See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240276122

Contingency Theories of Leadership: A Study

Article  in  Human Relations · April 1979

DOI: 10.1177/001872677903200404

CITATIONS READS

5 9,801

1 author:

Sudhir K. Saha
Memorial University of Newfoundland
111 PUBLICATIONS   2,877 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exploration for radioactive ore bodies View project

CSR in developing countries View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sudhir K. Saha on 15 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AN EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION AND EXTENSION
OF
FIEDLER'S CONTINGENCY MODEL OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS

by

Sudhir Kumar Saha

B. Com. CHons.] U n i v e r s i t y o f R a j s h a h i , 1965

M. Com., U n i v e r s i t y o f R a j s h a h i , 1966
M.B.A., U n i v e r i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

i n the F a c u l t y

of.

COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard.

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

September, 1972.
In presenting this thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for

an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e at the U n i v e r s i t y of British Columbia, I agree that

the L i b r a r y shall make i t freely available for reference and study.

I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis

for scholarly p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t or

by h i s representatives. It is understood that copying or publication

of this thesis for financial gain shall not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my

written permission.

The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia
V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a
 i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

F i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r the study was- provided by the

I n s t i t u t e o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h

Columbia. The A s s o c i a t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t i e s and C o l l e g e s o f

Canada sponsored my e n t i r e graduate work i n Canada.

Words f a i l t o d e s c r i b e my g r a t i t u d e t o P r o f e s s o r Vance F.

M i t c h e l l who was not only the chairman o f my d o c t o r a l committee,

but was a l s o t h e a r c h i t e c t o f my whole graduate c a r e e r a t U.B.C.

The c o n t i n u i n g guidance and a s s i s t a n c e provided throughout the

study by P r o f e s s o r s Ronald T a y l o r and Merle E. Ace deserve a

s p e c i a l note of g r a t i t u d e . My s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n i s due a l s o

to P r o f e s s o r K a r l E. Sarndal f o r h i s help i n s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s .

P r o f e s s o r Susan Butt of the Department of Psycgology rendered

many h e l p f u l suggestions which I deeply acknowledge.

There are many others who c o n t r i b u t e d toward making t h i s

study p o s s i b l e . S p e c i a l thanks are due t o P r o f e s s o r s Gordon

Walter and R i c h a r d T. Barth f o r encouraging t h e i r students t o

p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. Ian G o l d i e served as an observer i n

the experiments. Edward McMullan and Wayne Smith, two d o c t o r a l

students a t the F a c u l t y of Commerce, helped me i n v a r i o u s ways.

Mrs. M. N e i l s o n typed the f i n a l manuscript with e x p e r t i s e i n the

very l i m i t e d time a v a i l a b l e to h e r .

F i n a l l y , my deepest thanks are t o my mother, Mrs. Sukhada

Rani Saha. She s a c r i f i c e d a l l she had t o send me t o s c h o o l .

 ABSTRACT

F i e d l e r ' s Contingency Model suggests t h a t task-oriented

l e a d e r s are more e f f e c t i v e where the l e a d e r s h i p s i t u a t i o n i s

e i t h e r very favourable or very unfavourable and t h a t r e l a t i o n s -

o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s are more e f f e c t i v e i n s i t u a t i o n s o f i n t e r -

mediate f a v o u r a b i l i t y . T h i s model was put here t o an e m p i r i c a l

t e s t u s i n g three-man l a b o r a t o r y group performing e i t h e r a s t r u c -

t u r e d o r an u n s t r u c t u r e d task. An e f f o r t was a l s o made t o extend

the model by i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t o f three new v a r i a b l e s ,

namely, i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n as determinants o f

s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y f o r a leader. Based on e a r l i e r conjec-

t u r e s by H i l l and F i e d l e r , i t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t the degree o f

i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y as w e l l as the l e v e l of m o t i v a t i o n o f

l e a d e r s and group members w i l l determine how e f f e c t i v e a leader

would be i n a c h i e v i n g higher group p r o d u c t i v i t y .

One hundred and forty^-seven Commerce undergraduate students

of the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the i n v e s -

tigation. They were assigned t o 49 groups o f three people. One

of the three people i n each group was appointed as l e a d e r on the

basis of a sociometric preference rating. Leadership situations

were c r e a t e d by manipulating task s t r u c t u r e , leader p o s i t i o n

power, l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s , i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and motiv-

ation. Group p r o d u c t i v i t y was r a t e d using two c r i t e r i a o f per-

formance T speed and q u a l i t y of. group d e c i s i o n . I t was hypo-

t h e s i z e d t h a t group d e c i s i o n s o f higher q u a l i t y and g r e a t e r

speed w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h higher intelligence, a b i l i t y and

motivation of leaders and g r o u p members.

The r e s u l t s provided moderate support f o r the Contingency

M o d e l p r e d i c t i o n s i n t e r m s o f d i r e c t i o n and m a g n i t u d e o f c o r -

relations between l e a d e r s h i p style and g r o u p p r o d u c t i v i t y .

Most o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s , however, f a i l e d to satisfy the t e s t

of statistical significance. In the extension part of the study,

the r e s u l t s showed t h a t CD motivation significantly affected

the s p e e d o f g r o u p d e c i s i o n and c o n t r i b u t e d t o the leadership

effectiveness; 12) i n t e l l i g e n c e o f l e a d e r s and g r o u p members

significantly a f f e c t e d b o t h t h e q u a l i t y and s p e e d o f g r o u p d e -

cision; C3) ability as o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by a self-esteem

measure d i d n o t i n f l u e n c e e i t h e r t h e speed o r t h e q u a l i t y o f

group problem solving; C4) motivation d i d not i n f l u e n c e q u a l i t y

of group output.

On t h e b a s i s o f f i n d i n g s i n C D , ( 2 ) , (3) and C4) above, i t

wa,s c o n c l u d e d that intelligence, motivation and p e r h a p s ability

should be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n future studies of the Contingency

M o d e l as p a r a m e t e r s o f s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y .
 iv

TABLE 'QF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements . i

Abstract i i

L i s t o f Tables vi

L i s t of F i g u r e s viii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research on Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s ;

A Review 3
1.2 The Contingency Model o f Leadership
Effectiveness 8
1.3 M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y
as Moderators of L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s 13
1.4 Summary 15
Chapter 2: METHOD

2.1 S e t t i n g and Subjects 17

2.2 The Measures: T h e i r R e l i a b i l i t y
and V a l i d i t y 20
2.3 D e s c r i p t i o n of the S t a t i s t i c a l
Procedure 40
2.4 D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Experimental Design 42

Chapter 3: RESULTS

3.1 Introduction 44
3.2 Leadership S t y l e , S i t u a t i o n a l F a v o u r a b i l i t y
and Group P r o d u c t i v i t y 47
3.3 M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y as
Moderators o f Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s 51
3.4 Summary o f F i n d i n g s 59

Chapter 4: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 F i n d i n g s Relevant t o t h e Hypotheses . 58

4.2 Relevance and V a l i d i t y of the Measures 72
4.3 F u r t h e r Research Recommendations 76
4.4 Conclusion 79

APPENDIX I-: Berger's Acceptance of, S e l f Scale 81

APPENDIX IT: Sociometric P r e f e r e n c e Rating 84

 V

Page
APPENDIX S T I : The Least P r e f e r r e d .Coworker S c a l e 85

APPENDIX XV: Task 23 87

APPENDIX y.; Task 59 88

APPENDIX V I ; Rating P o s i t i o n Power and M o t i v a t i o n :

Leaders Only 1
90

APPENDIX V i i : Leader Behaviour, P o s i t i o n Power and

Motivation: Co-workers Only 91

APPENDIX V I I I : The Group Atmosphere S c a l e 92

APPENDIX IX: Rating Q u a l i t y of Group S o l u t i o n 93

APPENDIX X: Leader Behaviour Rating:

Observers Only 94
BIBLIOGRAPHY 95
 LTSTNOF- T A B L E S -

Medj;a,n C o r r e l a t i o n f o r the Development Steadies 1

of the Contingency Model o f Leadership

Mean P e r c e p t i o n o f Group Members about Leader

P o s i t i o n Power

Mean GA Scores f o r C o n d i t i o n s of Good and Poor

Leader Member R e l a t i o n s

Mean o f the S u b j e c t s ' Rating o f t h e i r Motivation

I n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s between Observers' Ratings

of Leader Behaviour

I n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n between Observer Rating o f

Leader Behaviour and the LPC Scores

I n t e r - R a t e r Agreement on the Rating of Group Output

Design f o r Experiment - A

Design f o r Experiment - B

Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n between the

LPC and Q u a l i t y o f Group D e c i s i o n

Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n between the

LPC and Speed o f Group D e c i s i o n

E f f e c t of M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y
on the Speed of Group D e c i s i o n

E f f e c t o f I n t e l l i g e n c e , A b i l i t y and M o t i v a t i o n
on t h e Q u a l i t y o f Group D e c i s i o n

E f f e c t o f M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y on
the R e l a t i o n s h i p between the LPC and Speed o f
Group D e c i s i o n

E f f e c t of I n t e l l i g e n c e , A b i l i t y and M o t i v a t i o n on
the R e l a t i o n s h i p between LPC and Q u a l i t y o f
Group D e c i s i o n

Summary of C o r r e l a t i o n s between LPC and Group

Performance Reported i n 'Field and Laboratory
Studies T e s t i n g the Contingency Model

Comparison of Antecedent and E v i d e n t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n

between LPC and Group Performance
 vii

Page

18. Comparison of R e s u l t s Reported By F i e d l e r

and the Present Study- 66

19. Comparison of R e s u l t s Reported By Graen et a l . ,

and th_e Present Study 67
 y i i i

L I S T OF' FIGURES

- Page

1. S i t u a t i o n a l F a v o u r a b i l i t y , Leadership S t y l e
and Group P r o d u c t i v i t y 71
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

One of the most p e r p l e x i n g problems c o n f r o n t i n g the

manager as w e l l as the b e h a v i o u r a l s c i e n t i s t has been to deter-

mine the l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e most conducive to promoting e f f e c t i v e

work groups. Leadership e f f e c t i v e n e s s and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to

p r o d u c t i v i t y and s a t i s f a c t i o n have been examined from the stand-

p o i n t s of, t r a i t s , f u n c t i o n s , s t y l e s and situations. The con-

cept of l e a d e r s h i p ha,s been viewed a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l y , economic-

a l l y , p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y and s o c i o l o g i c a l l y , as w e l l as from the

vantage p o i n t s of p o l i t i c a l power and experience. Despite the

scope and magnitude of these e f f o r t s , we still know l i t t l e

about what makes one s u p e r i o r more e f f e c t i v e than another or

why a manager i s e f f e c t i v e i n one s i t u a t i o n and not i n another.

E m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s d i r e c t e d toward f i n d i n g t h a t s t y l e which

i s most e f f e c t i v e have y i e l d e d i n c o n c l u s i v e and often contra-

d i c t o r y r e s u l t s Ce.g., Blake and Mouton, 1964; Fiedler, 1958;

Lewin, L i p p i t and White, 1939; L i k e r t , 1961; Shaw, 1955). Be-

haviour s c i e n t i s t s have been amazed to f i n d t h a t both the d i -

r e c t i v e , a u t h o r i t a t i a n , task o r i e n t e d leader and his counterpart,

the democratic, human r e l a t i o n s leader have proved e f f e c t i v e

in countless s i t u a t i o n s .

The Contingency Theory of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s r e c e n t l y

advanced by F i e d l e r (1964, 1967) suggests a t h e o r e t i c a l explan-

a t i o n f o r the c o n f u s i o n which now e x i s t s i n the l i t e r a t u r e and

 2

the p r a c t i c a l i n s i g h t s of many managers. Fiedler's theory

suggests t h a t l e a d e r s h i p i s an i n f l u e n c e process where the

ease or d i f f i c u l t y of e x e r t i n g i n f l u e n c e i s a f u n c t i o n o f the

fayourableness of t h e group task s i t u a t i o n f o r the l e a d e r .

Although i t has been r e c o g n i s e d t h a t the favourableness o f

each group task s i t u a t i o n may depend on d i f f e r e n t variables,

the t h r e e most commonly acknowledged determinants, stated i n

t h e i r order of importance are l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s , task

s t r u c t u r e and p o s i t i o n power.

While the e m p i r i c a l b a s i s from which the contingency

theory was induced i s impressive (over 50 s t u d i e s o f 21 d i f f e r -

ent groups!, v a l i d a t i o n s t u d i e s o f the theory have y i e l d e d

mixed and c o n f u s i n g r e s u l t s . For example, Graen e t a l . (1971)

found r e s u l t s c o n t r a r y t o the p r e d i c t i o n s of the contingency

model. They made a d i s t i n c t i o n between antecedent and e v i d e n -

t i a l probabilities. On the other hand, F i e d l e r and h i s co-

workers r e p o r t e d r e s u l t s supporting the p r e d i c t i o n s of h i s

contingency model.

The c r i t i c i s m s and counter c r i t i c i s m s of the r e s e a r c h

done on the contingency model leave the readers i n c o n f u s i o n .

A c c o r d i n g l y , the study r e p o r t e d here was designed to provide

f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l evidence on the contingency model. Three new

v a r i a b l e s were a l s o examined t o f i n d out i f they a f f e c t the so-

called " l e a d e r s h i p f a v o u r a b l e n e s s " dimension of the contingency

model.
 3

1.1 Research on L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s : A Review

Modern p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h on l e a d e r s h i p i s u s u a l l y

thought of as beginning w i t h the Ohio State Leadership S t u d i e s

CHemphill and Coons, 1957; H a l p i n and Winer, 1957). The Ohio

S t a t e i n v e s t i g a t o r s found from a f a c t o r a n a l y t i c a l study of a

150-item q u e s t i o n n a i r e widely known as the Leadership Behaviour

D e s c r i p t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (LBDQ), two p r i n c i p a l dimensions of

l e a d e r s h i p behaviour which they named ' c o n s i d e r a t i o n 1

and

'initiating structure'. Subsequently, scores of b e h a v i o u r a l

s c i e n t i s t s have worked with the LBDQ and a r e l a t e d instrument,

the Leadership O p i n i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (LOQ) attempting to i d e n -

t i f y the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of " C o n s i d e r a t i o n " and "Init-

i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e " i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s . Two excellent re-

views of t h i s work have been r e p o r t e d by Korman (1966) and

House (1972). Both reviews concluded t h a t the r e s e a r c h concern-

ing these two s t y l e s of l e a d e r behaviour i s i n c o n s i s t e n t and

yields contradictory findings. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the two

l e a d e r behaviours on the one hand and subordinate satisfaction

and/or p r o d u c t i v i t y on the o t h e r , f a i l e d to r e v e a l a c l e a r p a t -

t e r n i n one d i r e c t i o n or another.

In another s e r i e s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , Katz e t a l . (1950,

1951) and Kahn (1951, 1956 and 1958) of the Survey Research

Center a t the U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan s t u d i e d r a i l r o a d and i n -

surance employees e x t e n s i v e l y and i d e n t i f i e d two l e a d e r s h i p

s t y l e s which they c a l l e d "employee o r i e n t a t i o n " and "production

orientation". C a r t w r i g h t and Zander (1950) of the Research

Center f o r Group Dynamics d e s c r i b e d l e a d e r s h i p i n terms of two

 4

s e t s of group f u n c t i o n s , "Group Maintenance" and "Goal

Achievement". Mann (1965) o f f e r e d a t r i o l o g y of "human r e -

lations", " t e c h n i c a l " and " a d m i n i s t r a t i v e " s k i l l s as required

of e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s o r s . L i k e r t (1961) found f i v e conditions

for e f f e c t i v e supervisory behaviour i n a study of insurance

agents; supportive r e l a t i o n s , group methods of supervision,

high performance g o a l s , t e c h n i c a l knowledge and co-ordinating,

scheduling and planning. Bowers and Seashore (1966) advanced

a "Four F a c t o r Theory of Leadership" based on four dimensions

of leader behaviour which they named "support", " i n t e r a c t i o n

facilitation", "goal emphasis" and "work facilitation".

Because of the d i v e r s i t y of terms and focus on d i f f e r e n t

f a c e t s of the l e a d e r s h i p process, i t i s d i d r f i c u l t to meaning-

f u l l y compare and assess the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of these various

schools of thought. At the r i s k of o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , i t may

be s a i d t h a t two dimensions of l e a d e r behaviour, t h a t may be

called "people" and "task" o r i e n t a t i o n s , have a t t r a c t e d more

a t t e n t i o n from the v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h groups than have any

others. However, e f f o r t s to assess the r e l a t i v e importance of

these two dimensions have y i e l d e d c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s . For

example, w h i l e Katz and Kahn (1953), A r g y l e et a l . (1958), Day

and Hamblin (1964), Comery et a l . (1954) and McGregor (1960)

reported evidence i n favour of a democratic, employee o r i e n t e d

general style of s u p e r v i s i o n ; Hawkins (1962), Solem (1952),

and Shaw (1955) found t h a t a u t o c r a t i c task o r i e n t e d leadership

produced b e t t e r performance. On the other hand, Morse and

Reimer (1956), Spector and Suttel (1956), McCurdy and Eber

 5

C1953) , and Sales (1964) found no: d i f f e r e n c e i n terms of produc-

t i v i t y between the two styles- of .leadership.

At the height of the c o n f u s i o n concerning the r e l a t i v e e f -

f e c t i v e n e s s of the two s t y l e s of l e a d e r s h i p , r e s e a r c h e r s turned

to s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to e x p l a i n the con-

f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s coming from l e a d e r s h i p r e s e a r c h . Vroom and

Mann Q.960) argued t h a t s u p e r v i s o r y behaviour v a r i e d according

to the s i z e of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s . Fleishman et a l . (1955)

hypothesized t h a t " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e " moderated the re-

l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p and productivity. Katz e t a l .

C1961) suggested t h a t the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p a r t i c u l a r kinds of

l e a d e r s h i p p r a c t i c e s would depend on v a r i a b l e s such as the size

of a company and the degree of u r b a n i z a t i o n of the company's

location. Vroom (1964) has suggested f u r t h e r that the degree

of acceptance which p a r t i c u l a r kinds of s u p e r v i s o r y practices

r e c e i v e might be determined by the wishes and expectancies o f

the l e a d e r ' s subordinates and c i t e s research by h i m s e l f and

others i n support of t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . In h i s c a r e f u l review of

s t u d i e s of the " c o n s i d e r a t i o n " and "initiating structure"

dimensions, Korman favoured the i n t r o d u c t i o n of s i t u a t i o n a l

variables into leadership research. In t h i s r e g a r d , House

(.197.1, 1972) has shown t h a t rank and f i l e employees p r e f e r more

s t r u c t u r e than i s p r e f e r r e d by s c i e n t i s t s and technicians i n

research and development activities.

Most of the s t u d i e s reviewed so f a r lacked an adequate con-

c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s and were c a r r i e d on

without the b e n e f i t of a comprehensive theory of leadership

 6

phenomena. F u r t h e r , i n y e s t i g a t o r s - us.ed -measures'- s u i t e d t o t h e i r

own. research- i n t e r e s t s and t h e i r . c h o i c e s ' frequently- have pre-r

eluded meaningful comparisons of .results-. Also, l i t t l e attempt

has- Been made t o systematize the i n f o r m a t i o n necessary f o r i d e n -

t i f y i n g the s o c i a l context within, which groups operate. Con-

sequently, it..frequently- has- Been i m p o s s i b l e t o t e l l whether

f i n d i n g s from one study do o r do not support the r e s u l t s o f a

purportedly similar study.

A r e v i e w o f l e a d e r s h i p r e s e a r c h i s incomplete without con-

s i d e r i n g , the r e c e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s made by Robert House and h i s

associates Cref: 1971a, 1971b, 1971c and 1972). House, e t a l .

advanced a "Path Goal Theory o f Leadership" i n t h e i r e f f o r t s t o

e x p l a i n the c o n f u s i n g and c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s from earlier

r e s e a r c h based on the dimensions o f " c o n s i d e r a t i o n " and " i n -

itiating structure". F o r example, c o r r e l a t i o n s between s t r u c t u r e

and subordinate performance were found t o be c o n s i s t e n t l y pos-

i t i v e a t h i g h o c c u p a t i o n a l l e v e l s while they were c o n s i s t e n t l y

n e g a t i v e a t low o c c u p a t i o n a l l e v e l s . House's Path Goal Theory

e x p l a i n s t h i s f i n d i n g i n terms of task s t r u c t u r e . The theory

hypothesizes t h a t s t r u c t u r e i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to higher

l e v e l jobs because they are ambiguously d e f i n e d . Lower l e v e l

jobs, because o f t h e i r r o u t i n e nature, are n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d

to s t r u c t u r e because any s t r u c t u r e i s p e r c e i v e d by employees as

an " i m p o s i t i o n o f e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l " .

