x : Warm 8 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cooper- ; ; : Uncooperative a t i v e 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 S u p p o r t i v e * : H o s t i l e 8 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 B o r i n g : : : : I n t e r e s t i n g 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Q u a r r e l - : ; : Harmonious some 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 S e l f - * : H e s i t a n t assured 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 : I n e f f i c i e n t E f f i c i e n t * • • ': 8 7 6 5 ' 4 3 2 1 Gloomy: • X i * i : j C h e e r f u l 8 7 6 • 5 - 4' " ' 3 ' 2 1' Open: N:' ' ^  Y ' v': v v V ' ' i Guarded ~ 8 ' 7 6 . 5' '• 4' ~T "~2 1 APPENDIX IV TASK 23 from M . E . Shaw's Taxonomy of Exper imenta l Tasks , 1963 "What makes for success i n our culture?" Your task i s to discuss the question you have been given and decide among your-selves the f i v e most important t r a i t s a person needs for success i n our culture. When you have arrived at a decision, write the l i s t of t r a i t s on a sheet of paper and hand i t to me. GOOD LUCK APPENDIX -V TASK 59. f r o m M . E . Shaw's Taxonomy of Exper imenta l Tasks , (1963) 88 TASK fl,Hpr INSTRUCTIONS f Suppose you are a f i v e man team whose job i s to manufacture a product, the completion of which requires the operation of f i v e machines. In the past you have rotated positions to avoid boredom, but each man has spent most of the time operating the machine that he prefers. John prefers machine 3, Steve machine 2, Walt machine 4, Robert machine 1, and Denis machine 5. The Methods man has been around checking the time each man requires to complete the operation on one product when he i s operating each of the f i v e machines. He has come up with the following r e s u l t s : Machines 1 2 3 4 5 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 min. 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 min. 3 min. Your foreman noticed that when each man runs the machine he most prefers, the t o t a l time spent on each product i s 16 min-utes. It seems to him that a d i f f e r e n t method of operation would r e s u l t i n substantial savings. He believes i n l e t t i n g his work-ers make t h e i r own decision, i n so far as possible, and has asked that you consider the problem and t r y to come up with a plan that w i l l be more e f f i c i e n t than the present mode of 89 operation. Your task i s now to examine the data provided by the methods man and decide which person should operate which machine. When you have reached a decision, please write your plan out i n d e t a i l on the paper provided. APPENDIX VI Rating of Position Power & Motivation For Leaders Only Please respond to the following two questions by c i r c l i n g a number according to the following scheme: 5 A great deal 4 Somewhat less than a great deal 3 More than a l i t t l e 2 Just a l i t t l e 1 None at a l l 1) How much position power (e.g., symbol of your Status, capacity to reward) did you have i n carrying out the group assignment? A great deal: _ _ _ _ _ :None at a l l 5 4 3 2 1 2) How motivated did you f e e l to do well i n the group assignment? APPENDIX VII Rating of Leader Behaviour, Position Power & Motivation 'For Co-workers Only 91 • LEADER" BEHAVIOUR' RATING . Please describe the behaviour of the leader of the present group by checking the following items.: 1. Permissive: 8 2. Requesting: 8 3. Considerate: F 4. P a r t i c i p a t i n g : F 5. Passive: 8" 6. Task Sharing: F T z 6 ; F ('? : F •: 2 : T 7 « F : F : ? : F : 2 : T 7 : F t 4 : J : 2 : T 7 : F : 5 i 4 : F : 2" : T 7 i'6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : T 7 : . 6 : 5 : 4 : F : 2 : T .: S t r i c t :Ordering :Rude :Managing :Active : Task Controlling Following are questions about your group. Please respond to each question by c i r c l i n g a number according to the following scheme: 5 A great deal 4 Somewhat less than a great deal 3 More than a l i t t l e 2 Just a l i t t l e 1 None at a l l 1) How much position power (e.g., symbol of status, capacity to reward, etc.) the leader of your group had i n carrying out the group assignment? A great deal: 5 :None at a l l 2) How motivated did you f e e l to do well i n the group assignment? APPENDIX T i l l Trie Group Atmosphere Scale GROUP ATMOSPHERE SCALE Describe the atmosphere of your group by checking the following items: 1. Pleasant: : : :Unpleasant 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 2. Friendly: * :Unfriendly 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 