Perceived Leader Behavior as a

Function of Personality Characteristics

of Supervisors and Subordinates^
DOUGLAS E. DURAND
University of Missouri-St. Louis
WALTER R. NORD
Washington University

Subordinate perceptions of supervisory initiation of

structure and consideration were studied as a function of
locus of control and Machiavellianism. Personality was
found to be a major factor in predicting leader behavior
as perceived by subordinates. Locus of control may be
an important personaiity dimension influencing the leadership process in organizations.
The view of leadership as an interactional process (Gibb, 1969) has
achieved paradigmatic status in organizational psychology. While most of
the interactionist perspectives stress that leadership is a function of both
situational and personality factors, the strength of the reaction against the
"trait approach" appears to have suppressed the study of personality factors.
Recently, Fleishman (1973) and Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy and Stogdill (1974) have pointed to the need for more study of personality factors
in leadership. Several researchers, including Beer (1966), Dessler (1974)
and Evans (1974), have reported that personality characteristics of subordinates may act as moderator variables in the relationship of initiation of
structure to performance. While these studies have demonstrated the importance of the personality characteristics of subordinates, only the study
by Evans provided any information about the effect of the subordinates'
personality characteristics on their perception of the leaders' styles.
A review of the literature revealed only four studies where the followers'
personalities have been related to their perceptions of a leader. First,
Haythorn, Couch, Haefner, Langham, and Carter (1956) focused directiy
Douglas E. Durand is Associate Professor of Management and Organizational Behavior
University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
VValter R. Nord is Professor of Organizational Psychology, Washington University St
Louis, Missouri.
1 The advice of William Marshall on the statistical treatment of the data is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors also wish to thank William Friedman and all the participating
managers for their help in this research.
f
i'
s
427

428

Academy of Management Journal

September

on this process. They found that authoritarianism of group members influenced how they perceived the behavior of leaders. Second, Misumi and
Seki (1971), while not studying the problem directly, presented data which
suggested that, relative to followers low in need for achievement (n ach),
high n ach followers tended to be most aware of a superior's task orientation. By contrast, in most conditions, followers low in n ach were more
aware of a supervisor's maintenance behavior. The other relevant studies
were unknown to the current researchers at the time hypotheses were
formulated for the present study. Using Rotter's (1966) internal versus
external locus of reinforcement control (I-E) scale, Pryer and Distefano
(1971) found some evidence that externally oriented subordinates perceived their supervisors as exhibiting less considerate behavior. This relationship was consistent for all three groups studied, but was statistically
significant for only one of the three (r - - . 3 2 , p < .05). Evans (1974)
found internals tended to perceive their supervisors as more structuring
(r = - . 2 6 , p ^ .01) and considerate (r = - . 2 4 , p ^ .05).
Given limited empirical support in the leadership literature for the
assumed role of subordinate personality characteristics in the perception
of leadership behavior, research from the more general study of interpersonal perception was consulted. However, as Shrauger and Altrocchi
(1964) and Tagiuri (1969) have observed, with the exception of cognitive
characteristics, consistent personality correlates of person perception have
not been reported.
Witii littie empirical evidence to go on, the authors' selection of personality instruments was based more on their conceptual relation to leadership than on previous empirical work. While a number of personality factors
came to mind, it was assumed that dimensions related to control are central
to organizational leadership relationships; consequentiy, two measures of
personal orientations to controllocus of control and Machiavellianism
were selected.
The locus of control dimension (Rotter, 1966) describes a continuum
concerning the degree to which a person judges personal outcomes to be a
function of one's own actions. At the end of the continuum are "externals"
people who tend to attribute their outcomes to forces outside of their own
control. At the other pole are "internals"people who perceive their
outcomes as contingent upon their own behavior. Rotter and his colleagues
developed the I-E scale to measure this dimension. Rotter's work has
stimulated a great deal of research on locus of control which, as Joe (1971)
concluded, has substantiated the usefulness of the concept in a number of
areas of psychology. Recently, however, some researchers have suggested
that this scale is composed of at least two dimensions. For example, Gurin,
Gurin, Lao and Beattie (1969) identified two factors. One factor, "ideological control," was heavily loaded on items which referred to others or
to people in general. The second factor, "personal control," was loaded
on items concerning how a person viewed his or her own life.