The Path Goal Theory o f Leadership, has been developed from

Expectancy- Theory (Atkinson, 19.581, the Path Goal Theory o f Mo-

tivation CGeorgopoulos e t a l . 1957); and a l s o extensions o f both

 7
P a t h G o a l Theory and Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964; Porter
and L a w l e r , 1967; G a l b r a i t h and Cummings, 1967; G r a e n , 1969
and L a w l e r , 1971). The P a t h G o a l L e a d e r s h i p Theory specifies
t h r e e c l a s s e s o f s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s which are h y p o t h e s i z e d to
moderate the e f f e c t s o f s p e c i f i c dimensions o f l e a d e r behaviour;
subordinates' task c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , environmental variables,
and s u b o r d i n a t e preferences for d i f f e r e n t kinds of leader be-
haviour .

The P a t h G o a l Theory has p o t e n t i a l f o r e x p l a i n i n g c o n t r a -

d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s from e a r l i e r s t u d i e s . By l e g i t i m a t e use o f
concepts from Expectancy and M o t i v a t i o n t h e o r i e s , i t can a l s o
b r i n g these t h e o r i e s c l o s e r to leadership theories and thereby
entxance the p r e d i c t i v e power o f l e a d e r s h i p t h e o r i e s . For
example, i n t h e P a t h G o a l L e a d e r s h i p Theory a c l e a r e r link has
b:een e s t a b l i s h e d between attempted i n f l u e n c e o f the l e a d e r and
m o t i v a t i o n and e x p e c t a n c i e s o f the s u b o r d i n a t e s . A t the present
s t a g e , However, House's t h e o r y i s v e r y g e n e r a l . I t does not ex-
p l a i n i n any d e t a i l e x a c t l y how s p e c i f i c dimensions o f leader
b e h a v i o u r a r e expected to i n t e r a c t w i t h the moderators that are
h y p o t h e s i z e d nor does i t i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
t h e s e moderators o r how the t h e o r y may be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d .

Another r e c e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n , on a more t h e o r e t i c a l plane,

has b:een made by H o l l a n d e r et a l . (1969) and H o l l a n d e r (1971) .
H o l l a n d e r p r o v i d e d an o v e r v i e w o f s e v e r a l l i n e s o f development
i n the study o f l e a d e r s h i p . In h i s o p i n i o n , l e a d e r s h i p should
be viewed a,s an i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s growing out o f a system o f
exchange r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the l e a d e r and the followers,
 8

with, t h e effectiveness- of this r e l a t i o n s h i p determined both by

the leader's perception of h i s followers and by the followers'

perception of the leader. This view of leadership phenomenon

may reveal sources of identification or legitimacy of a leader's

position or role.

Hollander's view of leadership effectiveness i n terms of

interaction of style, s t r u c t u r e , and s i t u a t i o n i s not new.

This line o f work has been pursued f o r a long t i m e by several

researchers, and e s p e c i a l l y by F i e d l e r (1964, 1965, 1967). The

formulation i s novel i n the sense t h a t i t o p e n s up aspects of

leadership processes s u c h as sources of identification, legit-

i m a c y and influence s y s t e m s w h i c h have n o t been systematically

explored i n previous research.

1.2 The Contingency Model o f Leadership Effectiveness

Starting f r o m an i n t e r e s t i n the operational measurement

of interpersonal relations, Fiedler (1964, 1967) studied various

a s p e c t s of leadership f o r over 15 years. His Contingency

T h e o r y o f L e a d e r s h i p was inductively derived from a program of

12 s e p a r a t e but related studies conducted over t h i s lengthy

period and has been o f f e r e d as a partial answer t o a number of

the conceptual problems concerning leadership phenomena.

The C o n t i n g e n c y Model s t a t e s t h a t a "group's performance

will be contingent upon t h e appropriate matching of leadership

style and the degree of favourableness of the group s i t u a t i o n

for the leader, that i s , the degree to which the s i t u a t i o n pro-

vides the leader w i t h i n f l u e n c e oyer h i s group members"(Fiedler

 9

1967). The model assumes t h r e e v a r i a b l e s , i . e . , " p o s i t i o n

power", "task s t r u c t u r e " and " l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s " as af>

fecting leadership effectiveness.

F i e d l e r ' s theory- o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s i n t u i t i v e -

ly appealing. The i n d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g behind the theory a l s o

appears reasonable. H i s r e s e a r c h program not o n l y upholds the

p o s i t i o n that l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s a j o i n t product o f

s t y l e , s t r u c t u r e , and s i t u a t i o n , but a l s o has e x p l o r e d the con-

c e p t u a l l y d i f f i c u l t phenomena o f l e a d e r s h i p i n the f i e l d as

w e l l as i n the l a b o r a t o r y w i t h a f a i r sampling o f a c t o r s , be-

h a v i o u r s and b e h a v i o u r a l c o n t e x t s .

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the evidence i n favour o f the p r e d i c t i v e

power of the contingency model has been questioned (Graen e t a l .

1970, 1971). The e v i d e n t i a l s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d by F i e d l e r (1965,

1966, 1967), Hunt (1967), M i t c h e l l (1969), H i l l , (1969), and

Graen e t a l . C1971) have o b t a i n e d mixed r e s u l t s . Some of the

r e s u l t s s a t i s f y o n l y d i r e c t i o n a l r a t h e r than s t a t i s t i c a l signif-

icance; w h i l e some of the f i n d i n g s are c o n t r a r y t o what would

be p r e d i c t e d by F i e d l e r ' s model. For example, i n M i t c h e l l ' s

study o f U n i t a r i a n Church groups, H i l l ' s study o f department

s t o r e s and Graen e t a l ' s study o f students i n the l a b o r a t o r y a t

least . p a r t o f the r e s u l t s were c o n t r a r y to those hypothesized

by the Contingency Theory.

A very important flaw i n the contingency model as brought

out by Graen e t a l . (1970) i s the model's extreme s e n s i t i v i t y

to situational factors. T h i s s e n s i t i v i t y encourages the i n v e s -

t i g a t o r s t o a s c r i b e any c o n t r a r y f i n d i n g s from t h e i r invest-

 10

i g a t i o n t o unaccounted situati;ona,i f a c t o r s . For example, Kill

C1969). e x p l a i n e d an i n s i g n i f i c a n t result;

Since the work performed was o f a h i g h l y

t e c h n i c a l nature, i t may Be t h a t the t e c h n i c a l
a b i l i t y o f the Supervisor should have been a
f a c t o r i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f the f a v o u r a b i l i t y
dimension. The design of the study d i d not
provide an o p p o r t u n i t y to i n c l u d e t h i s con-
d i t i o n . Cp. 516] .

Again, F i e d l e r (1967] suggested:

We r e q u i r e a s c a l e which i s based not

only on the presence or absence of good l e a d e r
member r e l a t i o n s , homogeneity, l e a d e r p o s i t i o n
power, and task s t r u c t u r e but which takes
account a l s o o f other f a c t o r s t h a t are l i k e l y
to a f f e c t the favourableness of the s i t u a t i o n .
These may need t o i n c l u d e the l e a d e r ' s and
h i s member's i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s and t e c h -
n i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , the m o t i v a t i o n of the
group, and the c o n d i t i o n s o f s t r e s s under
which t h e group i s f o r c e d t o operate, (p. 262).

Every time F i e d l e r and h i s a s s o c i a t e s find a result either

statistically i n s i g n i f i c a n t or contrary t o the model's p r e d i c -

t i o n , they tend t o e x p l a i n the discrepancy i n terms o f some un-

i d e n t i f i e d or u n c o n t r o l l e d s i t u a t i o n a l moderators. This search

f o r a d d i t i o n a l moderators may sometimes l e a d the i n v e s t i g a t o r

to experimenter b i a s e f f e c t . Graen e t a l . (1970) observed:

the Contingency Model overdetermines

the 'meaningful' r e s u l t s of e m p i r i c a l
studies the model p r e s c r i b e s t h a t we
should continue to search f o r a d d i t i o n a l
homogenizing v a r i a b l e s u n t i l our r e s u l t s
converge upon those s p e c i f i e d by the model.
Once we have d i s c o v e r e d the a d d i t i o n a l
v a r i a b l e or v a r i a b l e s t h a t produce the
'meaningful' p a r t i t i o n s (our observed r e -
s u l t s converge upon those p r e d i c t e d by the
models), we should d i s c o n t i n u e search and
p r o c l a i m e m p i r i c a l support f o r the model.
Cp. 294).
 11

According to Graen e t a l . , t h i s procedure produces expert

imenter b i a s e f f e c t (Barber and S i l v e r , 1968a, 1968b,; Rosenthal

1968}.

Another exchange between Graen et a l . and F i e d l e r centered

on the q u e s t i o n of methodology' i n t e s t i n g the Contingency Model

(Graen e t a l . , 1971; F i e d l e r , 1971a). F i e d l e r argued that

Graen's experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n s of the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s

were not s t r o n g enough t o produce the intended e f f e c t s . In an-

other review C1971b) F i e d l e r r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e r e was a great d i s -

crepancy i n r e s u l t s between l a b o r a t o r y and f i e l d s t u d i e s on the

Contingency Model.

Notwithstanding the p o s s i b i l i t y o f weaknesses i n G r a e n s 1

m a n i p u l a t i o n of the contingency v a r i a b l e s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to

accept the p o s i t i o n t h a t l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s should not be able

to r e p l i c a t e r e s u l t s obtained i n f i e l d studies. I f the ability

of c o l l e g e students to assume f u n c t i o n a l r o l e s i s questioned,

much of the s m a l l group r e s e a r c h , past and p r e s e n t , would be

brought into question (Davis, 1969). A theory which i s method

bound ( i n t h i s i n s t a n c e l i m i t e d to f i e l d s t u d i e s ) cannot be ac-

cepted. I t was f e l t therefore, that further laboratory tests

of the model were necessary with an improved methodology. The

study r e p o r t e d here was designed to r e p l i c a t e the r e s u l t s found

i n the f i e l d s t u d i e s .

As a l r e a d y noted, F i e d l e r d e f i n e s s i t u a t i o n a l favourability

i n terms of three y a r i a b l e s : task s t r u c t u r e , p o s i t i o n power and

l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s . Research based on F i e d l e r ' s model has

measured p o s i t i o n power i n e s t a b l i s h e d groups by a simple eighteen

item c h e c k l i s t c o n t a i n i n g v a r i o u s i n d i c e s p f p o s i t i o n power,

Task s t r u c t u r e has been measured.By four o f the t e n dimensions

used By Shaw C1963) , i,e.', d e c i s i o n y e r i f i a B i l i t y , g o a l clarity,

g o a l p a t h m u l t i p l i c i t y and s o l u t i o n m u l t i p l i c i t y . Leader memBer

r e l a t i o n s have Been c a t e g o r i z e d i n terms o f a Group Atmosphere

(GAI Score, which p u r p o r t s t o i n d i c a t e the degree t o which the

l e a d e r f e e l s accepted By the group and r e l a z e d and a t ease i n

his role (Fiedler, 1962).

Leader memBer r e l a t i o n s , task s t r u c t u r e and p o s i t i o n power

are dichotomized t o form e i g h t / c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s (octants) of

s i t u a t i o n a l favouraBleness. The s i t u a t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w i t h

the p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p Between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and perform-

ance a s found i n the antecedent s t u d i e s of the Contingency Model

are shown i n TaBle I .

TABLE I

Median C o r r e l a t i o n f o r the Development S t u d i e s

of the Contingency Model o f L e a d e r s h i p

Situation Classification
Octant Group Task Position More E f f e c t i v e Median n
AtmoS' Power Leadership r
phere Structure Style
(OCT) CGA) CPP) (orientation)
CTS)

1 Good High Strong Task -.52 8

2 Good High Weak Task -.58 3
3 Good Low Strong Task ^.33 12
4 Good Low Weak People .47 10
5 Poor High Strong People .42 6
6 Poor High Weak People 0
7 Poor Low Strong People .05 12
8. Poor Low Weak Task -.44 12
 13

Research. ba.sed on the Contingency- Model, has always m e a s u r e d

l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e by u s i n g a p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t widely- known as

the Lea,s+_ P r e f e r r e d Co-worker CLPCI. The LPC has been s u b j e c t

to s e v e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , A c c o r d i n g to the most popular i n -

t e r p r e t a t i o n , low LPC scores mean "task o r i e n t a t i o n " w h i l e h i g h

;

LPC scores s i g n i f y "people o r i e n t a t i o n " . Chapter 2 of the study

w/ill take a c l o s e r look at the LPC.

A c c o r d i n g to F i e d l e r a task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r w i l l be effec-

t i v e i n h i g h l y favourable (octants 1, 2, 3) or h i g h l y unfavour-

able Coctant 8) s i t u a t i o n s ; whereas a people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r

w i l l be s u c c e s s f u l i n s i t u a t i o n s of i n t e r m e d i a t e favourableness

Coctants 4,5,6,7).

Because of l i m i t e d number of s u b j e c t s a v a i l a b l e the p r e s e n t

study examined o n l y a l i m i t e d number of o c t a n t s - o c t a n t s 1, 4

and 8. A p a r t o f the study was concerned with t e s t i n g the valid-

i t y of the Contingency Model. The f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i o n was

used to t e s t the v a l i d i t y of p r e d i c t i o n s of the model:

Hypothesis I: Task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s (low LPC) w i l l be effective

i n o c t a n t s 1 and 8, w h i l e people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s (high LPC) will

be s u c c e s s f u l i n o c t a n t 4. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC score

and group performance should be of the same magnitude and direct-

i o n as p r e d i c t e d by the Contingency Model.

1.3 M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y as Moderators of

Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s . • \

The Contingency Model measures- s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness

f o r a l e a d e r i n terms- of t h r e e v a r i a b l e s - v l e a d e r member ref-

l a t i o n s , l e a d e r p o s i t i o n power and task s t r u c t u r e . The present

 14

study, however, r a i s e d two separate i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o such a d e ^

f i n i t i o n of; s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y . ' F i r s t , do the three

v a r i a b l e s adequately measure the s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b l e n e s s para-

meter? Second, i f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s d e f i n e d i n terms

of group p r o d u c t i v i t y as i s done i n the Contingency Model, may

we not conceive of other v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g group performance

and thereby make a l e a d e r ' s task harder or e a s i e r ?

P o s i t i o n power measures how much power (e.g., c a p a c i t y t o

reward, h i r e and f i r e , etc.) a l e a d e r i s g i v e n by the employing

organization. Task s t r u c t u r e measures whether the j o b i s r o u t i n e

or a novel one. Leader member r e l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e the c l i m a t e i n

the work group between the leader and the l e d . I t r e q u i r e s but

little imagination to conceive of other v a r i a b l e s t h a t may a f -

f e c t the favourableness o f a l e a d e r ' s s i t u a t i o n ( f o r example,

motivation, i n t e l l i g e n c e or a b i l i t y ) .

The v a r i a b l e s j u s t named may a f f e c t l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e -

ness, but then, so may many other v a r i a b l e s . The q u e s t i o n may be

r a i s e d r e l a t e d to the c r i t e r i o n or c r i t e r i a of choice - how does

one go about adding or s u b t r a c t i n g v a r i a b l e s from a model? The

question r a i s e d i s r e l e v a n t , but the answer may not be obvious at

all. I t i s not p o s s i b l e t o be c e r t a i n t h a t some v a r i a b l e s are the

only v a r i a b l e s determining s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness f o r a l e a d e r .

Such a determination may w e l l be beyond the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t o f the

contingency model. P a r t i c u l a r l e a d e r s w i l l face p a r t i c u l a r l e a d -

ership contingencies i n terms o f f a v o u r a b i l i t y of s i t u a t i o n . The

contingency model i s not a bound model.

In a t l e a s t two o f the e a r l i e r s t u d i e s on the Contingency

Model (Hill, 1969; F i e d l e r , 1967), the i n v e s t i g a t o r s f e l t that

three more v a r i a b l e s ('intelligence,' a b i l i t y / and m o t i v a t i o n ) may

affect leadership effectiveness. These v a r i a b l e s were thought

to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e x p l a i n i n g more of the v a r i a n c e i n the

s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness dimension of the contingency model.

Encouraged by such c o n j e c t u r e s , the present study was designed

to e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t the e f f e c t of the three v a r i a b l e s on l e a d e r -

Ship e f f e c t i v e n e s s , notwithstanding the f a c t t h a t any contingen-

cy, t h e o r y i s always open t o . a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s i n terms o f

the adequacy of the s i t u a t i o n e x p l o r e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , the fol-

lowing three hypotheses were accepted f o r t e s t i n g .

Hypothesis II: A l l other t h i n g s remaining the same, a l e a d e r

of motivated groups w i l l achieve higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms of

speed and q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n s than W i l l a l e a d e r of non-

motivated groups.

Hypothesis III: Higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms of speed and q u a l -

i t y w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e a d e r s of groups with h i g h e r i n t e l -

l i g e n c e , a l l other group i n p u t s remaining constant.

Hypothesis IV: A l e a d e r managing a group with higher ability

w i l l generate higher q u a l i t y group d e c i s i o n s i n a s h o r t e r time

than w i l l a l e a d e r managing a group of low a b i l i t y , a l l other

s i t u a t i o n a l e f f e c t s remaining the same.

1.4 Summary

In t h i s chapter the development of enquiry concerning

l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s has been t r a c e d very b r i e f l y . Several

l i n e s of work were reviewed w i t h s p e c i a l emphasis on two major

developments; the Path Goal Theory of L e a d e r s h i p and the Con-

t i n g e n c y Theory o f L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s . The controversial

and c o n f l i c t i n g nature of f i n d i n g s from the Contingency Model

s t u d i e s were mentioned briefly. The need f o r a f u r t h e r t e s t o f

t h i s model w i t h an improved methodology was emphasized, and

Hypothesis I of the present study, was stated. An e x t e n s i o n o f

the " s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b l e n e s s " parameter o f the Contingency

Model i n terms o f t h r e e more v a r i a b l e s (motivation, a b i l i t y and

i n t e l l i g e n c e ) a l s o was proposed. The t h e o r e t i c a l framework,

arising from the works of H i l l and F i e d l e r , s u p p o r t i n g t h i s

k i n d of e x t e n s i o n was b r i e f l y reviewed. F i n a l l y Hypotheses I I ,

I I I and IV were proposed to d e s c r i b e the moderating e f f e c t s o f

the t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s .
 CHAPTER 2

METHOD

2.1 S e t t i n g and Subjects

The i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d out i n the Small Groups Lab-

oratory- a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Subjects f o r the

experiment were drawn from second year undergraduate Commerce

c l a s s e s i n the F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment was v o l u n t a r y , but each s u b j e c t

earned some bonus p o i n t s f o r h i s course by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the

present experiment. There were 147 s u b j e c t s d i v i d e d i n t o 49

groups o f 3 people.

Procedure: The data c o l l e c t i o n f o r the present study was

d i v i d e d i n t o two separate s e s s i o n s : t e s t i n g and experimental.

In an approximately one hour long t e s t i n g s e s s i o n the s u b j e c t s

were asked t o complete the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s :

1. Wesman Personnel C l a s s i f i c a t i o n T e s t .

2. Berger's Acceptance o f S e l f S c a l e .
(Appendix I)
3. S o c i o m e t r i c P r e f e r e n c e Rating o f Group Members.
(Appendix II)

4. The Least P r e f e r r e d Co-worker S c a l e (LPC).

(Appendix I I I )

The scores from t e s t s No. 1 and 2 were dichotomized a t the

median t o a s s i g n the s u b j e c t s i n t o v a r i o u s c e l l s o f the study.

Data on the LPC were f i l e d as soon as they were c o l l e c t e d and

were not considered u n t i l the end o f the experiment and'begin-

 18

ning o f the a n a l y s i s o f data. The S o c i o m e t r i c Preference

Rating was used t o c r e a t e groups where t h e l e a d e r o f the group

was e i t h e r l i k e d o r d i s l i k e d By h i s f e l l o w members. I t was a s -

sumed t h a t t h e assignment o f s u b j e c t s i n t o experimental groups

on the b a s i s o f a p r e f e r e n c e r a t i n g would manipulate group a t -

mosphere. A group where the l e a d e r was p r e f e r r e d by h i s two

other group members was assumed t o have good l e a d e r member r e -

lations Chigh GA). The r e v e r s e was assumed t o be t r u e f o r t h e

groups where a n o n - p r e f e r r e d person was appointed as the l e a d e r

of t h e group.

In the experimental s e s s i o n , the pre-assigned subjects

were brought t o .a. Small Groups Laboratory which has two rooms

(observation and experimental) separated by a two-way m i r r o r .

In two experimental c o n d i t i o n s , namely, high m o t i v a t i o n and

strong p o s i t i o n power, a reward o f f i v e d o l l a r s was attached t o

e x c e p t i o n a l performance. In strong p o s i t i o n power c o n d i t i o n ,

the c a p a c i t y t o reward was e n t r u s t e d w i t h the l e a d e r . In h i g h

m o t i v a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , they were t o be rewarded by the E. While

the s u b j e c t s sat around a t a b l e t o do the assigned t a s k , they

were observed from the o b s e r v a t i o n room by two o b s e r v e r s , one o f

whom was t h e E h i m s e l f .

