{)RGANIZATIONAI~ BE,ttAVIGR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 6, 4 1 4 - 4 4 0

(19,71)

Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership 1

GARY YUKL

Department of Psychology, The University oj Akron,, Akron, Ohio ~804

A great deal of the apparent inconsistency in the leadership literature may be due to semantic confusion about leader behavior and to the absence of a eoneeptual framework which includes intermediate and situationM variables. A system of three distinct leader behavior dimensions is proposed to reduce this confusion. Two of the dimensions are similar to the familiar variables, Consideration and Initiating Structure. The third dimension, Decision-Centralization, refers to the extent to which a leader allows his subordinates to participate in decision-making. A discrepancy model is developed to explain the relation between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with the leader. A multiple linkage model is developed to explain how the leader behavior variables interact with situational variables to determine group productivity. A review of the leadership literature revealed that the results of previous research are generally consistent with the proposed models. The compatibility of the linkage model with F~edler's Contingency Model is discussed, and suggestions for future research are offered. Despite over two decades of extensive leadership research, the relation of leader behavior to subordinate productivity and satisfaction with the leader is still not very dear. The apparent absence of consistent relationships in the research literature (Sales, 1966; Norman, 1966; Lowin, 1968) m a y be due in part to several related problems. First, there is a great deal of semantic confusion regarding the conceptual and operational definition of leadership behavior. Over the years there has been a proliferation of leader behavior terms, and the same term is often defined differently from one study to the next. Secondly, a great deal of empirical data has been collected, but a theoretical framework which adequately explains causal relationships and identifies limiting conditions has not yet emerged. Finally, the research has often failed to include intermediate and situational variables which are necessary in order to understand how a leader's actions can affect his subordinates' productivity. The purpose of this article is to begin the development of a theory which explains how leader behavior, situational variables, and inter1The author is grateful to Is2en Wexley and Alexis Anikeeff for their helpful comments. 414

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

~15

mediate variables interact to determine subordinate productivity and satisfaction with the leader. In the first section of the article, a system of three distinct and generally applicable leader behavior dimensions will be proposed. In the next two sections, these leadership dimensions will be used to develop a discrepancy model of subordinate satisfaction and a multiple linkage model of leader effectiveness. Finally, the extent to which the research literature supports these behavioral models wilt be evaluated.
CLASSIFICATION OF LEADER BEHAVIOR

Consideration and Initiating Structure

Some early investigators began with a list of very specific leadership activities (e.g., "inspection," "write reports, . . . . hear complaints") and attempted to determine how performance of these activities or the amount of time allocated to them related to leader success. Since the number of specific leader activities that are possible is nearly endless, several Ohio State University psychologists attempted to find a few general behavior dimensions which would apply to all types of leaders. Factor analyses of leadership behavior questionnaires were carried out, and two orthogonal factors were found (Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Halpin & Winer, 1957). These factors were called Consideration and Initiating Structure. Consideration refers to the degree to which a leader acts in a warm and supportive manner and shows concern and respect for his subordinates. Initiating Structure refers to the degree to which a leader defines and structures his own role and those of his subordinates toward goal atta;nment. The principal method for measuring these variables has been the use of either the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Hemphill & Coons, 1957) or the Supervisory Behavior Description questionnaire (Fleishman, 1957a). These questionnaires are administered to a leader's subordinates. A related questionnaire, called the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1957b), is administered to the leader himself. This questionnaire is considered to be a measure of leader attitudes rather than leader behavior. Occasionally other observers, such as peers or superiors, are the source of leader behavior descriptions, and in some studies Consideration and Initiating Structure are experimentally manipulated by having leaders play predetermined roles.

Decision-Centralization
A somewhat different approach to the classification of leaders was initiated by Lewin's (1944) theoretical typology of democratic, auto-

416

~AgY YU~L

eratie, and laissez-faire leaders. St,udies following in this tradition have usually focused on the relative degree of leader and subordinate influence over the group's decisions. The various decision-making proeedures used by a leader, such as delegation, joint decision-making, consultation, and autocratic decision-making, can be ordered along a continuum ranging from high subordinate influence to complete leader influence. Although a leader will usually allow more subordinate partieipation and influence for some decisions than for others, the average degree of participation can be computed for any specified set of typical decisions, tIeller and Yukl (1969) have used the term "Decision-Centralization" to refer to this average. A high Decision-Centralization score means a low amount of subordinate participation. Naturally, a leader is capable of voluntarily sharing decision-making with his subordinates only to the extent that he has authority to make decisions. Most methods that have been used to measure participation can also be regarded as a measure of Decision-Centralization. Participation and Decision-Centralization have been measured by subordinate ratings of their perceived autonomy or influence in decision-making, by subordinate responses to a questionnaire concerning the leader's decision behavior, and by leader responses to a decision behavior questionnaire. In some studies the leader's actual decision-making behavior has been experimentally manipulated. The term Decision-Centralization was introduced for two reasons. First, this term emphasizes the behavior of the leader rather than the behavior of the subordinates. Second, the definition of Decision-Centralization explicitly encompasses a greater variety of leader decision procedures than does the typical definition of participation (Heller & Yukl, 1969).2

Reconciling the Two Approaches to Leader Behavior Classification

Is Decision-Centralization equivalent to Consideration and Initiating Structure, or is it a distinct leadership dimension? The degree to which the three dimensions are independent depends upon the precise definitions given them. Since the definitions vary from study to study, it is not surprising that there is some disagreement regarding the relation between these dimensions. For example, Lowin (1968) has suggested that Initiating Structure is conceptually similar to autocratic supervision, Sales (1966) has suggested that "employee orientation" (which includes high Consideration) is usually associated with democratic leadership, and Newport (1962) has suggested that Consideration and Initiating StrueDespite my preference for the term Decision-Centralization, the more familiar term participation will usually be used when discussing the direction of correlations in order to avoid confusion.