1976

Volume 19, Number 3

429

Little empirical work about the influence of locus of control on the

supervisor relationship is available. In addition to the studies of Pryer and
Distefano and Evans, only a laboratory study by Goodstadt and Hjelle
(1973) and a field study by Runyon (1973) provided additional direct
insight into the influence of locus of control on the supervisor-subordinate
relationship.
The second personality dimension chosen for study was Christie and
Geis' (1970) construct of "Machiavellianism." They described the "ideal
type" Machiavellian as being cool, detached, logically oriented, and likely
to disregard the affective states of both himself and others. Moreover,
Machiavellian people are prone to establish structure in loosely structured
situations, advocate the use of guile and deceit in interpersonal relationships, and hold an unflattering view of human nature. While little use has been
made of Christie and Geis' scales in organizational research, Gemmill and
Heisler (1972) did find that Machiavellianism was negatively related to
the perceived opportunity to exercise formal control.
Perceived leader behavior was measured by the form XII version of
Stogdill's (1963) leadership behavior description questionnaire (LBDQ).
Two facts about this instrument should be kept in mind. First, this instrument measures a leader's structure and consideration by asking the subordinates to describe the behavior of their leader. Consequently, characteristics of the followers can have very strong effects on what the LBDQ
measures. In fact, in a different context, Stogdili (20, p. 141) observed
that ". . . the significance of consideration and structure is to be explained,
not in terms of leadership, but in terms of followership." Second, as Evans
(1973) has observed, the measures of both structure and consideration
yielded by form XII are narrower in scope than results based on the
original LBDQ.
For the most part, LBDQ scores have been averaged to measure supervisory behavior; possible systematic differences have been ignored. While
this procedure may be useful for many purposes, Blanchard (see Fleishman,
1973) suggests that averaging LBDQ scores may be misleading because it
obscures the influence of such things as differential treatment of individuals
by the same supervisor. The tendency to average across subordinates could
also obscure the effects of personality differences among subordinates on
the perception of leadership behavior. Consequently, in this study the
relationship of each supervisor-subordinate dyad was taken as the relevant
unit for analysis. In other words, it was assumed that, due to personality
and other differences among subordinates, each supervisor reacted differently to each subordinate.
Moreover, the supervisor-subordinate relationship develops over time.
Consequently, it would be expected that the effects of personality of each
member of the supervisor-subordinate dyad measured at timei may be more
strongly related to perceived supervisory behavior measured at some future
time, time2, than they would be to perceived supervisory behavior measured at timei. To date, most researchers have taken tib,eir measure of

430

Academy of Management Journal

September

personality and leadership concurrently. By contrast, the present study

investigated the power of personality factors as predictors of perceived
supervisory behavior at some later date.
Hypotheses
Based on Stogdill's definitions of initiation of structure and consideration,
Rotter's explanation and measure of locus of control, the description of
personal and ideological control developed by Gurin et al., and Christie
and Geis' measure of Machiavellianism, three directional hypotheses (1,
2, and 4) and one orienting hypothesis (3) were developed.
Hypothesis 1The more external a leader's locus of control (high
I-E score), the more subordinates will perceive him to initiate structure.
Hypothesis 2The more Machiavellian a supervisor, the greater
initiation of structure his subordinates will ascribe to him.
Hypothesis 3A leader's locus of control will be associated with
the amount of consideration ascribed to him by subordinates.
Hypothesis 4The more Machiavellian a supervisor, the less consideration his subordinates will ascribe to him.
In addition to testing these hypotheses, exploratory analysis of factors
affecting subordinate perception of supervisors was conducted. In particular,
the extent to which subordinates' ratings of supervisors could be accounted
for by these two measures of subordinate and supervisor personality characteristics was explored.
METHOD
Subjects