As the experimental s e s s i o n progressed, the behaviour o f

the l e a d e r i n i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h two o f h i s f e l l o w members was ob-

served c a r e f u l l y by the E and h i s a s s i s t a n t , both o f whom i n -

dependently completed t h e Leader Behaviour Rating q u e s t i o n n a i r e

developed by Graen e t a l . (1971). The Leader Behaviour Rating

was a s i x - i t e m r a t i n g form having 8-point b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s

like ' P e r m i s s i v e - S t r i c t ' , Reguesting-Ordering' , 'Considerate-^

1

Rude' and so on. The nature and meaning of scores from the i n -

strument were i d e n t i c a l with LPC. Low- scores i n d i c a t e d task

o r i e n t a t i o n whereas high scores meant people orientation. Ac-

c o r d i n g to Graen, comparison of scores between LPC and Leader

Behaviour Rating would i n d i c a t e whether LPC measured what i t was

supposed to measure. The v a l i d i t y of the Leader Behaviour R a t i n g

w a s unknown. Still, i t provided an experimental check on the

v a l i d i t y of the LPC scale.

At the end of the experiment, the l e a d e r of the group sub-

m i t t e d a w r i t t e n s o l u t i o n f o r the problem the group was g i v e n to

solve. These s o l u t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d by E and e v a l u a t e d later

by two independent judges as to t h e i r q u a l i t y . Rating was done

on a 5^point L i k e r t type s c a l e f o r each of the four anchors

[adequacy, i s s u e involvement, e x c l u s i v e n e s s and c l a r i t y of p r e -

s e n t a t i o n ) provided to the judges. Q u a l i t y of s o l u t i o n was de-

f i n e d as the mean o f the sum of scores obtained from the two i n -

dependent judges.

A f t e r the s o l u t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d , the s u b j e c t s were asked

to complete t h r e e post-experimental questionnaires: Group Atmos-

phere, P o s i t i o n Power and M o t i v a t i o n . The Group Atmosphere S c a l e

(See Appendix VIII) was the same as used i n e a r l i e r Contingency

Model s t u d i e s . M o t i v a t i o n and P o s i t i o n Power q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (See

Appendices VI and VII) were developed here. These q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

were completed by the s u b j e c t s independently without any consult-

ation. In the Group Atmosphere q u e s t i o n n a i r e they r a t e d the

q u a l i t y of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s e x i s t i n g at the experimenta,l

session. The question on p o s i t i o n power asked the co-workers of

the leader to r a t e the power the leader had over the members.

The question on m o t i v a t i o n was answered by both the leader and

h i s co-workers. A l l the members r a t e d t h e i r s t a t e of motiv-

a t i o n to do an e f f e c t i v e job i n the experiment.

The s u b j e c t s were d e b r i e f e d a f t e r they completed the

questionnaires. In two experimental c o n d i t i o n s , namely, 'strong

p o s i t i o n power 1
and 'high m o t i v a t i o n ' , they were p a i d a 5 - d o l l a r

bill as was promised to them at the beginning of the experiment.

2.2 The Measures: T h e i r R e l i a b i l i t y and Validity

To c a r r y on the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of l e a d e r s h i p effectiveness

as conceived i n the present study, measures were needed of task

s t r u c t u r e , p o s i t i o n power, group atmosphere, a b i l i t y , intellig-

ence, m o t i v a t i o n , l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and a l s o measures of group

output. The huge task of m a n i p u l a t i o n and measurement involved

w i t h so many v a r i a b l e s d e t e r r e d the i n v e s t i g a t o r from developing

o r i g i n a l measures. However, every attempt was made to use

measures w i t h adequate r e l i a b i l i t y and validity. A description

of the measures i s g i v e n below:

Task S t r u c t u r e : As a l r e a d y mentioned i n Chapter I, the degree

of task s t r u c t u r e was o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by F i e d l e r (1967) i n

terms of four dimensions developed by Shaw (1963). These dimen-

sions are: 1) g o a l c l a r i t y ; 2) d e c i s i o n v e r i f i a b i l i t y ; 3) sol-

ution specificity; 4) g o a l p a t h m u l t i p l i c i t y . A structured task

i s defined as one which has a s p e c i f i c v e r i f i a b l e goal; that i s ,

 21

one f o r which t h e r e a r e few a l t e r n a t i v e s to the s o l u t i o n . An un-

structured t a s k i s vague, having no s p e c i f i c - v e r i f i a b l e s o l u t i o n ;

t h i s type o f s o l u t i o n may Be a t t a i n e d By pursuing a number o f

d i f f e r e n t courses of a c t i o n .

The u s u a l procedure adopted By F i e d l e r f o r measuring task

structure i s to oBtain r a t i n g s o f s t r u c t u r e o f a task from a

number o f independent judges. Moreover, he dichotomizes task

s t r u c t u r e By s e t t i n g a c u t t i n g p o i n t of 5.0 on the mean r a t i n g

oyer a l l the four s c a l e s . I f the mean sum o f judges' r a t i n g falls

Below- 5.0, i t i s considered as a s t r u c t u r e d t a s k . A task having

a, mean sum of r a t i n g 5*0 or aBove i s considered unstructured.

For the purpose of the present experiment, the degree o f

task s t r u c t u r e was manipulated By task s e l e c t i o n from Taxonomy

of E x p e r i m e n t a l Tasks (Shaw, 1963). Two tasks were s e l e c t e d

from the Book. Task 23 (See Appendix IV) having a mean r a t i n g o f

3.73 was accepted as s t r u c t u r e d . Task 59 (See Appendix V) was

regarded as u n s t r u c t u r e d , s i n c e i t had a mean r a t i n g o f 4.93

which f a l l s c l o s e t o the c u t t i n g p o i n t of 5.0. I t i s desiraBle

to maximize the d i f f e r e n c e Between mean r a t i n g o f s t r u c t u r e and

the c u t t i n g p o i n t t o i n c r e a s e the e f f e c t o f task s t r u c t u r e on

group performance. Due t o the n o n - a v a i l a B i l i t y o f s u i t a B l e

tasks having h i g h l y r e l i a B l e r a t i n g s on s t r u c t u r e , task 59 was

s e l e c t e d , although i t was v e r y c l o s e t o t h e c u t t i n g p o i n t . Shaw

found i n t e r ^ r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of .80 t o .88 f o r h i s taxonomy o f

Task S t r u c t u r e . T h i s was regarded a^s: acceptable.

P o s i t i o n Poyer: In an ongoing group, p o s i t i o n power was measured

i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s of the Contingency Model by a simple eighteen

item check l i s t which p r o v i d e s v a r i o u s i n d i c e s of p o s i t i o n power.

But, i n an ad hoc group, p o s i t i o n power must be p r o v i d e d by i n -

duction. P o s i t i o n power was d e f i n e d f o r the present study as

having two dimensions: 1) the c a p a c i t y t o reward the members o f

the groups; 2) some meaningful e x t e r n a l symbol of s t a t u s .

Leaders having strong p o s i t i o n power i n the present experiment

were g i v e n the power t o reward group members with cash. They

were a l s o g i v e n the o v e r a l l charge of c a r r y i n g on the t a s k . Ad-

d i t i o n a l l y , they had an e x t e r n a l symbol of s t a t u s l i k e a s i g n

with the word "Chairman" i n f r o n t of t h e i r seat. The E d e s i g -

nated the l e a d e r as i n charge of group o p e r a t i o n s i n the presence

of other group members. These s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e s and s t a t u s were

w i t h h e l d from l e a d e r s of groups assigned t o the weak p o s i t i o n

power experimental condition.

In order t o l e a r n whether the i n d u c t i o n was e f f e c t i v e i n

a c t i v a t i n g strong or weak l e a d e r p o s i t i o n power, the p a r t i c i p a n t s

were asked t o complete a q u e s t i o n n a i r e at the end o f the exper-

imental s e s s i o n g i v i n g t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of the l e a d e r ' s p o s i t i o n

power. The l e a d e r as w e l l as h i s group members r a t e d p o s i t i o n

power on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e . (Please see Appendix VI and

Appendix V I I ) .

An a n a l y s i s was done to determine the mean p e r c e p t i o n

scores i n t h r e e o c t a n t s of t h e Contingency Model. The r e s u l t s

are shown i n Table 2.

 23

TABLE 2
• S V V « s

Mean p e r c e p t i o n of group members

about l e a d e r p o s i t i o n power

Oct. 1 Oct. 4 Oct. 8

( s t r o n g ) ( w e a k ) (weak)

Exp A 2.4 2.3 2.8

( V a l i d a t i o n ) N = 8 N=8 N=9

Exp ^B 3.0 2.5 2.7

(Extension) N=8 N=8 N=8

The o v e r a l l mean f o r strong power c o n d i t i o n was 2.7,

whereas the same f o r weak c o n d i t i o n was 2.4. This w i l l suggest

t h a t the i n d u c t i o n worked very s l i g h t l y , s i n c e the d i f f e r e n c e

was only .3 on a 5-point scale. T h i s i n a b i l i t y to induce

strong p o s i t i o n power supports F i e d l e r ' s contention that i t i s

v e r y hard to manipulate p o s i t i o n power s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n a

laboratory situation.

Leader Member R e l a t i o n s :

Both i n ongoing and ad hoc groups the q u a l i t y of leader

member r e l a t i o n s was measured i n past Contingency Model s t u d i e s

by an instrument c a l l e d Group Atmosphere (GA). The GA i s highly

r e l a t e d to the group members' l o y a l t y to the l e a d e r (McNamara,

1967) s i n c e i t measures only the l e a d e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of group

atmosphere. Leader member r e l a t i o n s i s one of the crucial

v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness, according to

Fiedler.
The GA score has o b t a i n e d i n p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s from a s e t o f

s c a l e items (number of i t e m s v a r y i n g between t e n and seventeen!

a s k i n g the l e a d e r t o r a t e h i s group on a s e r i e s of b i p o l a r items

such, a s f r i e n d l y v u n f r i e n d l y , . cooperatives-uncooperative, t e n s e -

relaxed, etc. (Appendix V I I I ) . "A summation of the item

scores y i e l d s a q u i t e r e l i a b l e and meaningful Group Atmosphere

s c o r e , which i n d i c a t e s the degree t o which the l e a d e r feels

accepted by the group and r e l a x e d and at ease i n h i s r o l e " .

C F i e d l e r , 1967).

One c r i t i c i s m t o which the GA score has been subjected.is

the f a c t t h a t i t may be confounded by group performance (Graen

et a l . 1970). For example, the h i g h or low performance of a

group may i n f l u e n c e the l e a d e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n as t o the k i n d o f

r e l a t i o n he had w i t h h i s group members. In an e s t a b l i s h e d de-

partment noted f o r h i g h performance the boss may f i n d i t d i f -

f i c u l t t o admit t h a t h i s i n f l u e n c e on the group was minimal.

To minimize the l i k e l i h o o d o f t h i s c r i t i c i s m i t was decided

f o r the purpose o f the present experiment t h a t the group atmos-

phere would be c r e a t e d by some k i n d of m a n i p u l a t i o n i n a d d i t i o n

to measuring i t a f t e r the experiment was over. T h i s e f f o r t was

p o s s i b l e because the s u b j e c t s f o r the experiment were drawn from

a c l a s s where they had p r e v i o u s l y worked together f o r f i v e t o

s i x weeks. The p l a n i n v o l v e d . d e v i s i n g a s o c i o m e t r i c p r e f e r e n c e

r a t i n g where the s u b j e c t s were asked t o mention which members

of the c l a s s he would l i k e as h i s workmates. (See Appendix I I ) .

S u b j e c t s were assigned t o groups i n a f a s h i o n where a p r e -

f e r r e d s u b j e c t would be g i v e n the p o s i t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p i n a
group where he was l i k e d by h i s workmates, I t was assumed t h a t

t h i s procedure would enable the l e a d e r t o have some 'influence on

h i s workmates. Where poor l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s were d e s i r e d ,

the group was c o n s t i t u t e d o f members who d i d not p r e f e r each

other. The assumption i n this- case was t h a t the non-preference

of the l e a d e r by group members would reduce the l e a d e r ' s i n -

f l u e n c e oyer the group.

To check whether the m a n i p u l a t i o n o f group atmosphere was

s u c c e s s f u l , the l e a d e r s as w e l l as the group members were asked

to complete the ten item G A S c a l e developed by F i e d l e r . These

d a t a were analyzed t o determine the d i f f e r e n c e of G A scores be-

tween the c o n d i t i o n s of good and bad leader member relations.

Table 3 shows t h e r e s u l t s :

TABLE 3

Mean G A scores f o r c o n d i t i o n s
of good and poor l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s
(Based on the leader perception)

Experiment Good Poor

Oct. 1 Oct. 4 Oct. 8

Exp - A 68 (N=8) 67 (N=8) 66 (N=9)

Exp - B 64 (N=8) 67 CN=8) 61 (N=8)

Overall 68.6 63.5

 The o v e r a l l Mean Group Atmosphere scores £or the c o n d i t i o n

of l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s was 68.6 while t h a t f o r the c o n d i t i o n

of poor leader member r e l a t i o n s was- 63.5.

From the above T a b l e , i t appears the m a n i p u l a t i o n of l e a d e r

i n f l u e n c e by s o c i o m e t r i c p r e f e r e n c e r a t i n g was s u c c e s s f u l to a

c e r t a i n extent. But the small d i f f e r e n c e between the two means

suggests t h a t the m a n i p u l a t i o n f a i l e d to achieve a significant

d i f f e r e n c e between good and poor leader member r e l a t i o n s .

The small d i f f e r e n c e i n group atmosphere i n terms of G A

scores may be due to two reasons: first, the degree of manipu-

l a t i o n of group atmosphere by way of s u b j e c t assignment was not

strong enough, o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , the G A s c a l e as developed by

F i e d l e r d i d not adequately measure the q u a l i t y of leader i n -

fluence. The second e x p l a n a t i o n seems p l a u s i b l e i n view of the

f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n by A l l a n B. Posthuma (1970):

The G A s c a l e produces some i n t e r e s t i n g

comparisons. In comparison to l a b o r a t o r y
groups, r e a l l i f e groups have somewhat
lower item means (not s i g n i f i c a n t ) and s i g -
n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r v a r i a n c e (F=3.61, P 01).
T h i s d i f f e r e n c e can probably be a t t r i b u t e d
to the a r t i f i c i a l nature of l a b o r a t o r y
groups where i t would be d i f f i c u l t to de-
v e l o p strong negative f e e l i n g s and where
the a t t i t u d e toward the group would produce
any severe d i f f e r e n c e s i n o p i n i o n among
group members. In a l a b o r a t o r y group, mem-
bers are aware of the temporary nature of
the experience and are i n v o l v e d with tasks
they know w i l l l a s t o n l y f o r a c e r t a i n l e n g t h
of time. T h i s i s not the case i n r e a l l i f e
s i t u a t i o n s , where members h o l d t h e i r jobs
f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons, and where t e n s i o n s
b u i l d up over a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d and a
complex s e r i e s of experiences, (pp. 10-13).
 I f the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the G A s c a l e i n measuring group

atmosphere i n l a b o r a t o r y groups as brought out by Posthuma i s

granted, i t i s to be expected t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e of G A scores

between the two good and poor c o n d i t i o n s c r e a t e d i n the present

experiment w i l l be s m a l l , no matter how strong the degree of

m a n i p u l a t i o n by the experimenter. No matter which of the two

reasons are accepted f o r the s m a l l e r mean d i f f e r e n c e between

the two c o n d i t i o n s of the present experiment, i t appears t h a t

the m a n i p u l a t i o n of l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s i n a l a b o r a t o r y ex-

periment w i l l remain a hard task to accomplish.

Mot i v at'lon: I t has been demonstrated r e p e a t e d l y t h a t t h i s

v a r i a b l e may be manipulated by p r o v i d i n g some i n c e n t i v e f o r e f -

f e c t i v e performance. What p r o v i d e s an adequate i n c e n t i v e i r r e s -

p e c t i v e of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i s , of course, s u b j e c t t o

debate. However, both theory and e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s support the

e f f e c t i v e n e s s of cash as an e f f e c t i v e i n c e n t i v e f o r higher per-

formance. There i s a w e l l documented body of r e s e a r c h which

i n d i c a t e s t h a t cash has c o n v e r t i b i l i t y to other valued p s y c h i c

and m a t e r i a l outcomes (e.g., Whyte, 1955; Lawler, 1971).

Subjects were assigned to two d i f f e r e n t m o t i v a t i o n a l con-

ditions; h i g h and low. The s u b j e c t s i n the high m o t i v a t i o n

c o n d i t i o n were t o l d a t the beginning of the experimental session

by E t h a t each of the group members would r e c e i v e a cash prize

of f i v e d o l l a r s f o r r e a c h i n g d e c i s i o n s of higher q u a l i t y i n the

minimum p o s s i b l e time. No time l i m i t was given. They were t o l d

to minimize time and maximize q u a l i t y . Whether t h e i r d e c i s i o n

 28

s a t i s f i e d the requirement of quality- and time/ was le£t to the

d i s c r e t i o n of the experimenter. In the case o f s u b j e c t s under

the low m o t i v a t i o n c o n d i t i o n no i n c e n t i v e was given. They were

t o l d o n l y to minimize time and maximize q u a l i t y as best they

could. They were not promised any reward f o r doing so.

To f i n d out whether the m a n i p u l a t i o n o f high and low motiv-

a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s as d e v i s e d by the above experimental procedure

was s u c c e s s f u l , each s u b j e c t was asked to r a t e h i s m o t i v a t i o n

on a 5r-point s c a l e . ." (See Appendices VI and VII f o r the

r a t i n g form). Table 4 shows the mean r a t i n g s :

TABLE 4

Mean of the S u b j e c t s ' Rating of T h e i r M o t i v a t i o n

Octants High M o t i v a t i o n Low Motivation

N=12 N=12

1 4.33 4.17

4 4.75 2.58

8 4.66 2.58

Mean over
octants 4.58 3.11

From the above Table i t appears t h a t the m a n i p u l a t i o n with

r e s p e c t to m o t i v a t i o n was q u i t e s u c c e s s f u l w i t h the exception

of the groups i n the o c t a n t 1 experimental condition. A differ-
erence of (.4.58 ^ 3.11)' 1.47 s c a l e p o i n t s on a 5-point scale

may be c o n s i d e r e d s a t i s f a c t o r y g i v e n the short term d u r a t i o n

and artificiality i n v o l v e d i n the experiment.

Ability: Vroom (1964) d e f i n e s a person's a b i l i t y to perform a

ta,sk as "... the degree to which he possesses a l l the psycho-

l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s n e c e s s a r y f o r a high l e v e l of performance,

excluding those of a m o t i v a t i o n a l nature", (p. 198). To Porter

and Lawler C1968) a b i l i t i e s are "... r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e long

term i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (e.g., p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ,

manual s k i l l s , i n t e l l i g e n c e , e t c . ) , t h a t represent the individ-

u a l ' s c u r r e n t l y developed power to perform", (p. 22).

Pursuing these two definitions a l i t t l e f u r t h e r , one may

argue t h a t a t e s t having relevance to an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c a p a c i t y

for e f f e c t i v e performance may be used as a measure of ability.

The problem, however, i s how many t e s t s to use? One? Two?

One hundred? What has been the experience with such t e s t s i n

the past? Campbell et a l . (1970) showed t h a t the p r e d i c t i v e

v a l i d i t y of such t e s t s r a r e l y exceeds .40. M i t c h e l l (1971)

f e e l s t h a t an o p e r a t i o n a l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y d e f i n i t i o n of task

r e l a t e d a b i l i t i e s has been e l u s i v e .

A b i l i t y was o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d f o r the purpose of the

present experiment as the i n d i v i d u a l ' s o v e r a l l c a p a c i t y f o r e f -

f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g i n a g i v e n environment. This capacity was

assumed to be s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e l f con-

cept or degree of s e l f esteem as acquired through a s e r i e s of

successes or f a i l u r e i n tasks performed over a long p e r i o d of

 3Q

time. Kaufman (1962) ,. Vroom, 0-9,61, 1962, 19641 and Lawler,

(1971) have provided e m p i r i c a l evidence t h a t an individual's

l e v e l of performance tends to v a r y w i t h the degree of self

esteem he possesses.

S e l f esteem i s u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d to be more a p e r s o n a l i t y

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c than a task r e l a t e d a b i l i t y . Notwithstanding,

S e l f esteem was used i n the present study because of the fol-

lowing c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : 1) although not task r e l a t e d , s e l f es-

teem does i n f l u e n c e a person's o v e r a l l c a p a c i t y to cope with

his environment. Thus i t may be argued t h a t t h i s measure of

a b i l i t y i s more comprehensive ( i n the macro sense of the term)

than any o t h e r task r e l a t e d a b i l i t y measure; 2) given that

the p r i n c i p a l purpose of the present study was not to develop

p r e d i c t o r s f o r e f f e c t i v e performance, a workable measure l i k e

s e l f esteem was considered a c c e p t a b l e ; 3) c o n s i d e r i n g the

tasks t h a t were used i n the present experiment, i t appeared a l -

most i m p o s s i b l e to come up with a workable number of p r e d i c t o r s .