BEHAVIORAL

THEORY

OF

LEADERSHIP

417

ture are similar, respectively, to democratic and autocratic leadership. On the other hand, Gomberg (1966), MeMurry (1958), Schoenfeld (1959), and Stanton (t962) have claimed that high Consideration and autocratic leadership are not incompatible, or in other words, that Consideration and Decision-Centralization are separate dimensions. There are several sound theoretical arguments for treating DecisionCentralization as a separate dimension of leader behavior. Let us look first at the relation between Consideration and Decision-Centralization. The Consideration scale in the Ohio State questionnaires includes several items pertaining to the decision-making participation of subordinates, and Consideration is sometimes defined as including the sharing of decision-making with subordinates. However, one can argue that this sharing is only considerate of subordinates when they clearly desire participation, and the desire for participation can vary substantially from person to person and from situation to situation. Inclusion of participation items in a Consideration scale results in scores which are not comparable across persons unless first adiusted for differences in participation preferences. It is more practical to define Consideration as simply the degree to which a leader's behavior expresses a positive attitude rather than an indifferent or negative attitude toward subordinates. When defined in this manner, Consideration can be regarded as conceptually distinct from Decision-Centralization. In general, a high Consideration leader is friendly, supportive, and considerate; a low Consideration leader is hostile, punitive, and inconsiderate. A leader who acts indifferent and aloof is between these extremes but is closer to the low end of the continuum. The specific behaviors used in sealing Consideration should be generally applicable to all types of leadership situations. What about the relation between Decision-Centralization and Initiating Structure? Although Initiating Structure is defined broadly as taskoriented behavior, it appears to include at least three types of task behavior: (1) Behavior indicating the leader's concern about productivity (e.g., goal-oriented comments to subordinates, and use of various rewards and punishments to encourage productivity), (2) behavior insuring that necessary task decisions are made, and (3) behavior insuring that these decisions and directives from higher levels in the organization are carried out (e.g., training and supervision). Note that this definition does not specify who will actually make the decisions. The task orientation of the leader does not appear to be very closely related to the amount of influence he will allow subordinates in the making of task or maintenance decisions. Even very autocratic leaders can differ considerably with respect to their task orientation and concern about group performanee. Therefore, it seems reasonable to treat Initiating Structure

418

OARY YC~L

and Decision-Centralization as separate dimensions of leader behavior. The empirical evidence on the relation of Decision-Centralization to Consideration and Initiating Structure is scanty, and the research which will be cited should be regarded as suggestive rather than conclusive. Most of these studies use the Consideration scale of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, which includes some participation items. Naturally these items increase the likelihood of finding a significant correlation between Consideration and Decision-Centralization. In a study of 67 second-line supervisors in three companies, this author found a low but significant correlation (r = - - . 2 4 ; p < .05) between Consideration and Decision-Centralization. Decision-Centralization was measured by means of leader responses on the decision procedure questionnaire (Form C) described in Heller and YukI (1968). There was no significant correlation between Decision-Centralization and Initiating Structure. Other evidence is provided by analyses of a more recent version of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, which has ten new subscales in addition to the original scales for Consideration and Initiating Structure. One of the new scales, called "Tolerance of Member Freedom," can be regarded as a measure of participation or DecisionCentralization. Stogdill, Goode, and Day (1962, 1963, 1964) administered this questionnaire to "subordinates" of corporation presidents, labor union presidents, community leaders, and ministers. The correlations between Consideration and Tolerance of Member Freedom for the four samples, respectively, were .41, .42, .40, and .49. For a sample of office supervisors rated by female subordinates on this questionnaire, the correlation was .50 (Beer, 1966). 3 Decision-Centralization and Initiating Structure were not significantly correlated in any of the five samples just described. Argyle, Gardner, and Cioffi (1957) analyzed the relation among leadership dimensions as measured by questionnaires administered to managers in England. Demo.eratie (vs authoritarian) leadership oorrelated .41 with nonpunitive (vs punitive) leadership. Democratic leadership was not significantly correlated with pressure for production, a component of Initiating Structure. If we remember to reverse the sign of the correlation when necessary in order to correct for the fact that high participation equals low Decision-Centralization, then it is obvious that the results of these studies are remarkedly consistent. Decision-Centralization and Initiating Struc~ ~Signifieanee levels for tlle correlations were not given, but judging from the sample sizes, they should all be significantat the .05 level or better.

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

419

ture appear to be independent dimensions. Decision-Centralization and Consideration should probably be regarded as oblique rather than orthogonal dimensions. That is, there will tend to be a low to moderate negative correlation between them, but some leaders will have high scores on both dimensions ("benevolent autocrat") and some leaders will have low scores on both dimensions ("malevolent democrat"). A DISCREPANCY MODEL OF SUBORDINATE SATISFACTION WITH THE LEADER In this section, a discrepancy model of satisfaction will be used to explain the relation of the three leadership dimensions to subordinate satisfaction with the leader. Discrepancy or subtraction models of job satisfaction have been proposed by a number of psychologists (Morse, 1953; Sehaffer, 1953; Rosen & Rosen, 1955; Ross & Zander, 1957; Porter, 1962; Katzell, 1964; Locke, 1969). In a discrepancy model, satisfaction is a function of the difference between a person's preferences and his actual experience. The less the discrepancy between preferences and experience, the greater the satisfaction. This hypothesis has received some support in the studies cited above, but the evidence is by no means conclusive. In some versions of the discrepancy model there is a second hypothesis which states that the amount of dissatisfaction with a given discrepancy also depends upon the importance of the needs affecting the preference level. If importance varies from person to person, the discrepancy scores cannot be compared unless first adjusted for importance. Whether such a correction is necessary, and if so, how it should be made appears to be a matter of growing controversy. Although the discrepancy model appears to be applicable to the analysis of subordinates' satisfaction with their leader, only a few studies have used it for this purpose. In two of these studies (Foa, 1957; Greet, 1961), leadership variables other than Consideration, Initiating Structure, and Decision-Centralization were used. No studies were found which included subordinate preferences for Consideration and Initiating Structure as a moderating variable. The results from studies which have included subordinate preferences for participation in decision-making tend to be consistent with the discrepancy model. According to the proposed discrepancy model, the shape of the curve relating leader behavior to subordinate satisfaction will vary somewhat depending upon a subordinate's preference level. A preference level will be defined tentatively as a range of leader behavior acceptable to subordinates rather than as a single point on a behavior continuum. Figure 1 shows the theoretical curves for a low, medium, and high preference level. The curves represent the relation for a single subordinate. When

420

GARY Y U K L

Z 0

high

A,

3
~o
q

to} J o w

PL low BEHAVIOR

high

z 0

high

B,

P,iX~
l o w

low
BEHAVIOR

high

=h~gh ~ i
low
low
BE H A V I O R PL [

U <

'< vi

high

Fie. 1. The relation between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction for a low, medium, and high preference level (PL). the preference levels of group members are relatively homogeneous, the relation between leader behavior and average group satisfaction with their leader will yield a curve similar to that for an individual. However, the more variable the preferences are in a group, the less likely it is t h a t any significant relation wili be found between leader behavior and average group satisfaction. Subordinate preference levels are determined both by subordinate personality and by situational variables (see Fig. 2). Preferences can be expected to v a r y more for Initiating Structure and Decision-Centralization than for Consideration. Except for a few masochists, is is probably safe to assume that subordinates will desire a high degree of considerate behavior by their leaders. As a result, the function relating Consideration and subordinate satisfaction should resemble curve C in Fig. 1. Preference levels for Decision-Centralization, i.e., the subordinate's