3. Bad: : ; :Good 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 4. Worthless: : :Valuable 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 5. Distant: : : : :Close 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 6. Cold: J. : : : Warm 8 7 6 5 • 4 3 2 1 7. Ouarrelsome: : : : : : :Harmonious 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 8. Self-assured: : • :Hesitant 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 9. E f f i c i e n t : : * : : I n e f f i c i e n t 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 10 . Gloomy: : : : * :Cheerful 8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1 APPENDIX IX Rating Quality of Group Solution 93 QUALITY OF SOLUTION: This p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n f o r group out-put'may be conceived as consisting of the following: 1. Adequacy-: for example/ how adequate the f i v e traits-i mentioned are for attaining success. 2. Issue involvement: how relevant the solution i s to the problem. For example/ are the f i v e t r a i t s mentioned related to the attainment of success. 3. ExclusivenesS': are the t r a i t s mentioned mutually exclusive, that i s , independent. A high qu a l i t y solution should have mutually exclusive t r a i t s . 4. C l a r i t y of presentation: did the group present t h e i r ideas clearly? Are the ideas well-expressed? The following c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme i s applicable for the eval-uation job to be done by the judges: 5 very much 4 less than very much 3 somewhat 2 just a l i t t l e 1 none Please evaluate the present group's solution on adequacy: A. very much: 5_ 4_ 3_ 2_ 1_ :none B. Please evaluate the present group's solution on issue  involvement: very much: 5^  4 3 2_ 1 : none C. Please evaluate the present group's solution on exclusiveness: very much: 5_ 4_ 3_ 2_ 1_ : none D. Please evaluate the present group's solution on c l a r i t y of presentation: very much: 5 4_ 3^  _2_ 1 :none APPENDIX X Leader Behayiour Rating Observers Only LEADER BEHAVIOUR RATING Please describe the behaviour of the leader of the present group by, checking the following items-: 1. Permissive: ' ' ' ' : • : : : : ' : : S t r i c t 8" 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2. Requesting: : : : : : : : :Ordering 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. Considerate: : ; { : : \_ :Rude 1 1 6 5 I 3^  2 1 4. P a r t i c i p a t i n g : : : : : : : i_ :Managing 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5. Passive: : : : : : : : :Active 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6. Task Sharing: ' ' : : : : : ; }_ :Task 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C o n t r o l l i 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T.W. , The Authoritarian Personality, New York: Harper and Row, 1950. Argyle, M., Gardner, G., and C i o f f i , F. , Supervisory methods related to productivity,' Industrial Relations, 1958, I I , pp. 2 3 - 4 6 . Aronson, E., and Carlsmith, J . , Performance expectancy as a determinant of actual performance, Journal of Abnormal  and Social Psychology, 1962, 6_5, pp. 178 -182 . Atkinson, J.W., Towards experimental analysis of human motiv-ation i n terms of motives, expectancies and incentives, IN Motives and Fantasy, Action and Society, Ed. J.W. Atkinson, New York: Van Nostrand, 1958. Backstorm, C.H.,.and Hursh, G.D., Survey Research, North-western University Press, 1963. Barber, T.X., and S i l v e r , M.J., Fact, f i c t i o n and the exper-imenter bias e f f e c t , Psychological 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 analysis and interpretation: A reply to Rosenthal, Psychological  B u l l e t i n , 1968 , 7_0, (6) ' ~~ Bass, B.M., Leadership, Psychology and Organization Behaviour, New York: Harper & Row, 19 60. Bass, B.M., Leadership Opinions as Forecasts of Supervisory Success, Journal of Applied 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 others. Journal of Abnormal  and Social Psychology, 1952, 4_7, pp. 778 -782. Besco, R.O. and Lawshe, C.H., Foreman leadership as perceived by supervisor and subordinates, Personnel Psychology, 1959, 12 , pp. 573 -582. Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S., The Managerial Grid, Houston: Gulf, 1964. ^~ Bowers, D.G., and Seashore, S.E., Predicting organizational effectiveness with a 'Four 'Factor Theory of Leadership, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 1 1 , Q2\, 238 -263 . 9.6 Campbel l , P . .T . . .