A combination of p r e d i c t o r s c o u l d be used but a t the c o s t of an

o v e r l y complex d e s i g n .

S e v e r a l measures of s e l f esteem were c o n s i d e r e d , and that

developed by Berger (1952) was s e l e c t e d f o r use i n the present

investigation. T h i s measure i s one of the most c a r e f u l l y d e v e l -

oped measures of a t t i t u d e toward s e l f with r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging

from .776 to .884 (split half r e l i a b i l i t y for five groups).

V a l i d a t i o n of the s c a l e scores a g a i n s t judges' r a t i n g s on self

acceptance y i e l d e d a c o r r e l a t i o n of r = .897.

Berger's s e l f acceptance measure c o n s i s t s of 36 attitude

statements (both, p o s i t i v e and negative) which the respondents

r a t e on a 5-point L i k e r t type s c a l e . When s c o r i n g , the answers

to negatively/ worded statements are r e v e r s e d . The scores on

all statements are added together t o o b t a i n a s c a l e s c o r e . The

higher the score the b e t t e r the respondent's s e l f esteem and

v i c e versa. The scores f o r the 7 2 s u b j e c t s f o r Exp - B were

d i s t r i b u t e d normally, w i t h a range o f 105 - 162, and a median

o f 138.

The s u b j e c t s were d i v i d e d a t the median score f o r .assign-

ment i n t o h i g h and low a b i l i t y groups. Subjects s c o r i n g up t o

13 8 were c o n s i d e r e d as having low s e l f esteem, and those

S c o r i n g beyond 138 were c l a s s i f i e d as having h i g h s e l f esteem.

Intelligence: General mental a b i l i t y o r i n t e l l i g e n c e i s a

m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l concept. Two dimensions which were c o n s i d e r e d

important f o r the present experiment were: v e r b a l reasoning

and numerical a b i l i t y . P r o f i c i e n c y i n reasoning and numerical

c a p a c i t y were necessary t o do an e f f e c t i v e j o b i n the problems

that were chosen f o r the present study. An i n t e l l i g e n c e

measure which d i r e c t l y f i l l e d t h i s need was the Wesman Person-

nel C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Test. The t e s t has c o n s i s t e n t l y produced

r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n the upper 80's. I t c o r r e l a t e d w e l l with

other r e p u t a b l e t e s t s such as the O t i s General Intelligence

Examination (r = .68), and the Wonderlic Personnel Test (r =

.76). The t e s t has been used w i t h s u b j e c t s i n a number o f d i f -

f e r e n t occupations and s e t t i n g s ranging from u n i v e r s i t y students

to mechanical apprentices.
 A few words are i n order about the s t r u c t u r e of the t e s t .

Items used to measure v e r b a l reasoning a b i l i t y were designed to

fulfill c e r t a i n requirements. Both reasoning through analogy

and p e r c e p t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s are needed to respond to each

item. At the same time, the form permits the use of a wide

V a r i e t y of s u b j e c t matter and a consequent r e d u c t i o n of emphasis

on mere v o c a b u l a r y knowledge. The chances of guessing c o r r e c t

a,nswers are o n l y one i n s i x t e e n , as a g a i n s t one i n four or f i v e

for more m u l t i p l e c h o i c e t e s t s ; this considerably increases

the reliability o f the i n d i v i d u a l items. Although timed, the

t e s t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a measure of power r a t h e r than of speed.

The numerical items have been d e v i s e d to t e s t command of

basic arithmetic s k i l l s and processes p l u s g e n e r a l f a c i l i t y i n

the use of numerical concepts. The content has been so arranged

t h a t a premium i s p l a c e d on the a b i l i t y to p e r c e i v e r e l a t i o n -

s h i p s and to operate w i t h i n g e n u i t y ; the importance of sheer

f i g u r e h a n d l i n g speed, or number p e r c e p t i o n , b e t t e r measured by

simple c l e r i c a l t e s t s i s minimized. There are no t r i c k ques-

tions; however, some problems are i n c l u d e d which are easy f o r

a person w i t h a ready understanding of p r i n c i p l e s and relation-

ships involved. T h i s t e s t combines power and speed of perform-

ance.

The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the WPCT j u s t mentioned were essen-

tial f o r doing a good job i n the t a s k s s e l e c t e d f o r the present

experiment. For example, one of the t a s k s r e q u i r e d the s u b j e c t s

to a s s i g n f i v e people to f i v e machines u s i n g time and motion

 33

study data about the whole o p e r a t i o n s . _To make an e f f e c t i v e

assignment a command o f a r i t h m e t i c s k i l l s and reasoning ability-

are e s s e n t i a l . The WPCT measured these mental c a p a c i t i e s .

A t o t a l o f 147 s u b j e c t s were administered t h i s t e s t but

o n l y 72 were used i n the Exp - B p a r t o f the study. Their

scores ranged from 20 t o 54 w i t h a median o f 43. Sunjects were

assigned based on a c u t t i n g score o f 43. Subjects s c o r i n g 43

or more were c o n s i d e r e d t o possess 'high' i n t e l l e c t u a l c a p a c i t y ,

and those who scored l e s s than 43 were c o n s i d e r e d 'low' i n i n -

telligence.

Leadership S t y l e : T h i s v a r i a b l e was measured by the LPC instrument

developed by F i e d l e r . The LPC score i s o b t a i n e d by asking a per-

son t o t h i n k o f a l l t h e i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h whom, he has worked. He

then d e s c r i b e s the person whom he c o n s i d e r s h i s l e a s t p r e f e r r e d

co-worker. The d e s c r i p t i o n s are made on 8-point, bi-polar

a d j e c t i v e check l i s t s , s i m i l a r i n form t o Osgood's Semantic D i f -

ferential (Osgood e t a l . , 1957), using items d e s c r i p t i v e o f per-

s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s , e.g:

Friendly: 8 : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Unfriendly

Co-operative: 8 : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Uncooperative

Cold: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : Warm.

(Pie-a-s-e-see E x h i b i t I I I f o r t h e LPC instrument used) .

According t o F i e d l e r , 1967):

... t h e Least P r e f e r r e d Co-worker score,

LPC, i s an almost i d e a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l
measure. I t takes no more than 5 minutes
to a d m i n i s t e r ; i t c o n s i s t s of a short
set o f s c a l e items ( u s u a l l y 16 t o 20);
 34

has s p l i t h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y of above . 90,

a t e s t r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y - f o r a d u l t s ranging
from .5 to .8; and i t arouses l i t t l e i f any
r e s i s t a n c e on the p a r t of s u b j e c t s .

On the other hand, the LPC score has been extremely resis-

t a n t to any meaningful i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d e s p i t e a p e r s i s t e n t and

i n t e n s i v e e f f o r t which has extended over n e a r l y two decades.

LPC has been u n c o r r e l a t e d with most p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t scores and

v a r i o u s attempts to r e l a t e the score to s e l f d e s c r i p t i o n s , des-

c r i p t i o n s by o t h e r s , or b e h a v i o u r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s have l e d to

complex or i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s .

The LPC score has been i n t e r p r e t e d d i f f e r e n t l y over periods

of time. First i t has been suggested t h a t LPC is a simple

measure of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e , e.g., high LPC l e a d e r s are relation-

s h i p o r i e n t e d , low LPC l e a d e r s are task o r i e n t e d ( F i e d l e r , 1967).

However, standard measures of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e such as Initiation

of S t r u c t u r e or C o n s i d e r a t i o n have f a i l e d to c o r r e l a t e c o n s i s t e n -

t l y with LPC ( F i e d l e r , 1971). Accordingly, Fiedler (1970) i n a

t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t from the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington gave a new in-

t e r p r e t a t i o n of the LPC score. He r e - a n a l y z e d most of h i s l e a d e r -

s h i p s t u d i e s and observed:

... the Leastt P r e f e r r e d Co-worker (LPC)

score ... suggests t h a t the score r e f l e c t s
a h i e r a r c h y of g o a l s . High LPC persons
have as t h e i r primary g o a l the establishment
and maintenance of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s
and as a secondary g o a l the attainment of
prominence and s e l f enhancement. The low
LPC person i s seen as having as h i s primary
g o a l the achievement of task and m a t e r i a l
rewards w h i l e he has as h i s secondary g o a l
the development of good i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l -
ations. The i n d i v i d u a l w i l l seek to achieve
h i s primary as w e l l as secondary g o a l s i n
S i t u a t i o n s i n which h i s c o n t r o l and i n f l u e n c e
 35

i s r e l a t i v e l y great; he w i l l concentrate
on s e c u r i n g h i s primary- g o a l s i n s i t u a t i o n s
which are unfavourable and s t r e s s f u l .
(Abstract to the Report] .

A few other i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the LPC score

are a v a i l a b l e . In a s e r i e s of a n a l y s e s , M i t c h e l l (1970) has

presented evidence suggesting t h a t LPC measures c o g n i t i v e com-

plexity; h i g h LPC s u b j e c t s make g r e a t e r d i s t i n c t i o n s between

Stimulus o b j e c t s than the low LPC persons. Thus, low LPC leaders

are e f f e c t i v e i n very f a v o u r a b l e or very unfavourable situations,

because of the f a c t t h a t the s i t u a t i o n s are c o g n i t i v e l y simple

(e.g., e i t h e r f a v o u r a b l e or u n f a v o u r a b l e ) . But the high LPC

l e a d e r s because of t h e i r higher c a p a c i t y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between

stimulus o b j e c t s become s u c c e s s f u l i n s i t u a t i o n s of intermediate

favourableness ( c o g n i t i v e l y complex).

Sample and Wilson (1965) found t h a t high and low LPC leaders

showed a s i m i l a r amount of i n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e over the

d u r a t i o n of a small group task experiment. But, the p a t t e r n s of

behaviour s h i f t e d as the task neared completion. Fiedler inter-

p r e t e d t h i s f i n d i n g i n terms of a s t r e s s / n o n - s t r e s s d i f f e r e n c e i n

the s i t u a t i o n . In a r e c e n t study by Evans et a l . (1972), the

authors observed:

The r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d here suggests an

a l t e r n a t i v e explanation. I t has been found
t h a t low LPC was c o n s i s t e n t l y an i n d i c a t o r
of c o g n i t i v e s i m p l i c i t y i n t h a t i t was as-
s o c i a t e d with high dogmatism and with high
i n t o l e r a n c e f o r u n c e r t a i n t y . However, the
h i g h LpC i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d be one of s e v e r a l
types: a) c o g n i t i v e l y complex — undogmatic
but uncomfortable w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y ;
b) c o g n i t i v e l y mixed i : undogmatic but
uncomfortable w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y , i i : dogmatic
but comfortable w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y . (p. 18).
 36

On the b a s i s of the above evidence the authors suggested

t h a t LPC may not be a measure of c o g n i t i v e complexity-, as e a r l i e r

r e s e a r c h showed i t to be.

The LPC s c a l e i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f any study on the

Contingency Model of L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s , but the LPC as a

measuring instrument s t i l l appears to be u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e or

Subject to s e v e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . C o n s i d e r i n g t h i s , i t was

decided t o use the instrument a t i t s face v a l u e . A plan was,

however, made to check the v a l i d i t y of the LPC s c a l e i n terms of

Observation and r a t i n g of the behaviour of l e a d e r s i n the exper-

iment. Two o b s e r v e r s independently r a t e d the bahaviour of the

l e a d e r s i n each group u s i n g the Leader Behaviour Rating instrum-

ent developed by Graen e t a l . '(1971). T h i s r a t i n g form has s i x

b i ^ p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s s i m i l a r i n form to the LPC s c a l e , a low

r a t i n g meaning t h a t the l e a d e r i s observed to be task o r i e n t e d ,

a h i g h r a t i n g i n d i c a t i n g the people o r i e n t a t i o n . (Appendix X).

One problem faced i n u s i n g the Leader Behaviour R a t i n g was lack

of any r e l i a b i l i t y i n f o r m a t i o n about the instrument. To over-

come t h i s , i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was computed between two sets

of r a t i n g s done by the two independent o b s e r v e r s . Table 5 shows

v a r i o u s c o r r e l a t i o n a l v a l u e s between the two ratings.

TABLE 5

J n t e r ^ c o r r e l a t i o n between the r a t i n g s
of two o b s e r v e r s on:
CNF=35);
Item i l r - ,04
Item 12 r R ,31
Item 13 r R .86
item 14 -r R ,42
Item 15 r - .-66
Item 16 x = .71
TOTAL r R .76
 Since the i n t e r p r e t e r r e l i a b i l i t y on the i n d i v i d u a l items

v a r i e d from a low- of .0.4 t o ,8 6" w i t h a median o f ,54, i t was-

decided not t o use these f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . But, t h e i n t e r - r

r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y on the sum o f r a t i n g s was .7562. T h i s was

considered acceptable with caution.

A c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s was c a r r i e d on the LPC scores

and the r a t i n g s o f l e a d e r behaviour as submitted by two indepen-

dent o b s e r v e r s . Four s e t s o f o b s e r v a t i o n s were used: (1) r a t i n g

sum from observer No ..1.) (2) r a t i n g sum from observer No .2 ; (3) mean

of r a t i n g s from both observers; (4) LPC s c o r e s . Table 6 shows

the r e s u l t o f the a n a l y s i s .

TABLE 6

I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n between observer r a t i n g
of l e a d e r behaviour and L e a s t P r e f e r r e d Co-
worker scores

CN=35)

Observer #1 r .07

Observer #2 r = .12

Mean of r a t i n g r = .08
from #1 and #2

I t i s d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t the low c o r r e l a t i o n between

the LPC scores and observer r a t i n g of l e a d e r behaviour. The low

c o r r e l a t i o n a l values i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e a s s o c i a t i o n

between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e as p r e d i c t e d by LPC and t h a t the two

observers r a t e d as the demonstrated behaviour o f the l e a d e r .

But any strong doubt on the v a l i d i t y of the LPC i n terms o f the

r a t i n g by observers would be unwarranted s i n c e the v a l i d i t y of

 38

the instrument (the Leader Behayiour Rating as developed by

Graen) used wa& unknown.

Group P r o d u c t i v i t y : S o l u t i o n s from the two group tasks were

scored u s i n g two c r i t e r i a Ci.e., q u a l i t y of s o l u t i o n and time

taken t o r e a c h the s o l u t i o n ) as was suggested by the authors of

the t a s k s . As mentioned i n the s e c t i o n on experimental procedure,

time f o r s o l u t i o n was recorded by the experimenter. The quality

of s o l u t i o n was r a t e d by two independent judges i n the case of

task 59 (unstructured): f o r task 23 (structured) the q u a l i t y of

S o l u t i o n was measured a c c o r d i n g to the i n s t r u c t i o n p r o v i d e d by

the author o f the t a s k .

Task 23 was an assignment problem where the groups were

asked to a s s i g n as e f f i c i e n t l y as they could f i v e men to f i v e

machines. The assignment was to be done according t o a time and

motion study data p r o v i d e d to the group. There was one best

s o l u t i o n f o r the problem and t h i s was t e n minutes. The worst

s o l u t i o n c o u l d be f i f t e e n minutes. Since the r e s u l t p r o v i d e d by

v a r i o u s groups v a r i e d between ten and f i f t e e n minutes, i t was de-

c i d e d to r a t e the q u a l i t y of the output on a 10-point s c a l e .

A c c o r d i n g l y , groups t h a t came up w i t h a s o l u t i o n of ten minutes

got r a t e d as p e r f e c t (10 p o i n t s ) ; whereas the group d e c i d i n g on

a 15 minute s o l u t i o n was r a t e d as wrong (0 p o i n t s ) .

Task 59 was a d i s c u s s i o n task i n which the group members

were asked t o f i g u r e out the f i v e most important t r a i t s needed

f o r success i n a c u l t u r e . Tt was very d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e the

criterion ' q u a l i t y ' , because there was no 'the s o l u t i o n ' . The

 39

author o f the t a s k d i d not have any- r a t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h i s

criterion. I t was t h e r e f o r e decided t o develop our own r a t i n g

form. T h i s was done as d e s c r i b e d Below.'

Q u a l i t y was d e f i n e d as t h e sum o f r a t i n g s on the four

anchors o f : 1) adequacy Chow adequate t h e . f i v e t r a i t s are f o r

attaining success): 2) i s s u e invo1vernent (how r e l e v a n t the

s o l u t i o n i s t o t h e problem): 3) e x c l u s i v e n e s s (defined as i n -

dependence o f the l i s t e d t r a i t s from one a n o t h e r ) : 4) c l a r i t y

of p r e s e n t a t i o n (defined as c l a r i t y of e x p r e s s i o n ) .

A r a t i n g form was c r e a t e d where two judges were asked t o

r a t e each o f the group s o l u t i o n s independently on a 5-point

L i k e r t type s c a l e using the four anchors as d e s c r i b e d . (^Lea_se

see Appendix I X ) .

The two judges were d o c t o r a l students i n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

Behaviour a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Before they

were a s s i g n e d t o the r a t i n g job, they were i n v i t e d t o a j o i n t

s e s s i o n with the E f o r b r i e f i n g and t r i a l . The meaning of the

anchors was e x p l a i n e d t o them. A f t e r a reasonable agreement had

been reached on the meaning of anchors, the judges were asked t o

make a few t r i a l ratings.

At the end of the b r i e f i n g and p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n s , the

judges went home with the group s o l u t i o n s which were p r i n t e d on

a separate p i e c e of paper. ( S o l u t i o n s were p r i n t e d t o a v o i d

the r a t i n g b i a s a r i s i n g from the q u a l i t y of handwritten solutions).

R a t i n g was done p r i v a t e l y and independently.

When a l l t h e r a t i n g s were r e c e i v e d from the two judges,

an i n t e r - ^ r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was computed. Table 7 shows the

 40

i n t e r - r a t e r agreement on each, of the f o u r anchors as w e l l as on

the sum of s c o r e s :

TABLE 7

I n t e r - r a t e r Agreement on the Ratings

of .Group Output

CN=47)

;
R a t i n g Anchor Reliability
Lr)
1. Adequacy .75

2. Issue Involvement .68

3, E x c l u s i v e n e s s .80

4. C l a r i t y of P r e s e n t a t i o n .50

5, Sum of the Anchors .74

Inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y on the sum of scores (r = .74) was

considered s a t i s f a c t o r y . A l l f u r t h e r analyses were done on the

sum of s c o r e s .

2,3 D e s c r i p t i o n of the S t a t i s t i c a l Procedure

Hypothesis I was concerned w i t h t e s t i n g the e a r l i e r predic-

t i o n s from the Contingency Model. Three steps were i n v o l v e d i n

the t e s t : 1) Convert the scores on the LPC and Group P r o d u c t i v -

ity i n t o ranks; 2) compute the Spearman Rank Order Correlation

between the two ranks; 3) compare the rho's found i n the present

study w i t h those from the model, A t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e was

done. The .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was accepted as the b a s i s

for r e j e c t i n g the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s .
 41

Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y were t o t e s t the moder-

a t i n g e f f e c t of m o t i v a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y on l e a d e r -

s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Each of the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s had two l e v e l s

and the r e s u l t i n g experimental d e s i g n was a 2 x 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l .

T h i s design f a c i l i t a t e d two important analyses; 1) three-way

a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e end; and 2) a c o v a r i a n c e analysis.

In the three-way ANOVA the o b j e c t i v e was to determine the

main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s o f the three proposed moderators

on group performance. The s t a t i s t i c a l model was of the form:

Y; = ACM + BCJl + C(k) + D U ) + A B ( i j ) + AC(ik)

+ BCCjk). + A B C C i j k l ) + E

Where:

A = Intelligence, B = Ability, C = Motivation,

D = R e p l i c a t i o n , i = 1,2 j=l,2 k=l,2

L- = 1,2,3 Y = Group Performance.

In the a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e , the o b j e c t i v e was t o d e t e r -

mine i f the three proposed v a r i a b l e s d i d indeed moderate the r e -

l a t i o n s h i p between the LPC and Group P r o d u c t i v i t y . Accordingly,

the f o l l o w i n g c o v a r i a n c e model was used where LPC was the c o -

variate:

Y = ACi) + B(J) + C(k) + /LPC + E

where:

Y = Group Output
A = Intelligence i = 1,2
B = Ability j ~ 1,2
C = Motivation k = 1,2
E f= E r r o r
R e s u l t s from the three-way- ANOVA and a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e
were subjected to a t e s t of. s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ,10 l e v e l of cpn^

fidence,

2.4 D e s c r i p t i o n " of' the '^per^meRta,^,Pe^jfen

The reader may r e c a l l from .Chapter I t h a t tyhe present in-

v e s t i g a t i o n was concerned w i t h two prime o b j e c t i v e s ; one, to t e s t

the Contingency- Model w i t h an improved methodology and design;

two, to a s c e r t a i n whether the v a r i a b l e s of m o t i v a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e

and a b i l i t y would indeed moderate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between leader-

s h i p s t y l e and group p r o d u c t i v i t y as e a r l i e r t h e o r i s t s p r e d i c t e d .