All 49 managers from three levels of management (down to but not

including first line supervisors) employed at four locations of a Midwestern
textile and plastics firm participated in the study. While similar to other
business organizations of its size, this firm may have been somewhat unique
in one respect. Management had exposed its executives to a wide variety of
behavioral science programs including management by objectives, the
managerial grid, and "team management."
Procedure

Each manager was asked to complete the mach V scale (Christie and
Geis, 1970) and the I-E scale (Rotter, 1966). Six months later, each manager (except the president, who had no supervisor) was asked to describe
his or her supervisor on the initiation of structure and consideration scales
of form XII of the LBDQ (Stogdill, 1963). All questionnaires were completed and returned.

1976

Volume 19, Number 3

431

This procedure should have yielded 48 dyads. However, due to personnel changes, 14 managers did not have the same supervisor six months after
completing the personality scales. Consequentiy, data from 34 supervisorsubordinate dyads were useable for testing the hypotheses.
The LBDQ and mach V instruments were scored according to the
conventional scoring system for each instrument. The I-E scale was scored
using Rotter's (1966) procedure and the subscales of control ideology
(CI) and personal control (PC) of Gurin et al. Personal control is measured by items 9, 13, 15, 25, and 28 of Rotter's instrument. The salient
feature of these items is that they concern one's personal life (e.g., I have
influence over . . . ) rather than people in general (e.g., people have influence
over . . .). Control ideology includes items 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, and 23
of the Rotter scale. The CI subscale refers to a general belief or ideology
in which hard work, skill and ability are important determinants of success
in life (e.g., becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has littie
or nothing to do with it).
The items included in Rotter's total score but not in either of the subscales were treated as a third subscale and will be referred to as I-E residual
(I-E res). The meaning of I-E res is less clear-cut than the other subscales.
Many of the items seem to be concerned with what Gurin et al. described
as "system modifiability"degree of belief that an investment of effort can
make a difference in the social system. While only two I-E res items (items
3 and 17) appeared on Gurin et al.'s factor of system modifiability, a
number of the other items seem to be concerned with the same type of
issues. For example, item 12 asked about the influence of the average
citizen on governmental decisions; item 22 asked whether political corruption could be eliminated by concerned people; item 29 asked whether the
people were really responsible for bad government. Thus, it appeared that
the residual items were tapping something akin to system modifiability.
Since multiple regression techniques were to be used, all analysis of the
locus of control data was based on the two subscales and the residual.
Simultaneous use of the total score and the subscales would, of course,
have resulted in a double-weighting being assigned to subscale items.
Analysis
Simple and multiple correlation coefficients were computed to test the
hypotheses. Hypothesis 3 was nondirectional; consequentiy a two-tailed
test of significance was appropriate. One-tailed tests were used for hypotheses 1, 2, and 4.
For the exploratory analysis to determine what combination of supervisor
and subordinate variables best predicted the LBDQ scores assigned to a
supervisor, stepwise regression was conducted using an exploratory regression program (maximum R^ improvement program of statistical analysis
system). This technique yields the one "best" model (maximum R^) for a
dependent variable for any specified number of independent variables.