^^e^dersh l^ the-.Group, Bureau o f B u ^ i h e ^ § s Research"," The' J?fe^9^^t^tjeutJii^eir-S-ity-, Columbus: 19.5 6, Campbel l , J-. , Dunne.tte., M ~ D , y L a w l e r , E , E , y and Weick, K . E . , • Manager ia l Behaviour) Performance and E f f e c t i v e n e s s , New .York ; ' McGraw-Hill" , . : I n c . , 197 0 . ~ -Camp i o n , G . E . J r . , > .Ef f e c t ^ O^XM^n^tf'errla:!^ S t y l e on Subordinates '  s a t t i t u d e s and Performances i n a Simula ted O r g a n i z a t i o n S e t t i n g , U n p u b l i s h e d . d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Minneso ta , 1968. C a r t w r i g h t , D . , and Z a n d e r , . A . , (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research  and Theory, Evans ton , 111: Row Peterson 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 of Smal l group behaviour 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 . , Fac to 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 of South C a r o l i n a , 1954. D a v i s , J . H . , Group Performance, Reading , Mass: Addison Wesley, 1969. Day, R . C , and Hamblin , 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 of s u p e r v i s i o n , American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , 1964, 69_, pp. 499-510. Dumbo, P . , Group congruency pa t t e rns 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 , Personnel Psychology , 1968, 21_, (3) . Evans, M . G . , and Dormer, J . D . , What Does the Leas t P r e f e r r e d  Co-worker Sca le R e a l l y Measure? A C o g n i t i v e I n t e r p r e - t a t i o n , London Bus iness School Working Paper , 1972. Evans, M . G . , A Leade r ' s A b i l i t y to D i f f e r e n t i a t e , the Subord in -a tes P e r c e p t i o n of the Leader and the Subordinates P e r - formance , Unpubl ished M a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto , 1971. Fene lon , J . R . , and Megargee, E . I . , In f luence of Race on the M a n i f e s t a t i o n of Leade r sh ip , J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psycho-l o g y , 1971, 55 , C4), pp. 353-358. 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 of team e f f e c t i v e n e s s , Journa l ' of • Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology , 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: of Abno rma,1• a nd Soc j a 1- -, Psychology , 1955 ," 51, pp.\: 2!T7'-235, ^ .'- - - . . . -F i e d l e r , F . E . , v 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 , Urbana, 111: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s P.ressV 1958. 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 Psychology , 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 to t a sk performance i n cohes ive and uncohesive groups , J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology , 1963, 67, pp. 83-87. F i e d l e r , F . E . , A cont ingency 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 , i n L . Berkowi tz (Ed.) Advances i n Exper imenta l S o c i a l  Psychology , V o l . I , New York : Academic P r e s s , 1964. F i e d l e r , F . E . , Eng inee r ing the job to f i t the manager, Harvard Business Review, September, 1965, pp. 115-122. F i e d l e r , F . E . , The e f f e c t of 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 of the cont ingency model . J o u r n a l o f Exper imenta l S o c i a l Psychology , 1966, 2_, pp. 237-264. F i e d l e r , F . E . , A Theory o f Leadersh ip E f f e c t i v e n e s s , New York : 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 of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e upon the performance and adjustment o f vo lun t ee r teams ope ra t ing 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 Behaviour  of High and Low LPC Persons , T e c h n i c a l Report 70-12, U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1970. F i e d l e r , F . E . , V a l i d a t i o n and ex tens ion of the cont ingency 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 rev iew 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 of Graen, O r r i s and A l v a r e s s tud ie s t e s t i n g , the cont ingency model , J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology , 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 . exper ience from .the cont ingency model , J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d - Psychology , 1972, 56, (2) . ' F i s h b e i n , M . , Landy, E . , and Hatch , G . , C o n s i d e r a t i o n of two as -sumptions u n d e r l y i n g F i e d l e r ' s Cont ingency Model for the p r e d i c 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 , American J o u r n a l  of Psychology , 1969, £ , pp. 457-473. 