In order to s a t i s f a c t o r i l y c a r r y out the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the two

research questions, an experimental design c o n s i s t i n g of two parts

was conceived. One p a r t of t h i s d e s i g n was t o v a l i d a t e the Contin-

gency Model, the other, to examine the moderating e f f e c t s of

motivation, a b i l i t y and i n t e l l i g e n c e i n combination w i t h the

three o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s of the Contingency Model of leadership

effectiveness. The o v e r a l l design and that of the two separate

p a r t s was as follows:

Design Overall:

Leadership Style Group Output

(measured by the LPC) . (measured by r a t i n g
^ ' of output)

Situational Variables

Part I C 1. Task S t r u c t u r e (TS)

C 2. P o s i t i o n Power (PP)
C 3. Leader Member R e l a t i o n s (GA)

Part I I ( 4. I n t e l l i g e n c e ClNTi
( 5. A b i l i t y (SE)
C 6, M o t i v a t i o n (MOTI
 According t o the Contingency Model, the s i t u a t i o n modern

ates the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and group out-

come. The o v e r a l l design, therefore, consisted of assigning

groups t o l a b o r a t o r y c r e a t e d s i t u a t i o n s on the b a s i s o f t h e

y a r i a b l e s under examination, measuring the l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e of

the p a r t i c u l a r l e a d e r , and the output of the p a r t i c u l a r group.

The broken l i n e above separates the v a r i a b l e s under examination

C4, 5, 6) i n the present study from those contained i n the Con-

t i n g e n c y Model Cl/ 2 and 3 ) . The s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s were

dichotomized t o p r o v i d e d i f f e r e n t combinations o f degrees o f

task s t r u c t u r e , p o s i t i o n power, q u a l i t y o f l e a d e r member r e -

lations, levels of a b i l i t y , i n t e l l i g e n c e and m o t i v a t i o n . Lead-

ers were assigned t o groups. The c o v a r i a t i o n between l e a d e r s h i p

s t y l e and group p r o d u c t i v i t y p r o v i d e s evidence f o r the p r e d i c -

t i v e power o f the Contingency Model. The two p a r t s o f the

o v e r a l l design which w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as Experiment A and

Experiment B, were as d e s c r i b e d below:

Experiment A:

T h i s p a r t o f the design was concerned with t e s t i n g the

Contingency Model. Attempts were made to c r e a t e leadership

s i t u a t i o n s as c l o s e to the Model as p o s s i b l e . Methodological

c r i t i c i s m s by Graen e t a l . (1971) and F i e d l e r (1971) were kept

i n mind i n manipulating the d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . In

p a r t i c u l a r , care was taken t h a t t h e s t r e n g t h of manipulation

of v a r i a b l e s such as p o s i t i o n power and l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s

were not d i l u t e d . T h i s p o i n t has been e l a b o r a t e d earlier i n

S e c t i o n 2.2 o f t h i s Chapter.
 The Contingency Model c o n t a i n s e i g h t c e l l s d e r i v e d , by-

a 2 x 2 x 2 breakdown o f the three s i t u a t i o n a l moderators CTS,

PP and GA]. Leaders are hypothesized t o be e f f e c t i v e or i n e f -

f e c t i v e depending on the s i t u a t i o n a l o c t a n t s to which they a r e

assigned and a l s o t h e i r LPC s c o r e s . F o r example, l e a d e r s with

low LPC scores (meaning task o r i e n t a t i o n ) may be more effective

i n o c t a n t s 1, 2 , 3 and 8 whereas l e a d e r s with high LPC scores

(meaning people o r i e n t a t i o n ) a r e p r e d i c t e d t o be more effective

i n o c t a n t s 4, 5 and 7.

Research on t h e Contingency Model has a l i m i t a t i o n i n

terms o f the number of s u b j e c t s r e q u i r e d because o b s e r v a t i o n s

are made on the b a s i s o f groups r a t h e r than on the b a s i s of i n -

d i v i d u a l s i n the groups. F a c i n g t h i s c o n s t r a i n t , i t was de-

c i d e d t o t e s t o n l y three o c t a n t s o f the Contingency Model.

These o c t a n t s are d e s c r i b e d i n Table 8.

TABLE 8
Design f o r Experiment A

Octant Situational Measures Effective N = Perform-

Leadership No. of ance
GA TS PP Style Groups

Oct. 1 Good High Strong Task 8 Group

(low LPC) product

Oct. 8 Poor Low Weak Task 8 Group

Clow LPC) product

Oct. 4 Good Low Weak People 8 Group

Chigh LPC) product

- , L
 45
Experiment B:

T h i s experiment was concerned with examining the moderating

e f f e c t s o f t h r e e new v a r i a b l e s f o r the Contingency Model. The

three proposed v a r i a b l e s ( i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n )

were dishotomized i n t o h i g h and low. This provided eight d i f -

f e r e n t combinations. Nesting the t h r e e Contingency Model

v a r i a b l e s i n each of these e i g h t new combinations resulted i n

the f o l l o w i n g d e s i g n , as shown i n Table 9.

TABLE 9.

Design f o r Experiment B

Intelligence (Int.)

HIGH LOW

A b i l i t y SE

High Low High Low

High Int-High Int-High Int-Low Int-Low
SE -High SE -Low SE -High SE -Low
Mot-High Mot-High Mot-High Mot-High
(TS,PP,GA) (TS,PP,GA) (TS,PP,GA)(TS,PP,GA)
MOTIVATION
(MOT)
Low Int-High Int-High Int-Low Int-Low
SE -r-High SE -Low SE -High SE -Low
MotT-Low Mot-Low Mot-Low Mot-Low
(TS,PP,GA) CTS,PP,GA) (TS,PP,GA)(TS,PP,GA)

Since the new v a r i a b l e s were superimposed on the o c t a n t

conditions (1, 4 and 8) as hypothesized by the Contingency

Theory, t h e r e were twenty-four c e l l s of observations, eight

o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r each of o c t a n t s 1, 4 and 8. T h i s d e s i g n made

it p o s s i b l e t o do a n l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e and c o v a r i a n c e t o d e t e r -

mine the e f f e c t s of the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s on the t h r e e o c t a n t s o f

the Contingency Model.

 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

3,1 INTRODUCTION

In t h i s chapter the data r e l e v a n t to the four hypotheses

of the study are examined. Hypothesis I was concerned w i t h a

t e s t o f the v a l i d i t y o f the p r e d i c t i o n s o f the Contingency

Model. T h i s t e s t was done by the assignment o f l e a d e r s into

d i f f e r e n t o c t a n t s o f the model i n d i c a t i n g d i f f e r e n t degrees o f

s i t u a t i o n a l favourableness and computation of c o v a r i a t i o n be-

tween the LPC scores of the assigned leader and group produc-

tivity. Both the LPC scores and group p r o d u c t i v i t y scores (de-

r i v e d by panel r a t i n g ) were converted i n t o ranks. The Spearman

Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n was computed between the two ranks.

The c o r r e l a t i o n found was t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t the .05

level. F i n a l l y , the r e s u l t s were compared with the e a r l i e r pre-

dictions .

Hypotheses I I , I I I and IV, which examined the moderating

e f f e c t s o f m o t i v a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e and a b i l i t y , respectively,

on leadership e f f e c t i v e n e s s , were t e s t e d by an a n a l y s i s o f

variance. As mentioned e a r l i e r , each of the three v a r i a b l e s had

two l e v e l s , h i g h and low. The three-way ANOVA enabled determin-

a t i o n o f the main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s of the three variables

on group productivity-. L e v e l means a l s o p r o v i d e d an i n d i c a t i o n

of the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f the two l e v e l s under each

 47

variable. The moderating e f f e c t s of these three variables

were e s t a b l i s h e d by subjecting the LPC and group p r o d u c t i v i t y

scores to an a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e . The e f f e c t s of the three

v a r i a b l e s as moderators were found by examining the a n a l y s i s of

covariance Table. A t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .10 level was

used as a b a s i s to r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . Because of the

Small number of o b s e r v a t i o n s under each experimental condition,

a lower l e v e l of confidence Csuch as .10) was accepted to t e s t

the hypothesis.

Group p r o d u c t i v i t y was measured i n two ways; the quality

of s o l u t i o n , and the time needed f o r the d e c i s i o n . The scores

derived under the two c r i t e r i a could be combined i n t o a com-

p o s i t e score. But, t h i s i n v o l v e d making a r b i t r a r y assumptions

about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two c r i t e r i a , e.g., the time

f o r d e c i s i o n and the q u a l i t y of s o l u t i o n . I t was decided there-

f o r e to perform separate analyses f o r each of the two criteria.

One very important advantage o f t h i s separate a n a l y s i s was that

it enabled a study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p , and

group p r o d u c t i v i t y using two very p r a c t i c a l c r i t e r i a applied by

real l i f e organizations to assess the p r o d u c t i v i t y of t h e i r em-

ployees, namely, speed and q u a l i t y of performance.

3.2 Leadership S t y l e , S i t u a t i o n a l F a v o u r a b i l i t y and

Group P r o d u c t i v i t y

Experiment A was designed t o t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the Con-

t i n g e n c y Model i n terms of d e f i n i t i o n s , methods and predictions

of the model. Experiment A, leadership s t y l e was operationally

defined i n terms of the Least P r e f e r r e d Co-worker Score Ce.g.,

 48

low LPC R Task O r i e n t e d ; . h i g h LPC R People Oriented).. Leader

Member R e l a t i o n s , Leader p o s i t i o n Power and Task S t r u c t u r e w r e e

c o n s i d e r e d as- determining s i t u a t i o n a l favour a b i l i t y - . Group pro-^

d u c t i y i t y was measur ed i n terms of two criteria; speed and

q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n . Tn t h i s S e c t i o n of Chapter 3

eyidence i n support of Hypothesis I i s examained.

Hypothesis 1 p r e d i c t e d t h a t task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s (low LPC)

W i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n o c t a n t s 1 and 8, while people oriented lead-

ers (high LPC). w i l l be s u c c e s s f u l i n octant 4. The correlation

between the LPC and group performance should be of the same mag-

n i t u d e and d i r e c t i o n as p r e d i c t e d by the Contingency Model. As

mentioned e a r l i e r , Hypothesis I was t e s t e d by computing the

Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n between the LPC and group per-

formance. The LPC scores and speed and q u a l i t y scores were con-

v e r t e d i n t o ranks. A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t high

LPC scores were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h high performance s c o r e s ; con-

v e r s e l y , a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i g n i f i e d t h a t high LPC scores

were a s s o c i a t e d with low performance s c o r e s . According to the

Contingency Model, p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i c a t e d success of

people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s while negative c o r r e l a t i o n would be as-

s o c i a t e d with e f f e c t i v e n e s s of task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s .

Octants numbered 1, 4 and 8 were examined. The results

found from Experiment A f o r the three o c t a n t s with two criteria

of group performance Ce.g., speed and q u a l i t y ) are r e p o r t e d i n

Tables 10 and 11.

R e s u l t s as d e s c r i b e d i n Tables 10 and 11 gave moderate sup-

p o r t to the p r e d i c t i o n s of the l o n t i n g e n c y Model. The negative

 c o r r e l a t i o n i n o c t a n t s 1 and 8 showed t h a t t a s k o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s

were more e f f e c t i v e than people o r i e n t e d leaders- i n the two

octants. The p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n o c t a n t 4 i n d i c a t e s t h a t

people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s were more s u c c e s s f u l than task o r i e n t e d

leaders. The comparison of r v a l u e s between column 3 and column

4 of Tables 10 and 11 f a i r l y a t t e s t e d to the v a l i d i t y of e a r l i e r

p r e d i c t i o n s of the Contingency Model.

TABLE 10

Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n Between the LPC

x ^ 7.
x V V. Scores and Q u a l i t y of Group D e c i s i o n

Octant N r_ found i n the Predicted_r_ i n the

"present study Contingency Model

1 8 T.10 -.52
4 8 + .34 + .47
8 9 -.10 -.43

TABLE 11

Spearman Rank Order C o r r e l a t i o n Between the LPC

Scores and Speed of Group D e c i s i o n

Octant N r_ found i n the E a r l i e r Predicted r i n

present study the Contingency Model

1 -.69* -.52
00

4 + .48 + .47
'.. CO CO

8 -.51 -.43

S i g n i f i c a n t a t .0.5 level.
 50

A few trends t o be n o t i c e d i n the r e s u l t s concern:

1) d i r e c t i o n of; the r e l a t i o n s h i p ? 21 magnitude of the r e -

lationship; and 3) statistical s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e s u l t s .

As f a r as the d i r e c t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p was concerned,

strong support was p r o v i d e d by the r e s u l t s d e s c r i b e d i n Tables

10" and l l , A l l s i x r e v a l u e s found i n the present study were i n

J

the same d i r e c t i o n as was p r e d i c t e d by the Contingency Model. A

p a r t o f Hypothesis I concerning the d i r e c t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p

between the LPC and group performance scores was, therefore,

c o n s i d e r e d as confirmed by the present findings.

Not so c l e a r a p i c t u r e emerged when one compares the r e s u l t s

w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the magnitude o f r e l a t i o n s h i p . In case of

q u a l i t y o f group d e c i s i o n (see Table 10), the degree o f c o r r e -

l a t i o n was very small i n o c t a n t s numbered 1 and 8, w h i l e i t was

moderate i n o c t a n t 4. On the o t h e r hand, i n case o f speed of

group d e c i s i o n (see Table 11), a l l c o r r e l a t i o n a l v a l u e s were

very strong and o f the same magnitude as was hypothesized.

When t e s t e d for statistical s i g n i f i c a n c e , a l l but one c o r -

r e l a t i o n v a l u e were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Lack o f s t a t i s t i c -

a l s i g n i f i c a n c e may cause concern i n some q u a r t e r s . But, i t

should not be s u r p r i s i n g i n the present case when one c o n s i d e r s

the s m a l l N values i n column 2 of both Tables 10 and 11. Few

of the e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s from the Contingency Model s t u d i e s sat-

i s f i e d the canon of s t a t i s t i c a l significance. A large enough

sample s i z e may enable f u t u r e investigators t o overcome t h i s

problem.

In summary, the f i n d i n g s from the present investigation

were d i r e c t i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ; the magnitude of r e l a t i o n s h i p

was found t o Be s a t i s f a c t o r y . I f l a c k of s t a t i s t i c a l signifies

ance i s - not considered too formidable a shortcoming, i t may Be

concluded t h a t a f u r t h e r degree of support was p r o v i d e d By the

present study t o the Contingency Theory h y p o t h e s i s ( i . e . , Hypo-

t h e s i s X of the present study].

3.3 M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A B i l i t y as
Moderators of Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s .

Results reported i n t h i s s e c t i o n were d e r i v e d from Exper-

iment B as t e s t s of Hypotheses I I , I I I and IV. I t may Be r e -

c a l l e d from Chapter I t h a t Experiment B was designed to t e s t

whether t h r e e new v a r i a B l e s , e.g., i n t e l l i g e n c e , a B i l i t y and

motivation should Be considered i n defining situational favour-

a B i l i t y f o r a leader. Hypotheses i l , I I I and IV were proposed

i n this; c o n n e c t i o n .

Hypothesis I I p r e d i c t e d t h a t l e a d e r s of motivated groups

w i l l achieve higher p r o d u c t i v i t y ( i n terms of speed and q u a l i t y

of output] than l e a d e r s of non-motivated groups. Hypothesis I I I

f o r e c a s t t h a t l e a d e r s o f groups with high i n t e l l i g e n c e will

t u r n out B e t t e r and q u i c k e r group d e c i s i o n s than l e a d e r s of

groups with low i n t e l l i g e n c e . Hypothesis IV p r e d i c t e d t h a t a

leader managing a group with higher a B i l i t y w i l l produce g r e a t e r

group output than a l e a d e r managing a group of low a b i l i t y .

Hypotheses I I , I I I and IV were t e s t e d by s u b j e c t i n g the

data d e r i v e d from Experiment B to two p r i n c i p a l statistical

analyses; a Three Way A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e and an A n a l y s i s of

Covariance.
 The T h r e e Way ANOVA a s s e s s e d t h e m a i n and interaction

e f f e c t s of, m o t i v a t i o n , intelligence and a b i l i t y on the speed

and quality of group output. This statistical analysis did not

provide a direct test of the three hypotheses. I t was carried

out o n l y t o a s c e r t a i n the. e f f e c t of the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s on

group performance. Each o f the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s had two levels.

The comaprison of the l e v e l means p r o v i d e d information as to

the differential effects of the levels under each v a r i a b l e .

Tables 12 and 13 r e p o r t the results found.

Tables 12 and 13 present t h e mean g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e scores

and a l s o the results of the T h r e e Way Analysis of Variance.

The group p r o d u c t i v i t y scores i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e were differ-

ences i n output between t h e two levels of the three variables

under examination. For example, t h e average group p r o d u c t i v i t y

scores i n Tables 12 (a) and 13 Ca) i n d i c a t e t h a t groups with

high intelligence, ability and motivation performed better

than groups with low intelligence, ability and motivation. The

degree of d i f f e r e n t i a l effect of two levels of the three var-

i a b l e s v a r i e d between t h e two criteria of group performance,

namely, speed and quality of group d e c i s i o n s . The differential

effect of two levels of i n t e l l i g e n c e was s t r o n g e r on the quality

of d e c i s i o n than the speed o f solution. On the other hand,

motivation had a stronger effect on the speed o f d e c i s i o n than

on the quality of d e c i s i o n . The two l e v e l s of ability had a

weak e f f e c t on both the s p e e d and quality of d e c i s i o n .

Results f r o m ANOVA as r e p o r t e d i n Tables 12 Cb) and 13 (b)

supported what was shown i n T a b l e s 12 Ca) and 13 Ca). Intel-

 53
e had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t ( p * .02 l e v e l ) on groups'

' TABLE 12

E f f e c t o f M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e and A b i l i t y
on the Speed o f Group D e c i s i o n

a. Mean Group Performance Score

• LOW HIGH

Intelligence (A) (n=12) 14.8 18.7 (n=12)

Ability (B) (n=12) 16.3 17.1 (n=12)

Motivation (C) Cn=12) 12.8 20.6 (n=12)

b. Analysis of Variance

Source Df Mean Square F Significance

Intelligence (A) 1 9.2 1.49 N.S .

S e l f Esteem (B) 1 3.4 0.05 N.S

Motivation (C) 1 3.6 5.85* .02

A x B 1 3.7 0.01 N.S.

B x C 1 2.2 0.36 N.S.

A X C 1 7.1 0.11 N.S.

Ax B x C 1 5.1 0.08 N.S.

Octant 2 7.8 1 26 N.S. ..

Error 14 6.2
 54
..TABLE 13

E f f e c t of I n t e l l i g e n c e , A b i l i t y - and M o t i v a t i o n
on the O u a l i t y . o f Group D e c i s i o n

a. Mean Group Performance Scores

LOW '— - HIGH

Intelligence (Al 9.8(n=12) 12.3 (n=12)

Ability (B) 10.9 (n=12) 11.2 (n=12)

Motivation (C) 10.5 (n=12) 11.6 (n=12)

b. Analysis of Variance

Source Df Mean Square F Significance

Intelligence (A) 1 4.0 6.55* 0. 02

Ability (B) 1 3.8 0.06 N.S.

Motivation (C) 1 7.1 1.15 N.S.

A x B 1 3.8 0.16 N.S.

B x C 1 1.1 0.17 N.S.

A x C 1 2.1 0.33 N.S.

A x B x C 1 3.4 0.55 N.S.

Octant 2 9.3 15.13 0.00

14 ... 6 1
chance of a c h i e v i n g higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms: o f h i g h e r

q u a l i t y but not i n terms o f higher speed. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -

ferences were found i n the e f f e c t o f A b i l i t y on group produc-

t i v i t y e i t h e r i n terms of q u a l i t y or i n speed o f s o l u t i o n .

M o t i v a t i o n a f f e c t e d the speed o f group s o l u t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y

C )> < .02). Quality of s o l u t i o n was not a f f e c t e d by m o t i v a t i o n .

The model o f ANOVA used Cas r e p o r t e d i n Chapter 2) made

possible the study o f the f i r s t l e v e l (AB, BC, AC) as w e l l as

the second l e v e l o f i n t e r a c t i o n (ABC) o f the three variables.

The small s i z e of the F v a l u e s f o r these i n t e r a c t i o n s as r e -

ported i n Table 12 Cb) and 13 Cb) i n d i c a t e the i n s i g n i f i c a n t

nature o f these interactions.

Octant e f f e c t s r e p o r t e d i n the two ANOVA Tables separated

the e f f e c t of the o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s o f the Contingency Model

from the e f f e c t s of the t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s introduced

i n t h i s study. The scope of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n included

o n l y a subset o f the e i g h t combinations of F i e d l e r v a r i a b l e s o f

the Contingency Model. This l i m i t a t i o n o f the study precluded

the p o s s i b i l i t y of i d e n t i f y i n g the e f f e c t o f each o f the Con-

t i n g e n c y Model v a r i a b l e s separately. But, the o c t a n t e f f e c t i n

the ANOVA s i g n i f i e d the combined e f f e c t of these v a r i a b l e s ;

which was found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t with r e s p e c t t o

q u a l i t y but not with r e s p e c t t o speed of group decision.