432

Academy of Management Journal

September

The procedure is repeated until the addition of another independent variable

fails to significantly improve the explanatory power of the relationship.
Based on Blanchard's (Fleishman, 1973) comments on the problems
of averaging LBDQ scores and the assumption that a leader responds
differently to each subordinate, each superior-subordinate dyad was treated
as the relevant unit for analysis. Consequently, the measures of each supervisor's personality were paired with each of the LBDQ scores given by his
subordinates. This procedure is more conservative than employing mean
LBDQ scores because the residual variation in the relationship between
supervisor measure and subordinate score has a lower limit; 7?^ has an
upper limit less than one. In effect, the use of several scores has introduced
a "noise" element into the analysis which increases the susceptibility of the
tests to type I error.
It should be emphasized that the analysis in which a supervisor's personality score appears as an independent variable and a dimension from
the LBDQ is the only dependent variable yields a conservative result because the authors have chosen the supervisor-subordinate interaction as the
unit of analysis. Since each supervisor has only one personality score, the
variance in the independent variable is restricted. The effect of this restriction is to reduce the predictive power of this variable. Consequently, the
tests of the hypotheses are susceptible to type I error.
RESULTS
Before testing the hypotheses, the correlations between the conceptually
dependent variables, structure and consideration, were calculated. These
variables were not significantly correlated {r .05, p > .05); consequently
each of the hypotheses could be tested independently.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that initiation of structure would be positively related to both locus of control and Machiavellianism. The two
hypotheses were tested with the multiple regression equation. Since hypothesis 1 related initiation of structure to locus of control and hypothesis 2
similarly related Machiavellianism to initiation of structure, they must be
tested simultaneously. Presumably the respective explanatory variables
of these hypotheses are neither statistically nor theoretically independent.
If, for example, the association between locus of control and structure were
measured in a simple regression or correlation format, the relationship
would be misspecified, and the effect of Machiavellianism on structure
which was falsely attributed to structure would be proportionate to the
strength of association between Machiavellianism and locus of control.
Therefore, the appropriate medium for testing these two hypotheses is an
estimation equation specifying structure to be determined by the simultaneous effect of both locus of control and Machiavellianism.
The results of the regression equation are summarized in Table 1. While
the simple n for each of the four independent variables was positively
correlated with initiation of structure, only the correlation between super-

1976

Volume 19, Number 3

433

TABLE 1
Correlation Coefficients of Supervisor Locus of Control
and Machiavellianism with Initiation of Structure"
Independent Variables
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor

personal control
control ideology
I-E residual
Machiavellianism

R
.38
.40
.42
.42

.14
.16
.18
.18

R' Change
.14*
.02
.02
.00

Simple r
.38*
.23
.18
.09

" Supervisor initiation of structure was the dependent variable.

* p < .05 (one-tailed)

visory locus of personal control and structure (r = .38, p < .025) was
statistically significant. Supervisors whose locus of personal control was
external tended to be perceived as initiating more structure than did internal supervisors. Personal control by itself accounted for 14 percent of
the variation in structure. Addition of the other two portions of the I-E
scale strengthened the prediction only minimally. Machiavellianism accounted for almost no additional variation. These results provided some
support for hypothesis 1, but none for hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 predicted an association (no direction specified) between
locus of control and consideration; hypothesis 4 predicted a negative relationship between Machiavellianism and consideration. These hypotheses
were also tested in a multiple regression format; the results are summarized
in Table 2. The simple correlation coefiScients between consideration and
personal control and I-E res were positive; however, only the association
of consideration with the I-E res was statistically significant (r = .36, p <
.05). These results indicated that external supervisors were perceived as
showing more consideration than were internal supervisors. The I-E res
alone accounted for 13 percent of the variation in consideration; the addition of other independent variables added little explanatory power. These
results supported hypothesis 3; supervisory locus of control was associated
with the degree of consideration attributed to the supervisor by the subordinates.
TABLE 2
Correlation Coefficients of Supervisor Locus of Control and
Machiavellianism with Consideration"
Independent Variables
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor

I-E residual
personal control
Machiavellianism
control ideology

Change
.36
.38
.39
.40

.13
.14
.16
.16

" Supervisor consideration was the dependent variable.