B E H A V I O R A L T H E O R Y OF L E A D E R S H I P

421

SUBORDINATE~ I PERSONALITY SITUATIONAL VARIABLES SUBORDINATE PREFERENCES SUBORDINATE SATISFACTION

LEADER BEHAVIOR

Fro. 2. A discrepancy model of subordinate satisfaction with the leader. desire for participation in decision-making, may be partially determined by two personality traits: Authoritarianism (Vroom, 1959) and "need for independence" (Trow, 1957; Ross & Zander, 1957; Vroom, 1959; Beer, 1966, p. 51; French, Kay, & Meyer, 1966). Although none of these investigators assessed the relation between a personality measure and expressed behavior preferences, they did find that personality had the expected moderating effect upon the relation between Decision-Centralization and subordinate satisfaction. However, it should be noted that Tosi (1970) was not able to replicate the results of the study by Vroom (1959). The measurement of subordinate preferences in future replications may aid in clearing up the contradiction between these two studies. The major situational determinant of the preference level for participation in making a decision is probably the importance of that decision for' the subordinate (Maier, 19'65, p. 165). When a decision is very important to subordinates, they are likely to prefer as much influence as possible (e.g., joint decision-making or delegation). When decisions do not involve matters of importance, consultation or even autocratic decision-making is more likely to be preferred. Of course, the more that subordinates trust their leader to make a decision favorable to them, the less need they will feel to participate in order to protect their interests. Also, when th~ subordinates are committed to group goal attainment or survival and the task or environment favors centralized decision-making (e.g., a crisis), then they are likely to expect the leader to make most of the decisions (Mulder & Stemerding, 1963). Preference levels for Initiating Structure are partially determined by the subordinates' commitment to group goals and their perception of the amount of structuring that is necessary to help the group attain these goals. Subordinates who are indifferent about or hostile toward t h e goal of maximum productivity are likely to prefer a leader who is not very task oriented in his behavior.

Summary of the Discrepancy Model

The major features of the proposed discrepancy model can be summarized in terms of the following hypotheses:

422

GAnY YUKL

Hyp 1: Subordinate satisfaction with the leader is a function of the discrepancy between actual leader behavior and the behavior preferences of subordinates. tIyp 2: Subordinate preferences are determined by the combined effect of subordinate personality and situational variables. Hyp 3: Subordinates usually prefer a high degree of leader Consideration, and this preference level results in a positive relation between Consideration and subordinate satisfaction. The discrepancy model in its present form is only a static model representing one-way causality at one point, in time. No attempt has been made to include additional complexities such as the effects of leader behavior on subordinate preferences. For example, a leader who gradually allows greater subordinate participation may find that the subordinates' preference for decision-making increases over time. Nor does the model explicitly deal with such other determinants of subordinate satisfaction with the leader as his intelligence or the feedback effects from successful or unsuccessful group performance. Finally, the influence of various components of the model on leader behavior has also been ignored. For example, subordinate preferences represent one of several sources of role expectations for the leader, and these role expectations interact with other situational variables and leader personality to determine his behavior. A MULTIPLE LINKAGE MODEL OF LEADER EFFECTIVENESS When a leader is dependent upon his subordinates to do the work, subordinate performance is unlikely to improve unless the leader can increase one or more of the following three intermediate variables: (1) Subordinate task motivation (i.e., effort devoted to their tasks), (2) subordinate task skills, and (3) Task-Role Organization (i.e., the technical quality of task decisions).4 Consideration, Initiating Structure, Decision-Centralization, and various situational variables interact in their effects on these intermediate variables. The intermediate variables interact in turn to determine group performance (see Fig. 3).

Consideration, Initiating Structure, and Subordinate Motivation

Consideration and Initiating Structure interact in their effect upon subordinate task motivation. Subordinate task motivation will be highest when the leader is high on both Consideration and Initiating Structure. ~The leader can also improve productivity by obtaining necessary information, resources, and cooperation from other organization members and outside agencies, but this involves leader behavior outside the context of the work group.

]3EHAVIOI~AL THEOIgY 0F LEADERSI-IIP LEADER ~--~ SUBORDINATE k MOTIVATION ORGANIZATION RMANCB

42~

[ eONSIDE~TION , . ] / ~ I DEClSION-

~ > L CENTRALIZATION! ///~'

INITIATING I STRUCTURE

~ _ _ _ > ~I SUBORDINATE SKILL LEVEL 1 SITUATIONAL

L VARIABLES

FIG. 3. A multiple linkage model of leader effectiveness. The ordering of the other combinations is less certain, because the interaction appears to be highly complex and irregular. If leaders were subgrouped according to their Initiating Structure scores, for high structuring leaders there would probably be a positive relation between Consideration and subordinate task motivation. For low structuring leaders, there is some reason to suspect that the relation between Consideration and subordinate motivation is described by an inverted U-shaped cm've. In other words, subordinate task motivation can be adversely affected when the low structuring leader is either very supportive and friendly or very hostile and punitive. There are at least two hypotheses for explaining the interaction between Consideration and Initiating Structure, and it is not yet clear if either or both are correct. From instrumentality theory (Vroom, 1964, p. 220; Galbraith & Cummings, 1967), comes the hypothesis that a leader can improve subordinate performance by being highly considerate to subordinates who make an effort to perform well, while withholding Consideration from subordinates who show little task motivation. In effect, considerate behavior is a reward which is contingent upon the display of certain task-motivated behavior by subordinates. The "identification" hypothesis proposes that subordinate motivation is a response to previous leader Consideration rather than an attempt to obtain future Consideration. As Consideration increases, subordinate attitudes toward the leader become more favorable and his influence over the subordinates increases correspondingly. In effect, the considerate leader has greater "referent power" (French & Raven, 19,59). However, in order for subordinate loyalty to be translated into task motivation, it is necessary for the leader to communicate a concern for productivity. If the leader is highly considerate but does not stress productivity, the subordinates are likely to feel that they can safely neglect their tasks.

424

QAaY

YUKL

If a leader actually becomes hostile and punitive, it is likely that subordinate task motivation will be adversely affected, regardless of the level of Initiating Structure. Punitive leadership can lead to counteraggression by subordinates in the form of slowdowns and subtle sabotage (Day & Hamblin, 1964).

Decision-Centralization and Subordinate Motivation

Although there is some direct evidence that subordinate participation can result in increased task motivation (Baumgartel, 1956), the nature and relative importance of the psychological processes accounting for the relation and the prerequisite conditions for their occurrence are not yet clear. A number of explanations for the effect of participation on subordinate motivation have been proposed during the last two decades. Probably the most important of the proposed processes is the possibility that subordinates become "ego-involved" with a decision which they have helped to make. When subordinates identify with a decision, they become motivated to help make the decision successful, if only to maintain a favorable self-concept. However, there may be several limiting conditions for this causal sequenee (Strauss, 1964; Vroom, 19'64; Lowin, 1968). It is possible that there is some minimal amount of individual influence, actual or perceived, which is necessary before identification will occur. As a group gets larger, the influence of each member over a decision will necessarily decline; thus the size of the group may be one limiting factor. Also, it is not clear whether a person who supports a proposal that is rejected will become committed to the proposal finally selected by the group. Another prerequisite may be the subordinate's perception that the decision process is a test of his decision ability and those skills of his which are used in implementing the decision. In the ease where subordinates participate in making decisions unrelated to their tasks, there is no reason to assume that any increased commitment to these decisions will generalize to task decisions. Finally, if responsibility for making decisions is thrust upon subordinates who do not want it or who see it as the legitimate role of the leader, then these subordinates may fail to identify with the decisions (French, Israel, & As, 1960). Another explanation of the relation between Decision-Centralization and task motivation is that participation facilitates reduction of subordinate resistance to change (Coch & French, 1948). One way this could occur is through direct persuasion. Since the leader is usually not aware of all the subordinates' fears an.d doubts regarding a proposed change, consultation provides him with an opportunity to uncover these fears and to persuade subordinates that the change will be beneficial rather