Data d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t t o Hypotheses I I , I I I and IV were

analyzed by a n a l y s i s of coyariance. LPC was used as the covar-

i a t e , speed and q u a l i t y o f group d e c i s i o n as the dependent v a r -

i a b l e s , i n t e l l i g e n c e , a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n as the moderating

 56

variables. Tables 14 and 15 present the" mean group performance

scores and a l s o the r e s u l t s from the analysis- o f c o v a r i a n c e .

As found e a r l i e r i n the ANOVA, the two l e v e l s of the t h r e e

variables d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d the speed and q u a l i t y o f group

decision. The magnitude o f the d i f f e r e n c e s was a l i t t l e lower.

CSee Tables 14 Ca] and 15 C a l , as compared with Tables 12 (a)

and 13 Ca]. T h i s may be due t o the f a c t t h a t the group perfor-

mance scores were a d j u s t e d by the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the LPC s c o r e s .

Moderate support was found f o r Hypothesis I I I , which stated

that leaders o f high i n t e l l i g e n c e groups w i l l achieve higher

productivity than leaders o f low i n t e l l i g e n c e groups. Data r e -

ported i n Tables 14 Cb) and 15 (b) r e v e a l e d that intelligence

significantly affected the q u a l i t y and speed o f group decision

a f t e r the l a t t e r were a d j u s t e d f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the LPC

scores. The r e s u l t s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e a t .10 l e v e l .

No support was r e c e i v e d f o r Hypothesis IV which s t a t e d that

group p r o d u c t i v i t y w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r between groups o f

h i g h a b i l i t y as compared to groups of low a b i l i t y . F values

f o r the v a r i a b l e were very low under both the c r i t e r i a o f speed

and q u a l i t y o f group s o l u t i o n .

Hypothesis I I s t a t e d t h a t higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms o f

speed and q u a l i t y w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d with the s t a t e o f motiv-

a t i o n of the leader and h i s co-workers. Support f o r t h i s hypo-

t h e s i s was p a r t i a l . Table 14 Cb] r e p o r s t h a t speed of d e c i s i o n

was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f e r e n t C 1 5 . 0 4 ) between motivated and non-

motivated groups. On the other hand, m o t i v a t i o n d i d not make a

significant difference i n the q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n CSee

 TABLE 14

E f f e c t o f M o t i v a t i o n , I n t e l l i g e n c e ' and A b i l i t y
on the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between LPC and Speed
of Group D e c i s i o n

Mean Group Performance Scores

HIGH LOW

Intelligence 18.7 (n=12) 13.3 (n=12)

Ability 16.3 (n=12) 15.6 (n=12)

Motivation 19.2 Cn=12) 12.8 (n=12)

A n a l y s i s of Covariance

Source Df Mean Square F Significance

Intelligence 1 1.5 2.95 .10

Ability 1 2.5 0.05 N.S.

Motivation 1 2.4 4.74 . 04

Octant 2 2.9 0.58 N.S.

Error 17 2.9
 58

TABLE 15

E f f e c t of I n t e l l i g e n c e , A B i l i t y and M o t i v a t i o n
on the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between LPC and Q u a l i t y
of Group D e c i s i o n

Mean' Group Performance Scores

HIGH LOW

Intelligence 11.9 Cn=12) 10.3 (n=12)

ABility 11.3 Cn=12) 10.9 (n=12)

Motivation 11.5 (n=12) 10.7 (n=12)

A n a l y s i s o f Covariance

Source Df Mean Square F Significance

Intelligence 1 1.16 2. 99 .09

ABility 1 4.59 0.11 N.S.

Motivation 1 3.56 0.91 N.S.

Octant 2 8.06 20.68 0.00

Error 17 8.07
Table 15 Cb). Thus, i t was found that l e a d e r s o% .motivated

groups achieved higher p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms o f .. speed but

f a i l e d t o do so i n terms o f q u a l i t y .

The e f f e c t o f the F i e d l e r v a r i a b l e s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p

between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and group p r o d u c t i v i t y remained the

same as was found i n the ANOVA r e p o r t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s section.

The o c t a n t e f f e c t (differences i n task s t r u c t u r e , p o s i t i o n power

and l e a d e r member r e l a t i o n s ) was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r

the q u a l i t y o f group d e c i s i o n t P - P5* ) but not f o r the speed

of group decision.

3.4 Summary o f F i n d i n g s

R e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n the present chapter p r o v i d e d moderate

support i n terms o f d i r e c t i o n and magnitude of c o r r e l a t i o n f o r

the Contingency Theory hypotheses. A l l but one r e s u l t failed

to s a t i s f y the t e s t of s t a t i s t i c a l significance.

In the e x t e n s i o n p a r t o f the study the a b i l i t y variable

f a i l e d t o demonstrate the e f f e c t hypothesized. The hypothesized

e f f e c t of i n t e l l i g e n c e was supported. However, the evidence pro-

v i d e d i n favour o f the hypothesized e f f e c t o f m o t i v a t i o n as a

situational variable was o n l y p a r t i a l . Motivation s i g n i f i c a n t l y

affected the speed of group d e c i s i o n , but f a i l e d to show any

strong e f f e c t on the q u a l i t y o f group decision.

 CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1. Findings Relevant to the Hypotheses

The f i n d i n g s from the present study provided moderate sup-

p o r t f o r the Contingency Theory hypotheses. I t was found t h a t

task o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s were more e f f e c t i v e i n extremely favour-

able [Oct. 1) or extremely unfavourable (Oct. 8) s i t u a t i o n s ,

whereas people o r i e n t e d l e a d e r s were s u c c e s s f u l i n s i t u a t i o n s

of i n t e r m e d i a t e favourableness (Oct. 4). This f i n d i n g was,

Of course, s u b j e c t to the s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s of ' s i t u a t i o n a l

f , a y o u r a b i l i t y ' , ' l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e ' and 'leadership e f f e c t i v e n e s s 1

as s p e c i f i e d i n the Contingency Model of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e -

ness .

The r e s u l t s reported here a l s o added to the mass of e v i d -

ence t h a t has been gathered over the past two decades on the

contingency nature of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Results indic-

ated t h a t e f f e c t i v e n e s s of l e a d e r behaviour i n a c h i e v i n g higher

group p r o d u c t i v i t y i s dependent upon task s t r u c t u r e , leader

p o s i t i o n power and leader member r e l a t i o n s . Three c h a r a c t e r i s -

t i c s of the r e s u l t s were n o t i c e d : 1) low correlation in two

instances; 2) l a c k of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e with the excep-

t i o n of one case; but 3) c o n s i s t e n c y i n terms of d i r e c t i o n of

the present f i n d i n g s w i t h those of e a r l i e r t e s t s of the Con-

tingency Model.

Some doubt has been c a s t on the p l a u s i b i l i t y of the

 61

Contingency- Theory hypotheses By s e v e r a l s t u d i e s , n o t a b l y those

by- Graen e t a l , (1970,1971) , Because of the l a c k of what Graen

et a l . c a l l e d ' e v i d e n t i a l p r o b a b i l i t y ' , l a c k of s e n s i t i v i t y o f

the model t o " c o r r e c t i o n a l i n f luences", and a l s o because of

"experimenter b i a s e f f e c t " , Graen and h i s associate's observed:

... the Contingency Model of l e a d e r s h i p

e f f e c t i v e n e s s c l e a r l y has l o s t the cap-
a b i l i t y o f d i r e c t i n g meaningful r e s e a r c h .
(p. 295) .

X t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that F i e d l e r (1971a), a f t e r a

c a r e f u l review of the Contingency Model studies r e p o r t e d to

date obseryed:

A s e r i e s of s t u d i e s , extending the theory was

reviewed. Taken as a group, these s t u d i e s
p r o v i d e s t r o n g evidence t h a t the s i t u a t i o n a l
favourableness dimension does indeed moderate
the r e l a t i o n s h i p - between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and
group performance and t h a t i t p r o v i d e s an im-
p o r t a n t c l u e to our understanding of l e a d e r -
s h i p phenomena, (p. 147.)

Confusing and c o n t r a d i c t o r y as the above two o p i n i o n s are,

more p u z z l i n g are the data p r o v i d e d by both r e s e a r c h e r s i n sup-

p o r t of t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n . To put the i s s u e i n t o proper per-

s p e c t i v e , some f i n d i n g s from F i e d l e r (1971a) and Graen et a l .

(1970) are reproduced here i n Tables 16 and 17 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

 TABLE 16

Summary o f C o r r e l a t i o n s Between LPC and Group Performance

Reported i n F i e l d and Laboratory Studies T e s t i n g
the Contingency Model

Octants
Study I II III IV V VI VII VIII

F i e l d Studies

Hunt (1967) -.64 -.80 .21 .30

-.51 .60 -.30

Hill C1969) a -.10 -.29 -.24 .62

Fiedler e t a l . C1969) -.21 .00 .67* -.51

O'Brien e t a l . (1969) -.46 .47 -.45 .14

Laboratory Experiments

B e l g i a n Navy -.72 .37 -.16 .08 .16 .07 .26 -.37

.50 -.54 .13 .03 .14 -.27 .60
Shima (1968) a -.26 .71*

Mitchell (1969) .24 .43

.17 .38
Fiedler exec, .34 .51
a
Skrzpek -.43 -.32 .10 .35 .28 .13 .08 -.33
 VI VII VIII

Median:

AH studies -.64 .17 -.22 .38 .22 .10 .26 -.35

Field studies -.57 -.21 -.29 .23 .21 -.24 .30 -.33

Laboratory
experiments -.72 .24 -.16 .38 .16 .13 .08 -.33

Median c o r r e l a t i o n s
of F i e d l e r ' s
o r i g i n a l studies
(.1964) ^.52 -.58 .33 .47 .42 .05 -.44

NOTE: Number o f c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the expected d i r e c t i o n ( e x c l u s i v e of Octant VI, f o r

Which no p r e d i c t i o n had beeb made) = 34; number o f c o r r e l a t i o n s o p p o s i t e to
expected d i r e c t i o n = 1 1 ; p by binomial t e s t = .01.

S t u d i e s not conducted by the w r i t e r or h i s a s s o c i a t e s .

P ± .05.

Source: Fiedler (1971a, p. 140),

 +
TABLE 17

Comparison of Antecedent and E v i d e n t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s

Between LPC and Group Performance

Octant
Statistic I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Mean:

Antecedent -.54 -.60 -.17 .50 .41 - .15 -.47

Evidential -.16 .08 -.12 .04 .09 -.21 .15 .08

t means 1.83* -2.44* -.19 2.02* 2.56* - .00 -2.81*

Standard deviation;

Antecedent .25 .12 .56 .39 .15 - .28 .35

Evidential .62 .51 .52 .62 .29 .52 .38 .55

Number:

Antecedent 8 3 12 10 6 0 12 12

Evidential 12 13 9 8 11 13 9 8

* p f. . 05.

** p *• .01.

+ Source; Graen e t a l . (1970, p. 293).

 65

Table 16 p r e s e n t s data t h a t F i e d l e r has p r o v i d e d as- a

summary of a l l studies, done on the Contingency Model w i t h the ex-

c e p t i o n of those by Graen et a l . Data from the Graen Study were

r e j e c t e d by F i e d l e r on grounds of "flaws i n the method of exper-

imentation". On the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s shown i n the l a s t four

rows of Table 16, F i e d l e r concluded t h a t the f i n d i n g s from Con-

t i n g e n c y Model s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d a f t e r 1964 provided meaningful

and c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s except f o r o c t a n t s 2 and 6, where some r e -

s u l t s were c o n t r a r y t o the Contingency Theory p r e d i c t i o n s .

Graen et a l . (1970), on the other hand, r e p o r t e d t h e i r own

f i n d i n g s which are reproduced i n Table 17. These i n v e s t i g a t o r s

computed a mean of c o r r e l a t i o n s found from a l l the s t u d i e s up to

1964 which they named as 'antecedent' correlation. They a l s o

computed a mean c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d a f t e r 1964

which they l a b e l l e d 'evidential' correlation. The i n c o n s i s t e n c y

between the 'antecedent 1

and ' e v i d e n t i a l ' c o r r e l a t i o n s i s obvious

when one compares the f i r s t two rows of Table 4 of the Graen et

al. (.1970) study as reproduced here i n Table 17. Since t h e r e was

such a wide d i s c r e p a n c y between antecedent and e v i d e n t i a l support

i n favour of the Contingency Model, Graen and h i s a s s o c i a t e d sug-

gested t h a t the model should be rejected.

I t w i l l be i n t e r e s t i n g to compare the f i n d i n g s from the

present experiment w i t h the f i n d i n g s of both r e s e a r c h e r s . Since

the present study examined o n l y 3 o c t a n t s (octants 1, 4 and 8),

data r e l e v a n t o n l y t o these three o c t a n t s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d .

Tables 18 and 19 p r o v i d e such a comparison.

 66

TABLE 18

Comparison o f R e s u l t s Reported by F i e d l e r
C1971a, Table 6, p. 140]. and the Present Study

Nature o f Octant 1 Octant 4 Octant 8

Studies

All Studies r=-.64 r=.3 8 r=-.3 5

Field Studies r=-.57 r=.23 r=~.33

Laboratory
Experiment r=-.72 r=.3 8 r=-.33

Present Study:
Q u a l i t y & LPC r=-.10 r^.34 r=-.10

Speed & LPC r=-.69* r=.48 r=-.51

Median c o r r e -
l a t i o n s of
Fiedler's r=-.52 r=.47 r=-.44
original
studies
(1964)
 67

TABLE 19

Comparison of R e s u l t s Reported by Graen e t a l .

(1970, Table 4, p. 293) and tile Present Study

Nature o f S t u d i e s Octant 1 Octant 4 Octant 8

Mean
Antecedent r= -.54 r= .50 r= -.47

Mean
Evidential r= -.16 r= .04 r= .08

Quality & LPC r= -.10 r= .34 r= -.10

Speed & LPC r= -.69* r= .48 r= -.51

R e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n Table 18 i n d i c a t e the c o n s i s t e n c y o f

findings from the present study with those r e p o r t e d by F i e d l e r

(1971a) i n h i s summary o f s t u d i e s based on the Contingency Model.

Of the 6 c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d by the present study, 4 were of the

same magnitude as found i n both antecedent and e v i d e n t i a l studies.

All 6 c o r r e l a t i o n s were i n the same d i r e c t i o n p r e d i c t e d by the

model.

R e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n Table 19, however, show a d i s c r e p a n c y

between f i n d i n g s of the present study and those r e p o r t e d by Graen

et a l . (1970). While the c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d by the present

study compare f a v o u r a b l y w i t h 'mean antecedent' c o r r e l a t i o n s r e -

ported by Graen, they d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n terms o f both d i r e c -

t i o n and magnitude from the 'mean e v i d e n t i a l ' c o r r e l a t i o n s .

 68

Comparative r e s u l t s as; r e p o r t e d i n Tables 18 and 19 tend

to complement the cumulative f i n d i n g s ' r e p o r t e d by- 'Fiedler and

c o n t r a d i c t those r e p o r t e d by Graen. T h i s , however, should not

be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t the evidence i n favour o f the Con-

t i n g e n c y Theory hypotheses are devoid of any bone of c o n t e n t i o n .

Two f a c t o r s which continue t o c a s t doubt on the v a l i d i t y of Con-

tingency- Model p r e d i c t i o n s are; 1) the low magnitude o f r e -

l a t i o n s h i p found between LPC and group p r o d u c t i v i t y ; and 2) l a c k

of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the r e p o r t e d results. F i v e out

of the s i x c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d may be c r i t i c i z e d t o have been

obtained by chance.

The evidence that has been r e p o r t e d here on the q u e s t i o n

of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s may be c r i t i c i s e d as not a p p l i c a b l e

to ' r e a l world' l e a d e r s h i p s i t u a t i o n s . The s u b j e c t s i n the

present study were students. The l e a d e r s h i p s i t u a t i o n s were a r -

tificially created. The e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y o f most i n v e s t i g -

a t i o n s of t h i s nature i s u s u a l l y suspect (Weick, 1965). The r e -

s u l t s o f the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n , however, complement what has

been found i n numerous f i e l d s t u d i e s and f i e l d experiments. The

present f i n d i n g s , t h e r e f o r e , may be accepted with a f a i r degree

of confidence.

In the extension p a r t of the study, i t was e s t a b l i s h e d

t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e o f a l e a d e r and group members ought to be con-

sidered i n defining s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y f o r a leader.

Leaders o f groups under the c o n d i t i o n of h i g h i n t e l l i g e n c e

achieved s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher p r o d u c t i v i t y than l e a d e r s of groups

w i t h low i n t e l l i g e n c e . T h i s achievement of higher productivity

 69

was n o t i c e d both, i n terms of q u a l i t y and speed o f the group

d e c i s i o n making.

The r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t a b i l i t y o f the l e a d e r and

group members as o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by- s e l f esteem d i d not

a f f e c t the s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y f o r the l e a d e r . Groups under

c o n d i t i o n s o f h i g h and low a b i l i t y achieved p r o d u c t i v i t y with

i d e n t i c a l q u a l i t y and speed. Because of t h i s f i n d i n g Hypothesis

IV was r e j e c t e d . I t was s p e c u l a t e d , however, t h a t these r e s u l t s

may have been obtained because o f the way i n which a b i l i t y was

operationally defined.

Some support was found i n favour of the hypothesis that

motivation o f l e a d e r s and group members i n f l u e n c e s the e f f e c t -

iveness o f a l e a d e r ' s r o l e . Leaders o f motivated groups solved

the assigned problem w i t h i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y s h o r t e r time than d i d

l e a d e r s o f non-motivated groups. T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between

motivation and group p r o d u c t i v i t y , however, f a i l e d t o a f f e c t the

q u a l i t y o f group output. That i s , no d i f f e r e n c e was found i n the

q u a l i t y o f group output between the motivated and non-motivated

groups. Thus evidence r e p o r t e d here i n favour o f the hypothesized

e f f e c t of motivation on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s can be c o n s i d e r -

ed as p a r t i a l only.

I t should be p o i n t e d out t h a t the f i n d i n g s o f the present

study concerning the moderating e f f e c t s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , ability

and m o t i v a t i o n on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s should be c o n s i d e r e d

as t e n t a t i v e and e x p l o r a t o r y . This study was the f i r s t i n v e s t i g -

a t i o n which t e s t e d these three v a r i a b l e s i n framework o f the

Contingency Theory o f l e a d e r s h i p . Further studies including

 70

these v a r i a b l e s are needed b e f o r e a p p r e c i a b l e confidence may be

p l a c e d on the present findings.

One aspect of the f i n d i n g s i n Experiment B concerned how

the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s would r e a c t on the e i g h t o r i g i n a l c e l l s of

the Contingency Model. I t was not p o s s i b l e to answer the ques-

t i o n here because of the l i m i t e d number of c e l l s t h a t were stud-

ied. A more comprehensive study i n v o l v i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e , ability

and m o t i v a t i o n as w e l l as the three o r i g i n a l contingency v a r i a b l e s

i s needed to show how the v a r i a b l e s i n t e r a c t on one another and

also i n combination.

I t i s b e l i e v e d however, t h a t a reasonable amount of e v i d -

ence was generated here to i n d i c a t e t h a t m o t i v a t i o n , intelligence

and a b i l i t y should be c o n s i d e r e d as parameters o f l e a d e r s h i p

favourability. The present study p r o v i d e d e m p i r i c a l support to

the c o n t e n t i o n s of F i e d l e r (.1967) and H i l l (1969) t h a t these

v a r i a b l e s do indeed moderate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e a d e r s h i p

s t y l e and group p r o d u c t i v i t y . Based on what has been l e a r n e d

from the present study, an e x t e n s i o n of the model i s recommended

as shown i n F i g u r e I.

The present f i n d i n g s a l s o added to the growing body of

evidence r e g a r d i n g the i n t e r a c t i v e nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-

tween l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and situational favourability. The i n -

v e s t i g a t i o n was c a r r i e d out i n the context of the Contingency

Theory. But the message was c a r r i e d beyond t h i s s p e c i f i c theory.

The study may be c o n s i d e r e d as i n union w i t h other r e s e a r c h t h a t

supports the contemporary viewpoint that leadership effectiveness

i s not j u s t an outcome of s t y l e , but t h a t i t i s a j o i n t product

of s t y l e , s t r u c t u r e and situation.
 FIGURE I

Situational Favourability, Leadership Style

and Group Productivity

1 Cal The C o n t i n g e n c y Model Variables:

Leadership style --

LPC Situation favourability Group

Produc-
tivity

Task Position Leader

struc- power member
ture relations

1 (b) Extension:

Intel-** Motiv-
ligen.ce ation

T
Situation favourability Group
produc-
tivity

Task "Position Leader

struc- power member-
ture relations

Indicates weak empirical support.