9-8 F le i shman , E .• A- •(.•• H a r r i s / E , F , - . a n d B u r t t f . 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 ndus t ry , B . of E d u c a t i o n Research," "The" Ohio Sta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1955. Foa , 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 Ma tch ing , B e h a v i o u r a l ' Sc i ence , 1971, 16 , pp. 130-142. G a l b r a i t h , J . , and Cummings, L . . , An empi r i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the m o t i v a t i o n a l determinants of past 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 Behaviour and Human  Performance, 1967, 2, (3 ) , pp. 237-257. Georgopoulos , B . S . , Mahoney, G . M . , and Jones , W. J r . , A path goa l approach to p r o d u c t i v i t y . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  Psychology , 1957, 41 , 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 Manager ia l T a l e n t , Goodyear P u b l i s h i n g Co. 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 Psychology , (G. L i n d z e y , Ed.) V o l . I I , Addison-Wesley , 1969. Graen, G . B . , O r r i s , J . B . , and A l v a r e s , K . M . , The cont ingency 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 exper imenta l r e s u l t s , J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology , 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 Leadersh ip E f f e c t i v e n e s s : Some Me thodo log i ca l I s sues , J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology , 1971, 5_5, (3) , pp. 205-210 (b) . Graen, G . B . , O r r i s , J . B . and A l v a r e s , K . M . Contingency Model of Leadersh ip E f f e c t i v e n e s s : Antecedent and e v i d e n t i a l r e s u l t s , P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1970, 4_, (4 ) , 285-296. Graen, G . B . , Ins t rumenta l theory 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 , J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d  Psychology , Monograph, 1969, 5_5, pp. 1-25. Gros 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 Superv i so ry Behav iour , Unpubl ished M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s , Lansxng; Mich igan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1956. Hackman, J . R . , Jones , L . F . , and McGrath , J . E . A . , A set of dimensions fo r d e s c r i b i n g the gene ra l p r o p e r t i e s of group generated 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, 70 , pp. 379-390. 99 Halpin, A.W. , and Winer, J . , <!A f a c t o r i a l • Study- of the leader Behaviour description- questionnaire" , in- R,H. $ t o g d i l l and A.E. Coons .(Eds. I , Leader Behaviour: ^ Its pe^c'rlp'tl'o'n' and  Measurement, Research Monograph," No. '88", The Ohio State University, 1957. Hare, A.P., Handbook: of Small Group Research, New York: Free Press, 196 2. ' Hawkins, C.A., A Study of Factors Mediating a Relationship  Between Leader Rating Behaviour and Group Productivity, Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 1962. Hemphill, J.K., and Coons, A.E., "Development of the leader behaviour description questionnaire", i n R.M. S t o g d i l l and A.E. Coons, (Eds.), Leader Behaviour: Its Description and  Measurement, Research Monograph, No. 58, The Ohio State University, 1957. Hemphill, J.K., Relation between the size of the group and the behaviour of superior leaders, Journal of Abnormal and  Social Psychology, 1950, 32, pp. 11-12. H i l l , W., The v a l i d a t i o n and extension of Fi e d l e r ' s theory of leadership effectiveness, Academy of Management Journal, 1969, pp. 33-47. H i l l , W., A s i t u a t i o n a l approach to leadership effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 3_, (6). Hollander, E.P., Leader, Groups and Influence, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Hollander, E.P., and J u l i a n , J.W., Contemporary trends i n the analysis of leadership processes, Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1969, 71, (5), pp. 387-397. Hollander, E.P., Style, structure and setting i n organizational leadership, Administrative Science Quarterly, March, 1971, pp. 1-9. House, R.J., A path-goal theory of leader behaviour, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 1_6, pp. 321-338. House, R.J. , F i l l e y , A.C, and Kerr, S. , Relation of leader consideration and i n i t i a t i n g structure to R and D subordinate s a t i s f a c t i o n , Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, pp. 19-30. IQO House, R.J., F i l l e y , A.C, and Gujarati, D.N., Leadership s t y l e , h i e r a r c h i c a l