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LF~gDERSHIP

4:25

than harmful. When a leader's proposal involves features which clearly are detrimental to subordinates, mere persuasion is not likely to win their support. However, consultation or joint decision-making provides the opportunity for bargaining and agreement on a compromise proposal which the subordinates can support (Strauss, 1964). When the leader allows his subordinates to make a group decision, the interaction dynamics of the group are yet another possible source of increased task motivation. If the work group is cohesive, its members are subject to direct social pressure to conform to group norms (Schachter, Willerman, Festinger, & Hyman, 1961; Berkowitz, 1954; Seashore, 1954). In addition, the work group may function as a "reference group" for its members (Neweomb, 1965, p. 109). Subordinates who have positive attitudes toward their work group will tend to support group norms, including group decisions made in a legitimate manner. This tendency for member attitudes and behavior to be consistent with reference group norms will occur even in the absence of direct social pressure. Of course, increased commitment to carry out decisions is not conceptually equivalent to increased task motivation. Subordinates can make task decisions which in effect restrict output or resist change. Subordinate attitudes toward the leader and the organization constitute an important situational variable which moderates the effect of participation upon task motivation. If relations between the leader and the subordinates are very poor, or the subordinates are in opposition to the goal of maximum group performance, then participation in decisions involving production goals, standards, quotas, etc., is not likely to result in increased subordinate task motivation (Strauss, 1964:). Since Consideration is an important determinant of subordinate attitudes toward the leader, participation is more likely to be effective if combined with high Consideration than if combined with low Consideration.

Leader Behavior and Subordinate Taslc Skill

The second way in which leaders can increase group performance is to increase the ability of subordinates to perform their individual tasks. A number of studies (reviewed in Vroom, 1964, p. 197) support Maier's (1965) hypothesis that performance is a function of a person's Motivation X Ability. According to this hypothesis, even highly motivated subordinates will not perform well if they lack the necessary knowledge or skills to carry out their assignments. Therefore, one way for a leader to improve group performance is to correct deficiencies in subordinate task skills and knowledge by means of on-the-job instruction and improved downward communication of task-relevant information. Instruction and

426

GAnY YV~_~

communication of this nature are, by definition, elements of Initiating Structure. A more complex analysis of the relation between Initiating Structure and subordinate task skill was beyond the seope of this article.

The Nature of Task-Role Organization

Task-Role Organization refers to how efficiently the skill resources of subordinates are utilized to perform the group's formal tasks. Adequacy of Task-Role Organization depends upon how well job assignment decisions and work method decisions are made. The making of job assignment decisions is usually referred to in industrial psychology as "placement" or "classification." When the jobs of each subordinate are identical and subordinates work independently of each other, it doesn't matter what subordinates are assigned to what jobs. However, when jobs are highly specialized, each job has different skill requirements, and skill differences among subordinates are substantial, then job assignments are an important type of task decision. If work assignments are not made carefully, the skills of some workers will not be fully utilized, while other workers will be placed in jobs which they cannot perform adequately. Furthermore, if the jobs are interdependent, bottlenecks will occur at various points in the flow of work. Work method decisions are important whenever a task can be performed in many different ways, and some ways are better than others. Work methods and procedures can be designed with the available skills of a particular work group in mind, but it is common practice in industrial engineering to ignore individual differences and develop methods which maximize the efficiency of the typical worker. Decisions about work procedures are not always the responsibility of the leader. In some organizations, work methods are designed by staff specialists or are rigidly prescribed by company or union regulations. Task-Role Organization was included in the multiple linkage model to account for any variability in group productivity which is not attributable to subordinate motiva{ion, subordinate ability, or to extraneous events such as an improvement in the flow of material inputs, a breakdown in equipment, etc. The identification of Task-Role Organization as a separate variable is analogous to Maier's (1965) distinction between the quality of a decision and group acceptance of the decision. Although Task-Role Organization is an important conceptual component of the multiple linkage model; measurement of this variable is likely to prove troublesome. Any measure of Task-Role Organization will be highly specific to a given set of tasks and subordinates. Within a specific situation, one could attempt to scale the adequacy of job assignment decisions by evaluating the match between iob requirements and subor-

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF L]~ADERSHIP

427

dinate skills for all possible combinations of iob assignments. Adequacy of work method decisions could be evaluated in several ways. In some situations, the accumulated knowledge of industrial engineering specialists may permit the subjective ranking of various possible work procedures according to their relative efficiency. When objective measures of group performance (e.g., quantity or quality of output, labor time, errors) are available to use as a criterion of efficiency, then alternative work methods may be experimentally compared. However, it may be difficult to hold task motivation constant, even within a single work group, because job design can affect the intrinsic motivation of workers as well as their efficiency.

Initiating Structure, Decision-Centralization, and Task-Role Organization

Both Initiating Structure and Decision-Centralization appear to be related to Task-Role Organization. By definition, a leader who is high in Initiating Structure will attempt to improve the efficiency of his group. However, simply engaging in structuring behavior does not guarantee t:hat Task-Role Organization will improve. The leader's success depends upon his organizing skills, technical knowledge, and the extent to which he taps the knowledge of his subordinates by allowing them some degree of participation in making task decisions. The relation between DecisionCentralization and Task-Role Organization is moderated by the relative amount of leader and subordinate organizing skills and task knowledge. When the leader is very capable in this respect but the subordinates lack the appropriate talents, then there will be a negative relation between participation and Task-tl.ole Organization. When the subordinates have more relevant knowledge and organizing talent than the leader, we would expect a positive relation between participation and Task-Role Organization. We have already seen that Decision-Centralization can affect the task motivation of subordinates as well as the quality of task decisions. This means that in the situation where there is a negative relation between participation and Task-Role Organization, there may also be a positive relation between participation and subordinate motivation. When such a trade-off dilemma occurs, some intermediate degree of Decision-Centralization will probably be optimal with respect to group performance. In some situations, the quality of task decisions involves a time dimension. That is, the effectiveness of decisions depends in part upon how quickly they are made (Strauss, 1964; Lowin, 1968). Autocratic decision-making is faster than other decision procedures because little communication with subordinates is necessary. Therefore, participation

428

GARY YUICL

is likely to be negatively related to group performance when rapid decision-making is required. The magnitude of this negative relation will be greatest when the leader already has the necessary knowledge and ability to make good decisions, the subordinates are motivated by the urgency of the situation, and the task group is very large.