* p < .05 (two-tailed)

.13*
.01
.01
.00

Simple r
.36*
.31
.32
-.14

434

Academy of Management Journal

September

TABLE 3
Variables Included in Best Fitting Two-Variable Regression
of Supervisory Structure Predicted by Personality
Cbaracteristics of Supervisors and Subordinates^
Independent Variable

R!i

R^ Change

Simple r

Supervisor personal control

Subordinate I-E residual

.38
.49

.14
.24

.14*
.10*

.38*
.33*

Supervisor initiation of structure was the dependent variable.

* p < .05 (two-tailed)

Hypothesis 4 received no support; Machiavellianism was not negatively

related to consideration as predicted. In fact, there was a relatively strong
positive relationship (r = .32).
The exploratory analysis was conducted to determine the effects of the
personality characteristics of subordinates on their perception of the
supervisors. The personality measures of both the subordinates and the
supervisors were regressed against structure and consideration in order to
determine the model of best fit (maximum i?^). The results for each LBDQ
dimension are presented in Table 3 and Table 4.
Only two personality variables, supervisor personal control and subordinate I-E res, were significant in predicting supervisory structure scores.
The relevant correlation coefficients are reported in Table 3. While supervisory personal control explained 14 percent of the variation, the locus of
control (I-E res) scores of the subordinates accounted for another 10
percent of the variance. External subordinates saw their supervisors as
initiating more structure than did internal subordinates. Thus, nearly 25
percent of the variation in initiation of structure could be predicted from
one subscore of the supervisor's I-E scale and another subscore of their
subordinates.
Only one personality variable, supervisor I-E res was significant in
predicting supervisory consideration. However, subordinate personal control approached significance (r = .28, p < .10). The relevant correlation
coefficients are reported in Table 4. In this case supervisory I-E res acTABLE 4
Variables Included in Best Fitting Two-Variable Regression of
Supervisory Consideration Predicted by Personality
Characteristics of Supervisors and Subordinates"
Independent Variable
Supervisor I-E residual
Subordinate personal control

Change
.36
.45

.13
.20

Supervisor consideration was the dependent variable.

* p < .05 (two-tailed)

.13*
.07

Simple r
.36*
-.28

1976

Volume 19, Number 3

435

counted for 13 percent of the variation; subordinate personal control

accounted for an additional 7 percent. External subordinates tended to
perceive their supervisors as higher in consideration than did internal subordinates. Thus, over 20 percent of the variation in consideration could
be predicted from one supervisory subscore of the I-E scale and one subscore
of subordinates.
The variables which are correlated with both structure and consideration
stem from the same I-E scale items. However, in the case of structure, it
is the supervisor's personal control and the subordinate's I-E res which are
the predictors. By contrast, with respect to consideration, the pattern is
reversed; it is the subordinate's personal control and the supervisor's I-E
res which are the best predictors of consideration.
DISCUSSION

In interpreting these findings, three limitations of the current research

should be kept in mind. First, these results describe relationships existing
in only one organization. Second, no data were collected concerning either
performance or the actual dynamics of the process. For example, the
current data provide no way to estimate the degree to which supervisory
behavior may have been due to the personality of subordinates. Third,
the entire LBDQ was not administered. As Evans (1973) noted, data
based on only the subscales may not be psychometrically equivalent to data
collected when the entire instrument is used. Nevertheless, the results appear
to have a number of potentially important implications for leadership theory
and research.
The results of this research suggest the potential value of considering
at least some personality factors of both supervisors and subordinates in
the study of leadership. The data revealed that certain locus of control
scores of both parties in the supervisor-subordinate relationship were independently and significantly related to the amount of initiation of structure
and consideration that subordinates attributed to their supervisors. Neither
the Machiavellian scores of supervisors nor those of subordinates added
significant predictive power to that of the locus of control measure for
either structure or consideration.
The most interesting results involved the relationship between locus of
control and the two dimensions of leader behavior. External supervisors,
particularly those who were external on personal control, tended to be
perceived as high on initiation of structure. Moreover, external supervisors,
particularly those who were external on the I-E res and personal control
items, were described as high in consideration by their subordinates. Externality of subordinates, as measured by the same two components of the
I-E scale, also predicted their perception of their supervisor's behavior.
External subordinates (I-E res) rated their supervisors high on initiation
of structure; external subordinates (personal control) rated their supervisors
low on consideration.