influence and -the s a t i s f a c t i o n of. subordinate r o l e expectations : A test..of L i k e r t 1 s influence . .. proposition, Journal of; Applied Psychology-, 1971, 55, pp. 422-432. ' * " ' : " - " House, R.J., Wigdor, L.M., and Shulz, K., Psychological p a r t i c i p a t i o n , leader Behaviour, performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n : An extension of prior research and a motivation theory of interpretation. Proceedings of the Eastern Academy of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst: 1970. House, R.J., Some new applications and tests of the path-goal theory of leadership. Paper presented at the F i r s t  National Behavioural Organizational Conference, University of Toronto, 1972. Hoyie, Fred, et a l . , (Eds.) Symposium: The Requirements for  Leadership i n the 1980's. Chapel H i l l , University of North Carolina, 1968. Hunt, J.G., A test of the leadership contingency model i n three organizations, Organizational Behaviour and Human  Performance, 1967, 2, pp. 290-308. Hunt, J.G., Leadership style e f fects at two managerial lev e l s i n a simulated organization, Administrative Science  Quarterly, 1971,'" 16_, (4). Kahn, R.L., The prediction of productivity, Journal of Social  Issues, 1956, 1_2, pp. 41-49. Katz, D., Maccaby, N., and Morse, N.C., Productivity, Super-v i s i o n and Morale i n an O f f i c e Situation, Detroit, Mich: Darel Press Inc., 1950. Katz, D., Productivity, Supervision and Morale among Railroad  Workers, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center, 1951. Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L., i n Readings i n Social Psychology, (edited by) Swanson, G.E., et a l . , New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1953. K a t z e l l , R.A., Barret, R.S. and Parker, T.C., Job S a t i s f a c t i o n , Job Performance, and Sit 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 Applied Psychology, 1961, 4_5, pp. 65-72. Kaufman, H., Task performance, expected performance and responses of f a i l u r e as functions of imbalance 0 in" the  self-concept. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Philadelphia: U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania, 1962. 101 Korman, A.K. , Consideration, i n i t i a t i n g structure and organize 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 Psychological Review-, .New *focQraw^H£%l'y T971." Lewin, K. , Lippit., R. , and White, R.K.., Patterns of aggressive behaviour i n experimentally created 'social climates', Journal of Social- Psychology, 1939, 10. Like r t , R., New Patterns Of v Management, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1961. ' ' ' ! ! McCurdy, H.G., and Eber, H.W., Democratic vs. Authoritarians: A further investigation of group problem solving, Journal of Personality, 1953 , 22, McGregor, D.M., The Human Side of Enterprise, 1960, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. McNamara, V.D., A des 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 -permissive v a r i a t i o n i n the leader behaviour of elementary  school p r i n c i p a l s . Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Alberta, 1967. Maier, N.R.F., An experimental test of the e f f e c t of tr a i n i n g on discussion leadership. Human Relations, 1953, 6_, pp. 161-173. Mann, F.C., Toward an understanding of the leadership r o l e i n formal organization. In Dubin, et a l . (Eds.) Leadership  and Productivity, 1965, Chandler Publishing Co. Mann, R.D., A Review of the relationships between personality and performance i n small groups, Psychological 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, leadership s t y l e and group  performance, Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Urbana, 111: University of I l l i n o i s , 1969. M i t c h e l l , T.R., Leader complexity and leadership s t y l e , Journal  of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 166-174. M i t c h e l l , V.F., Expectancy theories of managerial motivation, Studies i n Personnel Psychology, Spring, 1972, Vol. 4, No. I, pp. 31-42. M i t c h e l l , T.R.-, Biglan, 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 Journal, 1970, 13 , pp. 253-268. 