Summary of the Multiple Linkage Model

The major features of the multiple linkage model of leadership effectiveness can be summarized by means of the following hypotheses: Hyp 1: Group productivity is a function of the interaction among subordinate task motivation, subordinate task skills, and Task-Role Organization for the group. ttyp 2: Initiating Structure and Consideration interact in the deterruination of subordinate task motivation. Task motivation is highest when the leader is high on both behavior variables. Hyp 3: Decision-Centralization is negatively correlated with subordinate task motivation (i.e., high participation causes high motivation) when subordinate relations with the leader are favorable, the decisiofis are relevant to subordinate tasks, and subordinates perceive their partieipation to be a test of valued abilities. Hyp 4: Initiating Structure interacts with Decision-Centralization in the determination of Task-Role Organization. The relationship is moderated by the level and distribution of task knowledge and planning ability in the group. Hyp 5: Initiating Structure is positively related to the level of subordinate task skill.
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH

Most studies of the relation between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with the leader have not measured subordinate preferences or the personality and situational variables which determine these preferences. Most studies of the relation between leader behavior and group productivity have not included measures of the intermediate and situational variables in the proposed linkage model. The approach typical of mosi~ leadership research has been to look for a linear relation between leader behavior and one of the criterion variables. Nevertheless, previous research does provide some direct and some indirect evidence for evaluating the proposed models. In the following sections of this article, relevant leadership research

will be reviewed. The review will include studies dealing with variables which are reasonably similar to those in the proposed discrepancy and linkage models. However, it should be emphasized that in many of these

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

429

studies, the operational measurement of a variable only approximates the conceptual definition presented in this article. Studies using scales which can be regarded as a measure of leader attitudes (e.g., LPC scale, P scale, Leadership Opinion Questionnaire) rather than leader behavior were not included. Also exeluded were studies of general vs close Supervision. This leadership dimension, as usually defined, confounds Decision-Centralization with Initiating Structure. Finally, the review does not include studies of emergent leaders in informal groups, studies using children, studies involving an entire organization rather than individual work groups or departments, and studies in which leader behavior is obviously confounded with organizational variables such as the incentive system.

Consideration and Satisfaction

In seven studies of the relation between Consideration and subordinate satisfaction with their leader, Consideration was measured by means of subordinate responses on leader behavior description questionnaires. In five of these studies (Halpin, 1957; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Nealey & Blood, 1968; Yukl, 1969a; Anderson, 19'66) there was a strong positive relation between Consideration and subordinate satisfaction. In the remaining two studies (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Skinner, 1969) there was a significant curvilinear relation between Consideration and two objective measures which reflect subordinate satisfaction, namely turnover and grievances. The curve describing the relation corresponded roughly to curve C in Fig. 1. If subordinate preferences were homogeneous, this curve would represent supporting evidence for the concept of a zone of indifference within which leader behavior does not affect subordinate satisfaction. Below this indifference zone, the relation between Consideration and satisfaction was positive. In research reported in Likert (196.1, p. 17), aspects of Consideration such as "supervisor takes an interest in 'me and understands my problems" and "supervisor thinks of employees as human beings rather than as persons to get the work done," were related to favorable attitudes on job-related matters. In two laboratory experiments (Day & Hamblin, 1964; Misumi & Shirakashi, 1966) punitive leader behavior (i.e., low Consideration) was associated with low subordinate satisfaction. In another laboratory experiment, Lowin (19'69) found a significant positive relation between subordinates' satisfaction and their ratings of leader Consideration, but the difference in satisfaction between high and low Consideration conditions, although in the right direction, was not significant. Only two studies were found in which a positive relation between Con-

430

(~AR~" YL-~:L

sideration and subordinate satisfaction with the leader did not occur. In a study by Argyle, Gardner, and Cioffi (1958), leader self-reports of punitive behavior did not correlate significantly with subordinate turnover and absences. Pelz (1952) found an interaction between the degree to which a leader acts as a representative of his subordinates when dealing with higher management (one form of Consideration) and the leader's upward influence in the organization. For leaders with little upward influence, subordinates were less satisfied when the leader "went to bat" for them than when he did not go to bat. Presumably the leader representation raised expectations which he could not fulfill, thereby frustrating subordinates. In terms of the discrepancy model, the subordinates' preferences for leader representation are probably lower when it repeatedly causes frustration. Whether the negative effects of unsuccessful representation can completely cancel out the positive effects of other considerate behavior by the leader is not clear. It does not seem likely. In summary, the research literature indicates that in most situations, considerate leaders will have more satisfied subordinates. Although none of the investigators included subordinate preferences in their analysis, the results are consistent, with the discrepancy model if we can make the relatively safe assumption that most subordinates prefer considerate leaders.

Initiating Structure and Satisfaction

A consistent linear relation between Initiating Structure and subordinate satisfaction was not found, even within sets of studies using comparable measures. Unfortunately, none of the studies reviewed ineluded subordinate preferences. Baumgartel (1956), ttalpin and Winer (1957), Argyle et at. (1958), 3/iisumi and Shirakashi (1966), Lowin (1969), Anderson (1966), and Likert (1961, pp. 16-18) failed to find a significant relation. IIalpin (1957) and Yukl (1969a) found positive correlations. Vroom and Mann (1960) found a significant negative correlation between pressure for production and job. satisfaction for delivery truck drivers but not for loaders. Nealey and Blood (196.8) found a negative correlation between Initiating Structure and subordinate satisfaction for second-level supervisors and a positive correlation for first-level supervisors. Only three studies were found which examined the possibility of a curvilinear relation between Initiating Structure and subordinate satisfaction. Liker~ (1955) found that the relation between pressure for productivity and subordinate satisfaction took the form of an inverted U-shaped curve which is similar to curve B in Fig. 1. Fleishman and

BEttAVIORAIJ T H E O R Y OF D E A D E R S H I P

431

Harris (1962) and Skinner (1969) found a curvilincar relation between Initiating Structure and both turnover and grievances. Although subordinate preferences were not measured, the relationships in these studies were roughly comparable to curve A in Fig. 1. Yleishman and Harris also tested for an interaction between Initiating Structure and Consideration. The results of their analysis suggest that Consideration has a greater effect upon subordinate satisfaction than does Initiating Structure. High Consideration leaders could increase Initiating Structure with little accompanying increase in turnover or grievances. Fleishman and Harris provide two possible explanations for this interaction. One explanation is that considerate leaders are more likely to deal with any dissatisfaction caused by high structuring behavior before the dissatisfaction results in official grievances or withdrawal (i.e., turnover). Another explanation is that Consideration affects the way subordinates perceive structuring behavior. In terms of the discrepancy model, subordinates of highly considerate leaders are more likely to have a higher preference level for Initiating Structure because they do not perceive leader structuring as threatening and restrictive.