 72

4.2 Relevance and V a l i d i t y of the Measures:

I t seems worthwhile to. e x p l o r e why Hypothesis XV regard-

ing the p o s t u l a t e d e f f e c t of a b i l i t y on l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s

was not supported by the r e s u l t s . As a l r e a d y mentioned i n Chap-

t e r 2, a s a t i s f a c t o r y measure, of task r e l a t e d a b i l i t y f o r the

k i n d of t a s k s used f o r the present study was very d i f f i c u l t to

find. A measure of s e l f esteem was accepted as an o p e r a t i o n a l

d e f i n i t i o n of a b i l i t y . S e l f esteem indeed r e f l e c t s an individ-

u a l ' s permanent c a p a c i t i e s which he has a c q u i r e d over a long p e r i o d

of time. On a post hoc b a s i s , i t may be s p e c u l a t e d t h a t the

k i n d of a b i l i t y measure most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a t h i r t y to forty-

f i v e minute experiment should be something more c l o s e l y related

to the task at hand. I t may w e l l be t h a t the instrument used i n

the present study f a i l e d to tap the v a r i a b l e i t purported to

measure.

A measure which had a g r e a t d e a l of i n f l u e n c e on the

f i n d i n g s was the Least P r e f e r r e d Co-worker measure. As explained

e a r l i e r i n Chapter 2, the c o n t r o v e r s y on the v a l i d i t y of the LPC

measure has not been s e t t l e d . An e f f o r t was made here to v a l i d -

ate the measure by means of a panel r a t i n g of a c t u a l l e a d e r be-

haviour. I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the panel r a t i n g was found

to be s a t i s f a c t o r y but the v a l i d i t y was unknown of the question-

n a i r e known as Leader Behaviour R a t i n g t h a t was used i n panel

rating. Consequently, i t was d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n the low cor-

r e l a t i o n between LPC scores and panel r a t i n g s . The o n l y con-

c l u s i o n t h a t c o u l d be drawn was t h a t l e a d e r s h i p behaviour as

measured by the LPC d i d not c o r r e l a t e w i t h what a panel of

observers thought to be the demonstrated behaviour o f the leadT-

ers. The t r u e meaning o f the LPC measure remains unknown.

M o t i v a t i o n as e x p e r i m e n t a l l y manipulated by cash rewards

a f f e c t e d group p r o d u c t i v i t y i n terms of speed but not i n terms

of q u a l i t y . T h i s might be due t o two reasons: 1) The s u b j e c t s '

understanding o f what c o n s t i t u t e d q u a l i t y of group d e c i s i o n was

probably weaker than t h e i r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f speed o f d e c i s i o n .

For example, i n the u n s t r u c t u r e d task which r e q u i r e d the groups

to come up w i t h a l i s t o f the f i v e most important t r a i t s needed

f o r success i n a c u l t u r e , i t was d i f f i c u l t f o r the s u b j e c t s t o

d i s t i n g u i s h good q u a l i t y from poor s o l u t i o n s . Speed o f s o l u t i o n ,

on the other hand, was o b j e c t i v e l y recorded. The s u b j e c t s knew

that a l l they had to do t o s a t i s f y the c r i t e r i o n o f q u a l i t y was

to minimize time t o the best of t h e i r c a p a c i t y .

2) M o t i v a t i o n was d e f i n e d i n terms of a t t r a c t i o n toward

some monetary i n c e n t i v e . Such a d e f i n i t i o n i n c l u d e d o n l y what

Vroom (1964) , Campbell e t a l . (1970) have c a l l e d e x t r i n s i c motiv-

ation. No e f f o r t was made t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e and measure i n t r i n -

s i c m o t i v a t i o n from e x t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n . In completing the

post experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e on t h e i r l e v e l of m o t i v a t i o n ,

some s u b j e c t s r a t e d themselves as 'motivated' when i n f a c t they

had been working under a 'non-motivated' experimental condition.

When asked about the d i s c r e p a n c y , they admitted t h a t they were

motivated to do a good job simply f o r the enjoyment o f doing a

good job. They d e r i v e d p l e a s u r e i n performing as best they

could. A more adequate m a n i p u l a t i o n and measurement o f motiv-

a t i o n was needed.
 74
Task s t r u c t u r e was m a n i p u l a t e d i n the experiment by means
of task s e l e c t i o n . According to F i e d l e r , a c u t t i n g score of five
points distinguished structured from -unstructured tasks. The
two t a s k s s e l e c t e d f o r the experiment p a n e l r a t i n g on s t r u c t u r e
were v e r y c l o s e t o the c u t t i n g p o i n t (e.g., 4.95 and 3 . 7 3 ) . To
s t r e n g t h e n the e f f e c t of t a s k s t r u c t u r e on l e a d e r s h i p effective-
n e s s , the d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e on r a t i n g o f s t r u c t u r e s h o u l d be max-
imized. T h i s was not p o s s i b l e because s u i t a b l e t a s k s w i t h
larger difference s c o r e s were not a v a i l a b l e . Construction of
s u i t a b l e t a s k s t o meet the s p e c i f i c demands o f an e x p e r i m e n t a l
s i t u a t i o n probably could a l l e v i a t e t h i s problem.

A c c o r d i n g to the C o n t i n g e n c y M o d e l , p o s i t i o n power i s d e -
f i n e d i n terms o f two i n d i c e s : 1) c a p a c i t y t o r e w a r d , h i r e and
fire; and 2) symbol o f s t a t u s . In an e x p e r i m e n t a l situation,
it i s very d i f f i c u l t t o p r o v i d e a l e a d e r w i t h such power. The
leader i n the p r e s e n t study had but l i t t l e f a t e c o n t r o l over the
group members who know the ad hoc n a t u r e o f the l e a d e r ' s position
power. In the s t r o n g p o s i t i o n power c o n d i t i o n , a l l the leader
c o u l d o f f e r t o i n f l u e n c e the members was a f i v e d o l l a r bill.
M a n i p u l a t i o n o f t h i s v a r i a b l e would i n a r e a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , be
much more feasible.

The d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n the m a n i p u l a t i o n o f group

atmosphere were i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h o s e f a c e d i n the attempted i n -
d u c t i o n o f p o s i t i o n power. Because the s u b j e c t s knew t h a t they
were i n an experiment f o r o n l y a s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e , they tend-
ed not t o e x p r e s s f e e l i n g s of h o s t i l i t y to the l e a d e r and c o -
workers. Only i n r a r e cases where a s u b j e c t held a strong
 75

o p i n i o n on an i s s u e were 'these s u b j e c t t o censure by the group.

Time tended to have some e f f e c t even on the care used i n com-r

p l e t i n g the Group Atmosphere questionnaire. Posthuma (1970)

hypothesizes t h a t because the s u b j e c t s meet f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d

of time and may never meet again as a group, they tend to g i v e

a f a v o u r a b l e r a t i n g t o the group e x p e r i e n c e .

I n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d i n the assignment

of s u b j e c t s t o groups. I t was thought t h a t such i n t e r p e r s o n a l

r e f e r e n c e s would help t o strengthen the q u a l i t y o f the group a t -

mosphere and counter the e f f e c t o f the a r t i f i c i a l i t y o f the ex-

p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n and s h o r t l e n g t h of time p e r i o d . Such ex-

p e r i m e n t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n had some e f f e c t , but to a f a r l e s s degree

than was a n t i c i p a t e d . C o n t r o l of group atmosphere i n an exper-

imental study remains a d i f f i c u l t task to be accomplished.

The Contingency Model d e f i n e s l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n

terms of group p r o d u c t i v i t y . A c c o r d i n g l y , s i g n i f i c a n c e o f any

f i n d i n g from r e s e a r c h on the model depends on the v a l i d i t y w i t h

which group p r o d u c t i v i t y i s measured. Two c r i t e r i a of group p r o -

d u c t i v i t y accepted f o r the study were speed and q u a l i t y of group

d e c i s i o n making. The measurement of speed was o b j e c t i v e , since

a c t u a l time taken by each o f the groups was recorded. Thus the

validity of the measurement o f speed was beyond doubt.

Q u a l i t y o f group p r o d u c t i v i t y on the other hand, was

r a t e d by a p a n e l o f judges i n terms of four anchors (e.g., ade-

quacy, i s s u e involvement, e x c l u s i v e n e s s , c l a r i t y o f p r e s e n t a t i o n )

p r o v i d e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . The c h o i c e o f anchors was s u b j e c t

to the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s b i a s e s and a c c o r d i n g l y r e s u l t o b t a i n e d

 76

under the c r i t e r i o n 'quality-' was s u b j e c t to the particular

d e f i n i t i o n of q u a l i t y as adopted by the i n v e s t i g a t o r .
;

4.3 F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h Re c omme nd a t i o n s :

For the past few decades, more q u e s t i o n s have been r a i s e d

i n r e s e a r c h on l e a d e r s h i p than i t has been p o s s i b l e to answer.

What a t t r i b u t e s made l e a d e r s h i p p o s s i b l e , was probably the first

q u e s t i o n to s t a r t a s e r i e s of r e s e a r c h undertakings. Hundreds

of p h y s i c a l and mental q u a l i t i e s were c o r r e l a t e d with l e a d e r s h i p

positions. In the p r o c e s s , the need f o r c o n s i d e r i n g the situation

became apparent. Before the s i t u a t i o n a l approach could d i v e r t

r e s e a r c h a t t e n t i o n to the extreme, the 'Personality x Situation'

movement emerged. The present r e s e a r c h focus on l e a d e r s h i p i s

concerned w i t h s p e c i f y i n g c l e a r l y what p e r s o n a l i t y or s t y l e will

marry w i t h what s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s .

As mentioned e a r l i e r , there has been no l i t t l e debate

whether the r e s e a r c h program on the Contingency Model should be

continued CGraen et a l . , 1970, F i e d l e r , 1971). The study r e p o r t -

ed here was c a r r i e d on i n the b e l i e f t h a t more r e s e a r c h was re-

q u i r e d before f i n a l judgment c o u l d be reached on the v a l i d i t y of

the model. F u r t h e r e f f o r t s were needed to s p e c i f y c a r e f u l l y the

r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s to be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e f i n i n g s i t u a t i o n favour-

ability. The r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d here lend some support to the Con-

tingency Model hypotheses. Three new variables, intelligence,

a b i l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n were examined as a t t r i b u t e s of the para-

meter c a l l e d s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a b i l i t y . The e f f o r t to examine the

e f f e c t of these v a r i a b l e s met w i t h v a r i o u s degrees of success.

More and b e t t e r c o n t r o l l e d s t u d i e s , however, are necessary- £e-

f o r e we can p l a c e confidence i n the f i n d i n g s of the present

investigation.

I t was s p e c u l a t e d t h a t measurement of the v a r i a b l e

' a b i l i t y * was not s a t i s f a c t o r y - . F u t u r e r e s e a r c h should examine

t h i s v a r i a b l e as a contingency f o r l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n a

more t a s k r e l a t e d sense ( t e c h n i c a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n r a t h e r than

s e l f esteem). F u r t h e r , the v a r i a b l e 'motivation' should be mani-

p u l a t e d more adequately i n both the ' i n t r i n s i c ' and 'extrinsic'

sense of the term. The i n f l u e n c e of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s t a t e of

m o t i v a t i o n as a moderator o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s was estab-

l i s h e d here. Future s t u d i e s may be able to e s t a b l i s h even

stronger e f f e c t s f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e i f i t i s measured more

adequately.

Because of sampling and design l i m i t a t i o n s , i t was not

p o s s i b l e to examine the e f f e c t of the three added v a r i a b l e s on

the o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s of the Contingency Model. A study using

a l l combinations of the s i x v a r i a b l e s should be designed and

conducted. A p p r o p r i a t e measurement of the main and interaction

e f f e c t s of the s i x v a r i a b l e s on l e a d e r s h i p and group performance

will i n d i c a t e the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t may e x i s t among

the s i x s i t u a t i o n a l parameters.

I t was observed e a r l i e r t h a t experimental manipulations

w i t h regard to group atmosphere and l e a d e r p o s i t i o n were not

strong because of the b r e v i t y of the experimental time p e r i o d .

I t would a l s o be worth e x p l o r i n g whether time as an independent

 78

v a r i a b l e has any e f f e c t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between LPC score

and group p r o d u c t i v i t y . A l o n g i t u d i n a l study would answer the

q u e s t i o n as to whether s i t u a t i o n a l f a v o u r a b i l i t y of a leader

changes over time. A l o n g i t u d i n a l study i n v o l v i n g a long period

of time, of course, cannot be conducted i n the context of a

laboratory experiment. A f i e l d experiment or a f i e l d study w i l l

.be needed to study- the e f f e c t s of time on l e a d e r s h i p effective-

ness ,

One concern u n i v e r s a l l y v o i c e d by c r i t i c s of findings

from s t u d i e s on the Contingency Model regards the statistical re-

l i a b i l i t y - of the f i n d i n g s . S t u d i e s thus f a r have not produced

Statistically significant results. Statistical significance,

however, i s a f u n c t i o n of l a r g e sample s i z e . Unfortunately, i t

has not been f e a s i b l e f o r most i n v e s t i g a t o r s to o b t a i n a large

S i z e sample f o r s t u d i e s of the Contingency Model w i t h i t s e i g h t

c e l l s a,nd requirement f o r one group to p r o v i d e a s i n g l e obser-

vation. In the present study, c o r r e l a t i o n s as high as r = .52

were not statistically s i g n i f i c a n t s i n c e the r e s u l t s were obtain-

ed w i t h sample s i z e of e i g h t o b s e r v a t i o n s . Studies with larger

sample s i z e s seem needed i f s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i s to be

achieved.

The present i n v e s t i g a t o r concurs with the o p i n i o n of Graen

et a l . C19.70I t h a t a n . i n d u c t i v e l y derived theory such as the Con-

tingency- :Model, should be s e n s i t i v e to " c o r r e c t i o n a l influences"

i n terms of new findings. The t h e o r i s t should be prepared to

accept m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h a t may be proposed from time to time on

the b a s i s of ongoing r e s e a r c h experience. The study reported

 79

here e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t at l e a s t three a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s may be

needed to d e f i n e situational favourability. Future s t u d i e s may

reveal s t i l l f u r t h e r leaders-hip c o n t i n g e n c i e s than were hypothe-

s i z e d here.

4.4 Conclusion

Based on data provided i n Chapter 3 and discussion in

Chapter 4, the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s may be drawn from the

present study:

1. The study provided a d d i t i o n a l evidence on the validity

o f the Contingency Model of l e a d e r s h i p effectiveness.

R e s u l t s reported i n Tables 10 and 11 provided moderate

support f o r the p r e d i c t i o n s of the model. From a

comparison of f i n d i n g s of the present study with those

of F i e d l e r C1971a) and Graen et a l . (1970), i t may be

concluded t h a t the present study tended to complement

the e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by F i e d l e r and contradict

Graen et a l ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s on the v a l i d i t y of the model.

2. In the extension p a r t of the study, i t was found:

a) that motivation s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected the

speed of group d e c i s i o n and contributed to the

leader's effectiveness;

b) t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e of the leaders and group

members s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d both the q u a l i t y

and speed o f group d e c i s i o n ;

c) t h a t a b i l i t y as o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d by a

s e l f esteem measure d i d not a f f e c t either the

 80

speed or the q u a l i t y o f group d e c i s i o n ;

dl that, m o t i v a t i o n d i d not i n f l u e n c e the q u a l i t y

of group output.

On the B a s i s of f i n d i n g s 2 Cal , , 2 CB) , 2 Cc) , 2 Cd) , i t may Be

concluded t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e , m o t i v a t i o n and perhaps aBility

should Be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s of the Contingency Model

a,s parameters of s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a B i l i t y .

3. The study a l s o added i n d i r e c t l y to our knowledge of

l e a d e r s h i p Behaviour By showing that leadership effect-

iveness i s a j o i n t product o f s t y l e , s t r u c t u r e and

situation.

The study has t e s t e d the e f f e c t of three leadership con-

t i n g e n c i e s and has a l s o added to the p l a u s i B i l i t y of one of the

advanced theories of leadership ( i . e . , the Contingency Model).

I t i s expected t h a t f u t u r e s t u d i e s w i l l c o n t i n u e e x p l o r i n g the

r e l a t i o n s h i p s that may e x i s t Between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e , group

p r o d u c t i v i t y and s i t u a t i o n f a v o u r a B i l i t y .
 APPENDIX I

BERGER"S ACCEPTANCE OF SELF SCALE

 81

F o l l o w i n g are questions of some of your a t t i t u d e s . Of, course

there i s no r i g h t answer f o r any statement. The best answer i s
t h a t you f e e l i s t r u e of yourself;.

You are to respond to each q u e s t i o n by c i r c l i n g a number preced-

ing each q u e s t i o n a c c o r d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g scheme:

1 2 3 4 5

Not at a l l Slightly About h a l f - Mostly True of

t r u e of t r u e of way t r u e of t r u e of myself
myself myself -myself myself

Remember, the best answer i s the one which a p p l i e s to you.

12 3 4 5 Cl) I'd l i k e i t i f I c o u l d f i n d someone who would

t e l l me how to s o l v e my p e r s o n a l problems.

12 3 4 5 C2) I don't q u e s t i o n my worth as a person, even i f

I t h i n k others do.

12 3 4 5 C3) When people say n i c e t h i n g s about me, I f i n d

i t d i f f i c u l t to b e l i e v e they r e a l l y mean i t .
I t h i n k maybe they're k i d d i n g me or j u s t
aren't being s i n c e r e .

12 3 4 5 C4) I f t h e r e i s any c r i t i c i s m or anyone says

anything about me, I j u s t can't take i t .

12 3 4 5 C5) I don't say much at s o c i a l a f f a i r s because I'm

a f r a i d t h a t people w i l l c r i t i c i z e me or laugh
i f I say the wrong t h i n g .

12 3 4 5 C6) I r e a l i z e t h a t I'm not l i v i n g very e f f e c t i v e l y

but I j u s t don't b e l i e v e I've got i t i n me to
use my e n e r g i e s i n b e t t e r ways.

12 3 4 5 C7) I look on most of the f e e l i n g s and impulses I

have toward people as being q u i t e n a t u r a l and
acceptable.

12 3 4 5 C8) Something i n s i d e me j u s t won't l e t me be

s a t i s f i e d w i t h any job I've done -- i f i t
turns out w e l l , I get a very smug f e e l i n g t h a t
t h i s i s beneath me, I should not be s a t i s f i e d
with t h i s ; t h i s i s n ' t a f a i r t e s t .

12 3 4 5 C9] I f e e l d i f f e r e n t from other people. I'd l i k e

to have the f e e l i n g of s e c u r i t y t h a t comes from
knowing I'm not too d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r s .
 82

1 2 3 4 5 (10). I'm a f r a i d f o r people t h a t I l i k e t o f i n d out

what I'.m r e a l l y l i k e , f o r .fear they' d be
d i s a p p o i n t e d i n -me.' ''

1 2 3 4 5 [11] I am f r e q u e n t l y bothered b y feelings- o f

inferiority.

12 3 4 5 (12) Because of other people, I haven't been a b l e

to achieye as- much as I should have.

12 3 4 5 (13) I am q u i t e shy and s e l f - c o n s c i o u s i n s o c i a l

situations,

12 3 4 5 (14) In order t o get along and be l i k e d , I tend to

be what people expect me to be r a t h e r than
anything e l s e .

1 2 3 4 5 (15) I seem t o have a r e a l i n n e r s t r e n g t h i n

handling things. I'm on p r e t t y s o l i d found-
a t i o n and i t makes me p r e t t y sure o f myself.

12 3 4 5 (16) I f e e l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s when I'm w i t h people

who have a s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n t o mine i n business
or a t s c h o o l .

12 3 4 5 (17) I t h i n k I'm n e u r o t i c o r something .

12 3 4 5 (18) Very o f t e n I don't t r y t o be f r i e n d l y with

people because I t h i n k they don't l i k e me.

12 3 4 5 (19) I f e e l t h a t I'm a person of worth, on an

equal plane w i t h o t h e r s .

12 3 4 5 (20) I can't a v o i d f e e l i n g g u i l t y about the way I

f e e l toward c e r t a i n people i n my l i f e .

12 3 4 5 (21) I'm not a f r a i d o f meeting new people. I feel

t h a t I'm a worthwhile person and t h e r e ' s no
reason why they should d i s l i k e me.

12 3 4 5 (22) I s o r t of only h a l f - b e l i e v e i n myself.

12 3 4 5 (23) I'm very s e n s i t i v e . People say t h i n g s and I

have a tendency f o t h i n k t h e y ' r e c r i t i c i z i n g
me or i n s u l t i n g me i n some way and l a t e r when
I t h i n k o f i t , they may not have meant any-
t h i n g l i k e t h a t at a l l .

12 3 4 5 (24) 1 t h i n k I have c e r t a i n a b i l i t i e s and other

people say so too, but I wonder i f I'm not
g i v i n g them an importance way beyond what
t h e y deserve.
 83

1 2 3 4 5 (_2 5) I f e e l c o n f i d e n t t h a t I c a n do s o m e t h i n g about
problems^ t h a t may a r i s e i n t h e f u t u r e .

12 3 4 5 C26) I g u e s s 1 p u t on a show t o i m p r e s s p e o p l e . I
know I'm n o t t h e p e r s o n I p r e t e n d t o be.