436

Academy of Management Journal

September

At a general level, these findings have several potentially significant

implications for the study of leadership. First, they give support to the
writers who have called for the renewed study of the role of personality in
the leadership process. Moreover, they suggest that such work might be
most productive when the personalities of both leaders and followers are
considered. Second, the systematic effect of subordinates' personalities on
their perception of supervisory behavior suggests that the use of the LBDQ
(and other instruments which classify supervisors on the basis of descriptions by their subordinates) may be improved by controlling for the personality characteristics of the subordinates.
More specifically, the results of the current study suggest that locus of
control may be an important factor in the supervisor-subordinate relationship. Interestingly, it appeared that locus of control of the so-called ideal
superior, the one who is high on both structure and consideration, might be
external. Post facto analysis supported this expectation. The multiple correlation between supervisory personal control and structure and consideration was statistically significant (r = .46, p < .02); moreover the multiple
correlation coefficient between supervisory I-E res and structure and
consideration approached statistical significance (r = .38, p < .06). Should
these results stand up under replication in other organizations, they could
have important implications for both selection and training of managers;
the "great man" leader may be an external.
The ability of the two short I-E subscales to predict 25 percent of the
variance in structure and 20 percent of the variance in consideration six
months into the future suggests the existence of a relatively strong relationship. A more precise knowledge of the magnitude of this association awaits
future research on other samples.
At a more theoretical level, the nature of the relationship between these
two subscales and structure and consideration deserves attention. For the
most part, control ideology was unrelated to perceived leader behavior;
by contrast, personal control and I-E res of both superiors and subordinates
were related to both structure and consideration.
Assuming the I-E res is at least partially a measure of system modifiability (see earlier discussion), an interesting pattern emerges. In comparison
with low structure leaders, supervisors who are perceived as structuring
situations tend to feel that they have relatively little control in their
personal lives. While no data on the psychological processes underlying
this relationship were collected in this study, the findings are consistent
with Goodstadt and Hjelle's (1973) observation that external supervisors
tend to exercise coercive power because they do not expect that they will
be able to influence others successfully. The data from this study indicate
that this perception of a low degree of social influence may lead the external supervisor to initiate structure to control the work situation.
The observed relationship between subordinate locus of control and
perceived supervisory behavior was also noteworthy. External subordinates
(I-E res) perceived that they had structuring supervisors; those persons

1976

Volume 19, Number 3

437

who feel that people have little opportunity to modify the social system
tended to see tiieir leaders as high on structure. This finding is in conflict
with Evans' (1974) results but is consistent with what is known about
externals; they perceive themselves as controlled by their environments
and, as Joe (1971) noted, are apt to be susceptible to influence from
sources having high prestige.
The negative correlation of subordinate locus of personal control and
their perception of supervisory consideration was consistent with Pryer
and Distefano's (1971) and Evans' (1974) results based on the total I-E
score. Theoretically, the tendency of internals to see their supervisors as
more considerate than externals may be explained by differences in behavior
of the various types of subordinates. The internal is apt to act directly on
the environment; consequently, his supervisor is aware of the internal's needs
and may respond to them either voluntarily or because of pressure from
the subordinate. Thus, internal subordinates are likely to see their supervisors as high on consideration. In contrast, the external subordinate
attempts little influence on the environment or his supervisor. The supervisor, being unaware of and/or unpressured to respond to the needs of
external subordinates, does not help to satisfy the external's needs. As a
result, the external attributes low consideration to the supervisor. Though
these inferences must be viewed as tentative, the data are quite consistent
with existing knowledge about locus of control and leadership.
CONCLUSIONS
The data reported in this study support the need for more in-depth
studies of the personality factors in the supervisor-subordinate relationship.
In this regard, the characteristics of subordinates may be nearly as important as those of the supervisors. Moreover, the findings suggest that
personality factors having to do with personal and interpersonal control
might provide fruitful starting points for such investigations. In this respect,
the results from Rotter's measure of locus of control and its component
subscales give strong support to Runyon's (1973) conclusion that the I-E
scale has unrealized potential for the study of leadership in organizations.
REFERENCES
1. Beer, M. Leadership, Employee Needs, and Motivation, Monograph No. 129 (Coltimbus,
O.: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1966).
2. Christie, R., and F. L. Geis. Studies in Machiavellianism (New York: Academic Press,
1970).
3. Dessier, G. "A Test of the Path-Goal Theory of Motivation," (Unpublished manuscript
discussed by S. Kerr, C. A. Schriesheim, C. J. Murphy, and R. M. Stogdill, "Toward
a Contingency Theory of Leadership Based upon the Consideration and Initiation
Structure Literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 12
(1974), 62-82.)
4. Evans, M. Discussant's comments and general discussion of "A Path-Goal Theory of
Leader Effectiveness," in E. A. Eleishman and J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current Developments
in the Study of Leadership Effectiveness (Carbondale, III.: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1973), pp. 174-177.