Decision-Centralization and Satisfaction

Six studies were found which examined the correlation between subordinate satisfaction and participation as perceived either by the leaders or by the subordinates (Baumgartel, 1956; Argyle et al., 1958; Vroom, 1959; Bachman, Smith, & Slesinger, 1966; Yukl, 1969a; Tosi, 1970). In each of these studies, evidence was found to support a positive relation between participation and subordinate satisfaction, although within some of the studies, a significant relation was not obtained for every subsample or for every alternative measure of the variables. A significant positive relation was also found in each of five studies in which participation was experimentally manipulated (Coch & French, t948; Shaw, 1955, Morse & :Reimer, 1956; Solem, 1958; Maier & Hoffrnan, 1962). The results of these studies are generally consistent with the discrepancy model if one can assume that the subordinates preferred a substantiaI degree of participation. In those eases where a significant relation between participation and subordinate satisfaction was not found, there was usually some reason to expect that the subordinates preferred a moderate or low amount of participation. In the study by Vroom (1959), a positive correlation occurred for subordinates with a high need for independence but not for subordinates with a low need for independence. Bass (1965, pp. 169-170) and French et al. (1960) found that subordinate participation did not result in more favorable attitudes toward a leader unless the subordinates per-

432

GARY YUKL

ceived the decision-making as a legitimate part of their role. Further evidence for the moderating effect of subordinate preferences can be found in a study by Baumgartel (1956) and in two unpublished studies (Jacobson, 1951; Tannenbaum, 1954) which were reported in Likert (1961, pp. 92-93). In the Tennenbaum study, some subordinates reacted adversely to a sudden substantial increase in participation. Finally, Morse (1953, p. 64) found that, regardless of whether workers made some decisions or none, they reported more intrinsic job satisfaction when the amount of decision-making equalled the amount desired than when they were not allowed to make as many decisions as they desired. Although intrinsic job satisfaction is conceptually distinct from satisfaction with the leader, these two variables are probably highly correlated when the leader determines how much responsibility a subordinate has for making task decisions.

Consideration, Initiating Structure, and Productivity

Considering the complexity of tl~e interaction between Consideration and Initiating Structure, it is not surprising that research on the relation between Consideration and productivity does no~ yield consistent results. In the large majority of studies there was either a significant positive relation (Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, & Floor, 1951; Argyle et al., 1958; Beseo & Lawshe, 1959; Schachter e~ al., 1961; Kay, Meyer, & French, 1965) or there was no significant linear relation (Bass, 1957; Halpin, 1957; Rambo, 1958; Day & Hamblin, 1964; Anderson, 1966; Nealey & Blood, 1968; Rowland & Scott, 1968). Lowin (19'69) found a positive relation for objectively manipulated Consideration in an experiment but not for subordinate ratings of Consideration. A significant negative relation was found by EIalpin and Winer (1957) for aircraft commanders and by Fleishman, Harris, and Burtt (1955, p. 80) for foremen of production departments but not for nonproduction departments. In both of these studies, productivity was measured by superior ratings, and the highest ratings went to leaders low on Consideration but high on Initiating Structure. It is possible that the ratings were influenced more by the raters' task-oriented stereotype of the ideal leader than by actual group performance. Turning to research on the relation between Initiating Structure and productivity, we again find mixed results. In a number of studies a significant positive relation was reported (Fleishman et al., 1955; Likert, 1955; tIalpin &Winer, 1957; Maier & Maier, 1957; Beseo & Lawshe, 1959; Anderson, 1966; Nealey & Blood, 1968). For some subsamples in three of these studies, and for leaders studied by Argyle et al. (1958), Bass (1957), Halpin (1957), Rambo (1958), and Lowin (1969), a signifi-

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

433

cant relation was not found. In no case was a significant negative relation reported. It is unfortunate that so few investigators measured intermediate variables or tested for an interaction between Consideration and Initiating Structure. However, the few studies which are directly relevant to the proposed linkage model do provide supporting evidence. In a laboratory experiment in Japan, Misumi and Shirakashi (1966) found that leaders who were both task oriented and considerate in their behavior had the most productive groups. Halpin (1957) found that aircraft commanders were rated highest in effectiveness when they were above the mean on both Consideration and Initiating Structure. Hemphill (1957) obtained the same results for the relation between the behavior of department chairmen in a Liberal Arts College and faculty ratings of how well the department was administered. Fleishman and Simmons (1970) translated the Supervisory Behavior Description into Hebrew and administered this questionnaire to the superiors of Israeli foremen. Proficiency ratings for the foremen were also obtained from their superiors. Once again, the foremen with the best ratings tended to be high on both Consideration and Initiating Structure. P atehen (1962) found that personal production nerms (i.e., task motivation) of workers were highest when the leader encouraged proficiency as well as "going to bat" for them. These produetion norms were related in turn to actual group production. Finally, although he didn't measure Consideration, Baumgartel (1956) found a significant positive relation between subordinate motivation and the concern of research laboratory directors for goal attainment (i.e., Initiating Structure).
Decision-Centralization and Productivity

Seventeen studies were found which examined the relation between Decision-Centralization and group productivity. A significant positive relation between participation and productivity was found by Baebman et al. (1966), Coch and French (1948), Fleishman (1965), French (1950), French, Kay, and Meyer (1966), Lawrence and Smith (1955), Likert (1961 , p. 20), Mann and Dent (195zi), McCurdy and Eber (1953), Meltzer (1956), and Vroom (1959). Argyle et al. (1958) found a positive. relation only for departments without piece rates, suggesting that the organizational incentive system, a situational variable, interacts with Decision-Centralization in determining the subordinates' task motivarich. Tosi (1970), French et al. (1960), and McCurdy and Lambert (1952) failed to find a significant relation between participation and productivity. In two other studies (Shaw, 1955; Morse & Reimer, 1956) a significant negative relation was found. Several of these sbldies demon-

434

~AI~Y Y~1o~

strafe that various situational variables can moderate the effects of leader decision behavior on group performance. Nevertheless, the high percentage of studies reporting a positive relation is an indication that some degree of participation leads to an increase in group performance in most situations. However, this generalization is not equivalent to concluding "the more participation there is, the greater will be group productivity." For a particular group, there is probably some optimal pattern of decisionmaking which will consist of various amounts of delegation, joint decision-making, consultation, and autocratic decision-making (Heller & Yukl, 1969). The optimal pattern is likely to involve some intermediate amount of subordinate influence, rather than the greatest possible amount. DISCUSSION The Multiple Linkage Model and FiedIer's Contingency Model A considerable number of leadership studies have been conducted by Fred Fiedler and his associates at the University of Illinois (Fiedler, 1967). Fiedler has developed a theory of leadership effectiveness to explain the results of this research. According to Fiedler's theory, group performance is a function of the interaction between the leader's "esteem for his least preferred co-worker" (LPC) and three situational variables: task structure, leader-member relations, and the position power of the leader. Leaders with low LPC scores have the most productive groups when the leadership situation, in terms of the three situational variables, is either very favorable or very unfavorable. Leaders with high LPC scores are more effective when the situation is intermediate in favorableness. Although Fiedler provides a behavioral explanation for these hypothesized relations, most of his studies did not measure leader behavior. The few studies which have attempted to identify the behavioral correlates of LPC scores have not yielded consistent results (Sample & Wilson, 1965; Fiedler, 1967, p. 53; Nealey & Blood, 1968; Yukl, 1970; Gruenfeld, Ranee, & Weissenberg, 1969; Reilly, 1969). Thus, it is not possible at this time to determine whether Fiedler's model is compatible with the proposed linkage model. Both theories are generally supported by their own separate bodies of empirical research. Reconciliation of the two approaches will probably require additional research which includes variables from both theories. Direction for Future Research The theoretical framework and ~he literature review presented earlier point out some empirical gaps which badly need filling. The central feature of the linkage model is the set of intermediate variables. A