102 M i t c h e l l , T . R . and Foa , V . G . , An examinat ion of 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  task groups , Urbana, I l l i n o i s : Group E f f e c t i v e n e s s Res. Labo ra to ry , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1968. Morse, N . C . , and Reimer, E . , The exper imenta 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 of Abnormal and  S o c i a l Psychology , 1956, 51, pp. 120-129. Mulder , M. T , and Stemerding, A . , Threa t , a t t r a c t i o n to group and need fo r s t rong 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. Nea ly , S .M. and B l o o d , M . , Leadersh ip performance o f nurs ing supe rv i so r s at 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 Psychology , 1968 , 5_2, pp. 414-422. Nea ly , S .M. and Owen, T . M . , A m u l t i - t r a i t mul t i -method a n a l y s i s of p r e d i c t o r s and c r i t e r i a o f nur s ing performance, O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour 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 eader 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 of Psychology , 1969, 21, pp. 277-289. Osgood, C . E . , S u c i , G . J . and Tannenbaum, P . H . , The measurement ~- of 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 , Manager ia 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 Co- worker Sca 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 70-8 , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, S e a t t l e , Washington: 1970. Roland , 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 of e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p i n a formal o r g a n i z a t i o n . Personnel  Psychology , 1968 , 21_, (3) . Rosenblaum, et a l . , Morale and p r o d u c t i v i t y consequences of group l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e : S t r e s s and type of t a s k . J o u r n a l  of A p p l i e d Psychology , 1971, 5_5, (4) , pp. 343-348. Rosen tha l , R . , Experimenter expectancy and the r e a s s u r i n g nature of the n u l l hypothes i s d e c i s i o n procedure . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  B u l l e t i n , 1968, 70, (6) , pp. 30-47. S a l e s , S . M . , Superv i so ry s t y l e and p r o d u c t i v i t y : A Review of t heo ry . Personnel Psychology , 1966, 1_9, (3) , pp. 275-288. 1Q3 Sales, S.M., A laboratory investigation of; the effectiveness of two i n d u s t r i a l supervisory dimensions-, . Unpublished M.S. thesis, Cornell University, 1964. Sample, J.A., and Wilson, T.R. Leader behaviour, group productivity and rating of least preferred co-worker, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19 65, I, pp. 266-270. Shaw, M.E., Scaling Group Tasks: A Method for Dimensional  Analysis, University of F l o r i d a , Cmimeo.), 1963. Shaw, M.W., A comparison of two types of leadership i n various communication nets. Journal of Abnormal and Social  Psychology, 1955, 50, pp. 127-134. Shaw, M.E., and Blum, J.M., Effects of leadership s t y l e upon group performance as a function of task structure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3_, pp. 238-242. Skinner, E.W., Relationships between leadership behaviour patterns and organizational, s i t u a t i o n a l variables, Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22_, pp. 485-494. Spector, P., and Sut t e l , L., An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Patterns of Leadership Behaviour, Washington, D.C: American Ins t i t u t e for Research, 1957. S t o g d i l l , R.M., Personal factors association with leadership: A survey of the l i t e r a t u r e . Journal 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 of leadership behaviour descriptions, Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22^ , (2). Student, Kurt, R., Supervisory influence and work group performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, June, 1968. Tuckman, B.W., Group composition and group performance of structured and unstructured tasks. Journal of Experimental  Social 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. 159-177T 1962. Vroom, V., The self-concept: a balance t h e o r e t i c a l treatment. Unpublished Manuscript. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1969. 104 Vroom, V., and Mann, F,C, f Leader authoritarianism and employee attitudes," Person^^ 1960, 13, pp. 125-140. Vroom, V. , Work and- Motivation,. New: York: John Wiley, 1964. Whyte, W.F., Money and Motivation: An Analysis of-Incentives i n  Industry, New York.; Harper, 1955. ~ ' Wilson, Stephen R., Leadership, 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, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, C5J, pp. 433-438. Wofford, J.W., Behavioural styles and performance effectiveness, Personnel Psychology, 1967 , 20^ , (4). Zaleznik, A., Human Dimensions of Leadership, New York: Harper & Row, 19TFI 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101404/manifest

Comment

Related Items