438

Academy of Management Journal

September

5. Evans, M. G. "Extensions of a Path-Goal Theory of Motivation," Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974), 172-178.
6. Fleishman, E. A. "Overview," in E. A. Fleishman and J. G. Hunt, Current Developments in the Study of Leadership Effectiveness (Carbondale, 111.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973), pp. 178-183.
7. Gemmill, G. R., and W. J. Heisler. "Machiavellianism as a Factor in Managerial Job
Strain, Job Satisfaction, and Upward Mobility," Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 15(1972), 51-62.
8. Gibb, C. A. "Leadership," in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbooic of
Social Psychoiogy, 2nd ed.. Vol. 4 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), pp. 205-282.
9. Goodstadt, B. E., and L. A. Hjelle. "Power to the Powerless: Locus of Control and the
Use of Power," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 27 (1973), 190-196.
10. Gurin, P., G. Gurin, R. C. Lao, and M. Beattie. "Internal-External Control in the Motivational Dynamics of Negro Youth," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 25 (1969), 29-52.
11. Haythorn, W., A. Couch, D. Haefner, P. Langham, and L. Carter. "The Effects of
Varying Combinations of Authoritarian and Equalitarian Leaders and Followers,"
Journai of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 (1956), 210-219.
12. Joe, V. C. "Review of the Internal-External Control Construct as a Personality Variable," Psychological Reports, Vol. 28 (1971), 619-640.
13. Kerr, S., C. A. Schriesheim, C. J. Murphy, and R. M. Stogdill. "Toward a Contingency
Theory of Leadership Based Upon the Consideration and Initiating Structure Literature," Organizationai Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 12 (1974), 62-82.
14. Misumi, J., and F. Seki. "Effects of Achievement Motivation on the Effectiveness of
Leadership Patterns," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 (1971), 51-59.
15. Pryer, M. W., and M. K. Distefano. "Perceptions of Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and
Internal-External Control Across Three Nursing Levels," Nursing Research, Vol. 2,
No. 6(1971), 534-537.
16. Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement," Psychoiogicai Monographs: General and Applied, Vol. 80 (1966) Whole
No. 609.
17. Runyon, K. E. "Some Interactions Between Personality Variables and Management
Styles," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 (1973), 288-294.
18. Shraugep, S., and J. Altrocchi. "The Personality of the Perceiver as a Factor in Person
Perception," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 62 (1964), 289-308.
19. Stogdill, R. M. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description QuestionnaireForm XII
(Columbus, O.: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1963).
20. Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of Leadership (New York: Free Press, 1974).
21. Tagiuri, R. "Person Perception," in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of
Social Psychology, 2nd ed. (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969), pp. 395-449.