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

435

leader can do little to improve group productivity unless he can alter one or more of these variables. Yet the mediating role of these variables, their relation to each other, and their interaction in the determination of productivity have seldom been investigated in leadership studies. Future research should be more comprehensive in scope. Leader behavior variables, intermediate variables, situational variables, subordinate preferenees, criterion variables (i.e., satisfaction and productivity), and relevant leader traits should all be included. Situational variables other than those discussed in this article also need to be investigated. Likely candidates are the organizational limiting conditions for participation suggested by Lowin (1968) and Strauss (1964), the structural variables found to be associated with leader decision behavior by Heller and Yukt (1969), the situational variables in Fiedler's model, the situational variables cluster-analyzed by Yukl (1969b), and Woodward's (1965) system for classifying production technology. Finally, the way in which the three behavior dimensions interact in determining the intermediate variables should be investigated. If possible, the leader behavior variables should be experimentally manipulated in order to avoid the measurement problems associated with leader behavior descriptions by subordinates. The analysis of leader effectiveness has utilized leader behavior variables which maintain a basic continuity with traditional conceptualization and research. However, in speculating about future research, it is appropriate to evaluate the continued usefulness of these broadly defined behavior dimensions. It is obvious that Consideration and Initiating Structure are composed of relatively diverse elements, while Decision-Centralization is an average based on many different types of decisions. In order to improve the predictive power of the model, it may be necessary to identify which components of the behavior variables are the most important determinants of each intermediate variable. The discrepancy model and the multiple linkage model provide only the skeleton of a static leadership theory which purposely ignores the additional complexities of feedback loops and circular causality. Much additional research and revision will be necessary to transform the skeleton into a full-fledged dynamic model which permits accurate predictions about leader effectiveness in formal task groups.
REFERENCES A:~DERS05r, L. R. Leader behavior, member attitudes, and task performance of intercultural discussion groups. Journal of Sociat Psychology, 1966, 69, 305-319. ARaYLE, M., GARDXER, G., & CIOFFI, F. The measurement of supervisory methods. Human Relations, 1957, 10, 295-313. AEa~E, M., GARDXEmG., & CmFFI, F. Supervisory methods related to productivity, absenteeism, and labor tmmover. Human Relations, 1958, 11, 2340. BACH~AN, J. G., SMIT~, C. G., & SLESI~GER,J. A. Control, performance, and saris-

436

GARY YUKL

faction: An analysis of structural and individual effects. Journal o] Pe~'sonaIity and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 127-136. BAss, B. M. Leadership opinions and related characteristics of salesmen and sales managers. In 1{. M. StogdilI and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957. Bhss, B. M. Organizational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1965. BAU~ARTEL, H. Leadership, motivations, and attitudes in research laboratories. Journal o/Social Issues, 1956, 12, (2), 24-31. BEER, M. Leadership, employee needs, and motivation. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Monograph No. 129, 1966. BERKOWITZ, L. Group Standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 509-519. BEsco, R. O., LAWSHE, C. I-I. Foreman leadership as perceived by supervisor and subordinate. Personnel Psychology, 1959, 12, 573-582. Cocg, L., & FaENCE, J. R. P. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1948, 1, 512-532. DAY, R. C., & HAMBLI~ ~, R. L. Some effects of close and punitive styles of supervision. American Journal o] Sociology, 1964, 16, 499-510. FIEDLER, F. ]~. A theory o] leadership ef]ectiveness. New York: McGraw-ttill, 1967. ]~LEISHlVIAN,E. A. A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957 (a). FLEISHlV~A~, E. A. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Calumbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957 (b). FLEISHMAN,E. A. Attitude versus skill factors in work group productivity. Personnel Psychology, 1965, 18, 253-266. FLEISHMA~, ]~. A., c~ SImMOnS, J. Relationship between leadership patterns and effectiveness ratings among Israeli foremen. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 23, 169~172. FLEISHMA~, ]~. A., & HARRIS,]~. F. Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 1962, 15, 43-56. FLEISH~AZ% E. A., HARalS, E. F., & BURTT, It. E. Leadership and supervision, in industry. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, Research monograph No. 33, 1955. FoA, U. G. Relation of worker's expectations to satisfaction with his supervisor. Personnel Psychology, 1957, 10, 161-168. FaENCE, g. R. P. Field experiments: Changing group productivity. In J. G. Miller (Ed:), Experiments in social process: A symposium on social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950. FRENCh, J. R. P., ISRAEL,J., & As, D. An experiment on participation in a Norwegian factory. Human Relations, 1960, 13, 3-19. FRENCE, J. R. P., KAY, E., & MEYEa, I-I. Participation and ~he appraisal system. Human Relatiows, 1966, 19, 3-20. F~ENC~, J. R. P., & RAVEN, B. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959. GnLBRAIT~, J., & CVM~INGS, L. L. An empirical investigation of the motivational determinants of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentMity-

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

4~7

valence and motivation-ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Per]ormance, 1967, 2, 237-257. GO~BERa, W. The trouble with democratic management. Transaction, 1966, 3, (5), 30-35. GRE~R, F. L. Leader indulgence and group performance. Psychological Monographs, 1961, 75 (12, Whole No. 516). GRCENFELD, L. W., RANCh, D. E., & WEISS~NBER0, P. The behavior of task-oriented (low LPC) and socially-oriented (high LPC) leaders under several conditions of social support. Journal o] Social Psychology, 1969, 79, 99-107. thLPI~, A. W. The leader behavior and effectiveness of aircraft commanders. In 1~. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957. HALPIN, A. W., & WI~ER, B. J: A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In 1~. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957. HELLER,F., ~g YUKL, G. Participation, managerial decision-making, and situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Per]ormance, 1969, 4, 227-241. H]~MPttILL, J. K. Leader behavior associated with the administrative reputations of college departments. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957. HE~PmLL, J. K., & COONS, A. E. Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957. JAC0BSOX, J. M. Analysis of interpersonal relations in a formal organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1953. KA~:Z, D., MACCOBY,N., GURIN, G., & FLOOR,L. Productivity, supervision, and morale among railroad workers. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1951. I~A'rZELL, P~. A. Personal values, job satisfaction, and job behavior. In H. Borrow (Ed.), Man in a World o] Work. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. KAy, E., ME,R, H. It., & FRE~'eH, J. R. P. Effects of threat in a performance appraisal interview. Journal o] Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 311-317. NORMAN, A. IK. Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria--A review. Personal Psychology, 1966, 19, 349-362. LAWRENCE,L. C., ~5 S~IITI-I, P. C. Group decision and employee participation. Journal o] Applied Psychology, 1955, 39, 334-337. LEWlN, I(. The dynamics of group action. Educational Leadership, 1944, 1, 195-200. LIKERT, R. Developing patterns in management. Strengthening management ]or the new technology. New York: American Management Association, 1955. LIKERT, R. New patterns oJ management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. LOCKE, E. A. What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Per]ormance, 1969, 4, 309-336. Lowi~, A. Participative decision-making: A model, literature critique, and prescriptions for research. Organizational Behavior and Human PerJormance, 1968, 3, 68-106. LowIN, A., ~-~RAPCHA1K,W. J., (~5 ~VANAGI-I, M. J. Consideration and Initiating

438

~A~Y V~KL

Structure: An experimental investigation of leadership traits. Administralive Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 238-253. MAIER, N. R. F. Psychology in industry. Third ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1965. MAmR, N. R. F., & HOFFMAN, L. R. Group decision in England and the United States, Personnel Psychology, 1962, 15, 75-87. MAmR, N. R. F., & MAIER, R. A. An experimental test of the effects of "developmental" vs. "free" discussions on the quality of group decisions. Journal o] Applied Psychology, 1957, 41, 320-323. MAN~, F. C., & DENT, J. The supervisor: Member of ~wo organizational families. Harvard Business Review, 1954, 32, (6), 103-112. MeCuRDY, I-I. O., EBE~, I.i.W. Democratic vs. authoritarian: A further investigation of group problem-solving. Journal o] Personality, 1953, 22, 258-269. McCuRD, tI. G., & LAMBERT,W. E. The efficiency of small groups in the solution of problems requiring genuine cooperation. Journal o/ Personality, 1952, 20, 478-494. McMuRaAY, R. N. The case for benevolent autocracy. Harvard Business Review, 19'58, 36, (1), 82-90. MELTZEa, L. Scientific productivity in organizational settings. Journal o] Social Issues, 1956, 12, (2), 32-40. MIsu~I, J., & SHIRAKASEI,S. An experimental study of the effects of supervisory behavior on productivity and morale in a hierarchical organization. Human ReIations, 19'66 19, 297-307. Mo~sE, N. Saris]action in the white-collar job. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1953. MoRsE, N. C., & REI~ER, E. The experimental change of a major organizational variable. Journal o] Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, ~2, t20-129. M~-LDER, M., & STE~ERDING,A. Threat, attraction to group and strong leadership: A laboratory experiment in a natural setting. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 317-334. NEALEY, S. M., & BLOOD, M. R. Leadership performance of nm'sing supervisors at two organizational levels. Journal o] Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 414-422. NEWEOMB, T. I-I., TS~NEI~, R. H., & CON-WRSE,P. E. Social psychology. New York: Holt, l~inehart, & Winston, 1965. NEwPoaT, G. A study of attitudes and leadership behavior. Personnel Administration, 19'62, t~ (5), 42-46. PATCHE~r, M. Supervisory methods and group performance norms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1962, 7, 275-294. PELZ, D. C. Influence: A key to effective leadership in the first-line supervisor. Personnel, 1952, ~9, 209-217. PORTER, L. W. Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal o] Applied Psychology, 1962, 46, 375384. RAMSO, W. W. The construction and analysis of a leadership behavior rating form. Journal o] Applied Psychology, 1958, 42, 409-415. I%EILLY,A. J. The effects of different leadership styles on group performance: A field experiment. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, D. C., Sept. 1, 1969. RosEN, R. A. I-I., & 1RosE~, R. A. A. Suggested modification in job satisfaction curveys. Personnel Psychology, 1955, 8, 303-314.

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

439

Ross, I. C., & Z,~'DER, A. Need satisfactions and employee turnover. Personnel Psychology, 1957, 10, 327-338. ROWLA~TD,K. M., & SCOTT,W. E. PSychological attributes of effective leadership in a formal organization. Personnel Psychology, 1968, 21, 365-378. SALES, S. M. Supervisory style arid productivity: Review and theory. Personnel Psychology, 1966, 19, 275-286. SAMPLE, J. A., & WILson-, T. R. Leader behavior, group productivity, and rating of least preferred eoworker. Journal o] Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 266-270. SCHACHTER, S., WILLERMA~T,B., FESTI~,TGER,L., & I-IYMAZV,R. Emotional disruption and industrial productivity. Journal o] Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 201-213. SCHAEFER,R. H. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work. Psychological Monograph, 1953, 67, (14, Whole No. 364). SCHOE~FELD, E. Authoritarian management: A reviving concept. Personnel, 1959, 36, 21-24. SEASHORE, S. Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1954. SHAW, M. E. A comparison of two types of leadership in various communication nets. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 19'55, 50, 127-134. S~;~h'NZR, E. W. Relationships between leadership behavior patterns and organizational-situational variables. Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22, 489~I94. SOLE~, A. R. An evaluation of two attitudinal approaches to delegation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1958, 42, 36-39. STANTO~,E. S. Which approach to management--democratic, authoritarian, or . . .? Personnel Administration, 1962, 25 (2), 44-47. STO~DILL, R. M., GOODE, O. S., &' DAY, D. R. New leader behavior description subscales. Journal o] Psychology, 1962, 54, 259-269. SrOaDILL, R. M., GOODE, O. S., & DAY, D. R. The leader behavior of corporation presidents. Personnel Psychology, 196,3, 16, 127-132. STOaDILL, R. M., G00DE, O. S., & DAY, D. R. The leader behavior of presidents of labor unions. Perso~nel Psychology, 1964, 17, 49~57. STRAUSS, G. Some notes on power equalization. In H. J. Leavitt (Ed.), The social science o] organizations: Pour perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hail, 1964. TosI, H. A re-examination of personality as a determinant of the effects of participation. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 23, 9,1-99. TAN~CE>-BAUX,A. S. The relationship between personality and group structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Syracuse University, 1954. Taow, D. B. Autonomy and job satisfaction in task-oriented groups. Journal o] Abnormal and Social Psycholo.gy, 1957, 54, 204-209. VRoo~, V. tI. Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Jou~,'nal o] Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 322-327. VROOM, V. It. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. VR00~, V. tI., & M.4N>~. F. C. Leader authoritariallism and employee attitudes. Pe~'sonnet Psychology, 1960, 13, 125-140. WOODWAaD, J. Industrial orga)zizatio.~a: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. YtrKL, G. A. Conceptions and consequences of leader behavior. Paper presented at

440

GARY Y U K L

the annual convention of the California State Psychological Association, Newport Beach, January, 1969 (a). YrzKb, G. A. A situation description questionnaire for leaders. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 515-518 (b). YCKL, G. A. Leader LPC scores: Attitude dimensions and behavioral correlates. Journal o] Social Psychology, 1970, 80, 207-212. RECEIVED: A p r i l 29, 1970