12 3 4 5 (27) I do n o t w o r r y o r condemn m y s e l f i f o t h e r
p e o p l e p a s s judgment a g a i n s t me.

12 3 4 5 (28) 1 don't f e e l v e r y normal, but I want t o feel

normal.

12 3 4 5 (29) When I'm i n a g r o u p I u s u a l l y d o n ' t s a y much

f o r f e a r o f s a y i n g t h e wrong t h i n g .

1 2 3 4 5 C 3 0 ) I have a t e n d e n c y t o s i d e s t e p my problems.

12 3 4 5 (31) E v e n when p e o p l e do t h i n k w e l l o f me, I f e e l

s o r t o f g u i l t y b e c a u s e I know I must be
f o o l i n g them — t h a t i f I were r e a l l y t o be
m y s e l f , t h e y w o u l d n ' t t h i n k w e l l o f me.

12 3 4 5 (32) I f e e l t h a t I'm on t h e same l e v e l as o t h e r

p e o p l e and t h a t h e l p s t o e s t a b l i s h g o o d
r e l a t i o n s w i t h them.

12 3 4 5 (33) I f e e l that people are apt to r e a c t d i f f e r e n t -

l y t o me t h a n t h e y w o u l d n o r m a l l y r e a c t t o
other people.

12 3 4 5 (34) I live t o o much by o t h e r p e o p l e ' standards.

12 3 4 5 (3 5) When I have t o a d d r e s s a g r o u p , I g e t s e l f -
c o n s c i o u s and have d i f f i c u l t y s a y i n g t h i n g s
well.

1 2 3 4 5 (36) I f I d i d n ' t a l w a y s have s u c h h a r d l u c k , I'd

a c c o m p l i s h much more t h a n I h a v e .
 APPENDIX I I

SOCIOMETRIC PREFERENCE RATING

 SOCIOMETRIC PREFERENCE RATING

NAME:

Suppose you are g i v e n a group assignment. Name, i n

order o f p r e f e r e n c e , f i v e students from Com. 2 21 you

would enjoy working w i t h . (YOUR OPINIONS WILL BE

KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL).

1. _

2.

3.

4.

5.
 APPENDIX III

THE LEAST PREFERRED COWORKER SCALE

 85

People d i f f e r i n the ways t h e y t h i n k about those w i t h whom t h e y

work. T h i s may be important i n working w i t h others,, Please g i y e
your immediate, f i r s t r e a c t i o n t o the' items- on the f o l l o w i n g pa,ge.

On the f o l l o w i n g sheet are p a i r s o f words which are o p p o s i t e i n

meaning, such as V e r y Neat a,nd Not Neat. You a r e asked t o d e s c r i b e
someone w i t h whom you have worked by p l a c i n g an "X" i n one o f the
e i g h t spaces on the l i n e between the two words.

Each space r e p r e s e n t s how w e l l the a d j e c t i v e f i t s the person you

are d e s c r i b i n g , as i f i t were w r i t t e n :

Very : Not
Neat: : : : : : : : : Neat
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1
Very Quite Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Some- Quite Very
Neat Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy
Neat Untidy

FOR EXAMPLE: I f you were t o d e s c r i b e the person with whom you a r e

able t o work l e a s t w e l l , and you o r d i n a r i l y t h i n k o f him as being
q u i t e neat, you would put an "X" i n t h e second space from the words
Very Neat, l i k e t h i s :

Very : Not
Neat: : X : : : : : : :_Neat
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1
Very Quite Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Some- Quite Very
Neat Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy
Neat Untidy

I f you o r d i n a r i l y t h i n k o f the person w i t h whom you can work l e a s t

w e l l as being o n l y s l i g h t l y neat, you would put your "X" as f o l l o w s :

Very : Not
Neat: : : X : : : : : :_Neat
8 7 . 6 5 : 4 3 2 1
Very Quite Some- S l i g h t l y S l i g h t l y Some- Quite Very
Neat Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy
Neat Untidy

I f you would t h i n k o f him as being very u n t i d y , you would use the

space nearest the words Not Neat.

Very ; Not
Neat: : : : ; : ; X :Neat
8 7 5 5~ 1 4 3 2 1
Very Quite Some- S l i g h t l y Slightly Some- Q u i t e yery
Neat Neat what Neat Untidy what Untidy Untidy
Neat Untidy
Look a t the words a t both ends o f t h e l i n e before you put i n your "X".
Please remember t h a t t h e r e a r e no r i g h t o r wrong answers. Work
rapidly; your f i r s t answer i s l i k e l y t o be t h e b e s t . Please do not
omit any items, and mark each item o n l y once.
 86
• LPC

T h i n k o f t h e p e r s o n with, whom y o u c a n work l e a s t w e l l . He may-

be someone y o u work w i t h now, o r he may- be someone y o u knew i n
the p a s t .

He d o e s n o t have t o be t h e p e r s o n y o u l i k e l e a s t w e l l , b u t
s h o u l d be t h e p e r s o n w i t h whom y o u had t h e most d i f f i c u l t y i n
g e t t i n g a j o b done. D e s c r i b e t h i s p e r s o n as he a p p e a r s t o y o u .

Pleasant: ':' ' v ^ :' - ' : Y ^ -: ' :' Unpleasant

8 7 6 ' 5 4 3 2 1
Friendly: : : : ' ' : Unfriendly
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Rejecting: J : Accepting
*
J J
8 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
Helpful: : • * : Frustrating
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Unenthus- : : Enthusiastic
iastic 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Tense: : : Relaxed
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Distant: : : Close
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Cold: x : Warm
8 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
Cooper- ; ; : Uncooperative
ative 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Supportive * : Hostile
8 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
Boring: : : : Interesting
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Quarrel- : ; : Harmonious
some 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Self- * : Hesitant
assured 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Efficient * •
• ': : Inefficient
8 7 6 5 '4 3 2 1
Gloomy: •
*
X i
i : j Cheerful
• -
8 7 6 5

4' " ' 3 '2 1'

Open: :' ' ^ Y ' ':
N v vv
V ' ' i Guarded
~ 8 ' 7 6 . 5' •
' 4' ~T "~2 1
 APPENDIX IV

TASK 23

from

M . E . Shaw's Taxonomy o f E x p e r i m e n t a l T a s k s , 1963

"What makes f o r success i n our c u l t u r e ? "

Your task i s t o d i s c u s s the q u e s t i o n you

have been g i v e n and decide among your-
s e l v e s the f i v e most important t r a i t s a
person needs f o r success i n our c u l t u r e .
When you have a r r i v e d a t a d e c i s i o n ,
w r i t e the l i s t o f t r a i t s on a sheet o f
paper and hand i t to me.

GOOD LUCK
 APPENDIX -V

TASK 59.

from

M . E . Shaw's Taxonomy of E x p e r i m e n t a l T a s k s , (1963)

 88

TASK fl,Hpr INSTRUCTIONS f

Suppose you are a f i v e man team whose job i s t o manufacture

a product, the completion o f which r e q u i r e s the o p e r a t i o n of

f i v e machines. In the p a s t you have r o t a t e d p o s i t i o n s to avoid

boredom, but each man has spent most o f the time o p e r a t i n g the

machine t h a t he p r e f e r s . John p r e f e r s machine 3, Steve machine 2,

Walt machine 4, Robert machine 1, and Denis machine 5.

The Methods man has been around checking the time each

man r e q u i r e s to complete the o p e r a t i o n on one product when he i s

o p e r a t i n g each of the f i v e machines. He has come up w i t h the

following results:

Machines

1 2 3 4 5

John 3 min. 3 min. 4 min. 3 1/2 min. 4 1/2 min.

Steve 2 min. 2 min. 5 min. 2 1/2 min. 3 1/2 min.

Walt 1 min. 2 min. 5 min. 2 min. 1 1/2 min.

Robert 4 min. 1 min. 3 min. 3 1/2 min. 3 min.

Denis 5 min. 3 min. 2 min. 5 min. 3 min.

Your foreman n o t i c e d t h a t when each man runs the machine

he most p r e f e r s , the t o t a l time spent on each product i s 16 min-

utes. I t seems to him t h a t a d i f f e r e n t method of o p e r a t i o n would

result i n s u b s t a n t i a l savings. He b e l i e v e s i n l e t t i n g h i s work-

ers make t h e i r own d e c i s i o n , i n so f a r as p o s s i b l e , and has

asked t h a t you c o n s i d e r the problem and t r y to come up w i t h a

p l a n t h a t w i l l be more e f f i c i e n t than the p r e s e n t mode of

 89

operation.

Your t a s k i s now to examine the data p r o v i d e d by the

methods man and decide which person should operate which machine.

When you have reached a d e c i s i o n , p l e a s e w r i t e your p l a n out i n

d e t a i l on the paper p r o v i d e d .
 APPENDIX V I

Rating of

P o s i t i o n Power & M o t i v a t i o n

For Leaders Only

Please respond to the f o l l o w i n g two questions by c i r c l i n g a
number a c c o r d i n g t o the f o l l o w i n g scheme:

5 A great deal

4 Somewhat l e s s than a g r e a t d e a l

3 More than a l i t t l e

2 Just a l i t t l e

1 None a t a l l

1) How much p o s i t i o n power (e.g., symbol o f your S t a t u s ,

c a p a c i t y to reward) d i d you have i n c a r r y i n g out the
group assignment?

A great deal: _ _ _ _ _ :None a t a l l

5 4 3 2 1

2) How motivated d i d you f e e l t o do w e l l i n the group

assignment?
 APPENDIX V I I

Rating of

Leader Behaviour, P o s i t i o n Power & M o t i v a t i o n

'For Co-workers Only

 91

• LEADER" BEHAVIOUR' RATING .

Please d e s c r i b e the behaviour o f the l e a d e r o f the present group

by checking the f o l l o w i n g items.:

1. Permissive: 8 T z 6 ; F ('? : F •: 2 : T .: S t r i c t

2. Requesting: 8 7 « F : F : ? : F : 2 : T :Ordering

3. Considerate: F 7 : F t 4 : J : 2 : T :Rude

4. Participating: F 7 : F : 5 i 4 : F : 2" : T :Managing

5. Passive: 8" 7 i'6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : T :Active

6. Task Sharing: F 7 :. 6 : 5 : 4 : F : 2 : T : Task

Controlling

F o l l o w i n g are questions about your group. Please respond to each

q u e s t i o n by c i r c l i n g a number according t o the f o l l o w i n g scheme:

5 A great deal

4 Somewhat l e s s than a g r e a t deal

3 More than a l i t t l e

2 Just a little

1 None a t a l l

1) How much p o s i t i o n power (e.g., symbol o f s t a t u s , c a p a c i t y

to reward, etc.) the l e a d e r o f your group had i n c a r r y i n g
out the group assignment?

A great d e a l : 5 :None a t a l l

2) How motivated d i d you f e e l t o do w e l l i n the group

assignment?
 APPENDIX T i l l

Trie Group Atmosphere S c a l e

 GROUP ATMOSPHERE SCALE

Describe the atmosphere of your group by checking the f o l l o w i n g

items:

1. P l e a s a n t : : : :Unpleasant
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1

2. F r i e n d l y : * :Unfriendly
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1

3. Bad: : ; :Good
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

4. Worthless: : :Valuable
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1

5. D i s t a n t : : : : :Close
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1

6. C o l d : J. : : : Warm
8 7 6 5 • 4 3 2 1

7. Ouarrelsome: : : : : : :Harmonious
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1

8. S e l f - a s s u r e d : : • :Hesitant
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1

9. E f f i c i e n t : : * : :Inefficient
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1

10 . Gloomy: : : : * :Cheerful
8 7 6 5 : 4 3 2 1
 APPENDIX IX

R a t i n g Q u a l i t y of Group Solution
 93

QUALITY OF SOLUTION: T h i s p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n f o r group out-

put'may be conceived as c o n s i s t i n g of the f o l l o w i n g :

1. Adequacy-: f o r example/ how adequate the f i v e traits-

i mentioned a r e f o r a t t a i n i n g success.

2. Issue involvement: how r e l e v a n t the s o l u t i o n i s to the

problem. For example/ a r e the f i v e t r a i t s mentioned
r e l a t e d t o the attainment of success.

3. ExclusivenesS': a r e the t r a i t s mentioned mutually e x c l u s i v e ,

t h a t i s , independent. A high q u a l i t y s o l u t i o n should have
mutually e x c l u s i v e t r a i t s .

4. C l a r i t y o f p r e s e n t a t i o n : d i d the group present their

ideas c l e a r l y ? Are the ideas well-expressed?

The f o l l o w i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme i s a p p l i c a b l e f o r the e v a l -

u a t i o n job t o be done by the judges:

5 very much

4 l e s s than very much

3 somewhat

2 just a l i t t l e

1 none

Please e v a l u a t e the present group's s o l u t i o n on adequacy:

A. very much: 5_ 4_ 3_ 2_ 1_ :none

B. Please e v a l u a t e the present group's s o l u t i o n on i s s u e

involvement:

very much: 5^ 4 3 2_ 1 : none

C. Please e v a l u a t e the present group's s o l u t i o n on

exclusiveness:

very much: 5_ 4_ 3_ 2_ 1_ : none

D. Please e v a l u a t e the present group's s o l u t i o n on

c l a r i t y of p r e s e n t a t i o n :

v e r y much: 5 4_ 3^ _2_ 1 :none

 APPENDIX X

Leader Behayiour Rating

Observers Only
 LEADER BEHAVIOUR RATING

Please d e s c r i b e the behaviour o f the l e a d e r o f the present group

by, checking the f o l l o w i n g items-:

1. P e r m i s s i v e : '''' : • : : : : ' : : Strict

8" 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2. Requesting: : : : : : : : :Ordering
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

3. C o n s i d e r a t e : : ; { : : \_ :Rude
1 1 6 5 I 3^ 2 1
4. P a r t i c i p a t i n g : : : : : : : i_ :Managing
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

5. P a s s i v e : : : : : : : : :Active
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

6. Task Sharing: ' ' : : : : : ; }_ :Task

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Controlli
 95

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, T.W. , The A u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y , New York: Harper

and Row, 1950.

A r g y l e , M., Gardner, G., and C i o f f i , F. , S u p e r v i s o r y methods

r e l a t e d to p r o d u c t i v i t y , ' I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , 1958, I I ,
pp. 2 3 - 4 6 .

Aronson, E., and C a r l s m i t h , J . , Performance expectancy as a

determinant of a c t u a l performance, J o u r n a l of Abnormal
and S o c i a l Psychology, 1962, 6_5, pp. 1 7 8 - 1 8 2 .

A t k i n s o n , J.W., Towards experimental a n a l y s i s of human motiv-

a t i o n i n terms of motives, expectancies and i n c e n t i v e s ,
IN Motives and Fantasy, A c t i o n and S o c i e t y , Ed. J.W.
A t k i n s o n , New York: Van Nostrand, 1958.

Backstorm, C.H.,.and Hursh, G.D., Survey Research, North-

western U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963.

Barber, T.X., and S i l v e r , M.J., F a c t , f i c t i o n and the exper-

imenter b i a s e f f e c t , P s y c h o l o g i c a l Bulletin,-1916 8';- 70 ,
C6) , pp. 1-29 ( a ) ,

Barber, T.X., and S i l v e r , M.J., P i t f a l l s i n data a n a l y s i s and

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : A r e p l y t o Rosenthal, P s y c h o l o g i c a l
B u l l e t i n , 1968 , 7_0, (6) ' ~~

Bass, B.M., L e a d e r s h i p , Psychology and O r g a n i z a t i o n Behaviour,

New York: Harper & Row, 19 60.

Bass, B.M., L e a d e r s h i p Opinions as F o r e c a s t s of S u p e r v i s o r y

Success, J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1958, 40.

Berger, E., The r e l a t i o n between expressed acceptance of s e l f

and expressed acceptance of o t h e r s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal
and S o c i a l Psychology, 1952, 4_7, pp. 7 7 8 - 7 8 2 .

Besco, R.O. and Lawshe, C.H., Foreman l e a d e r s h i p as p e r c e i v e d

by s u p e r v i s o r and s u b o r d i n a t e s , Personnel Psychology,
1959, 1 2 , pp. 5 7 3 - 5 8 2 .

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S., The Managerial G r i d , Houston:

G u l f , 1964. ^~

Bowers, D.G., and Seashore, S.E., P r e d i c t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

e f f e c t i v e n e s s w i t h a 'Four 'Factor Theory of L e a d e r s h i p ,
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1966, 1 1 , Q2\, 2 3 8 - 2 6 3 .
 9.6
Campbell, P..T...^^e^dershl^ the-.Group,
Bureau o f B u ^ i h e ^ § Research"," The' J?fe^9^^t^tjeutJii^eir-S-ity-,
s

Columbus: 19.5 6,

C a m p b e l l , J-. , Dunne.tte., M ~ D , L a w l e r , E , E , and W e i c k , K . E . ,

y y

• M a n a g e r i a l B e h a v i o u r ) Performance and E f f e c t i v e n e s s ,
New . Y o r k ; ' McGraw-Hill",.: I n c . , 197 0 . ~-

Camp i o n , G . E . J r . , > .Ef f e c t ^ O^XM^n^tf'errla:!^ S t y l e on S u b o r d i n a t e s '

a t t i t u d e s and Performances i n a S i m u l a t e d O r g a n i z a t i o n
s

S e t t i n g , Unpublished.doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of
M i n n e s o t a , 1968.

C a r t w r i g h t , D . , and Z a n d e r , . A . , (Eds.) Group Dynamics: Research

and T h e o r y , E v a n s t o n , 111: Row P e t e r s o n and C o . , 1960.

C l e v e l a n d , S . E . , and F i s h e r , S . , P r e d i c t i o n o f S m a l l group
b e h a v i o u r from a body image Schema, Human R e l a t i o n s ,
1957, 1 £ , pp. 223^233.

Comery, A . L . , P i f f n e r , J . M . and H i g h , W . S . , F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l E f f e c t i v e n e s s , U n i v e r s i t y o f South
C a r o l i n a , 1954.

D a v i s , J . H . , Group Performance, R e a d i n g , Mass: Addison Wesley,

1969.

Day, R . C , and H a m b l i n , R . L . , Some e f f e c t s o f c l o s e and

p u b i t i v e s t y l e s o f s u p e r v i s i o n , American J o u r n a l o f
S o c i o l o g y , 1964, 69_, p p . 499-510.

Dumbo, P . , Group congruency p a t t e r n s and l e a d e r s h i p c h a r a c t e r -

i s t i c s , P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 21_, ( 3 ) .

E v a n s , M . G . , and Dormer, J . D . , What Does the L e a s t P r e f e r r e d

Co-worker S c a l e R e a l l y Measure? A Cognitive Interpre-
t a t i o n , London B u s i n e s s S c h o o l Working P a p e r , 1972.

E v a n s , M . G . , A L e a d e r ' s A b i l i t y to D i f f e r e n t i a t e , the S u b o r d i n -
a t e s P e r c e p t i o n of the Leader and the S u b o r d i n a t e s P e r -
formance , U n p u b l i s h e d M a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o ,
1971.

F e n e l o n , J . R . , and Megargee, E . I . , I n f l u e n c e of Race on the

M a n i f e s t a t i o n of Leadership, J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psycho-
l o g y , 1971, 5 5 , C4), pp. 3 5 3 - 3 5 8 .
F i e d l e r , F . E . , Assumed s i m i l a r i t y measures as p r e d i c t o r s o f
team e f f e c t i v e n e s s , J o u r n a l ' of • Abnormal and S o c i a l
P s y c h o l o g y , 1954, 49, pp. 381^388. ' ~~
!
 97
F i e d l e r , F . E . , The. i n f l u e n c e o f leader^keyman r e l a t i o n s on
combat crew, e f .f.e c t j y e n e s s;. .Journa 1: o f Abnorma,1• a nd Soc j a 1- -,
P s y c h o l o g y , 1955 ," 5 1 , pp.\: 2!T7'-235, ^ .'- - - . . . -

F i e d l e r , F . E . , Leader A t t i t u d e s and Group E f f e c t i v e n e s s ,

v
Urbana,
111: U n i v e r s i t y of Illinois P.ressV
1958.
F i e d l e r , F . E . , Leader a t t i t u d e s , group c l i m a t e and group
c r e a t i v i t y , J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y ,
1962, £ 5 , pp. 308-318. • •'• ~" " ~"

F i e d l e r , F . E . , andMeuwese, W.A.T.. , The l e a d e r ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n

t o t a s k performance i n c o h e s i v e and u n c o h e s i v e g r o u p s ,
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1963, 67,
pp. 83-87.

F i e d l e r , F . E . , A c o n t i n g e n c y model o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s ,
i n L . B e r k o w i t z (Ed.) Advances i n E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l
P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . I , New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , 1964.

F i e d l e r , F . E . , E n g i n e e r i n g the j o b t o f i t the manager,

Harvard B u s i n e s s R e v i e w , September, 1965, p p . 115-122.
F i e d l e r , F . E . , The e f f e c t o f l e a d e r s h i p and c u l t u r e d homogenity
on group performance: A t e s t o f the c o n t i n g e n c y m o d e l .
J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 2_,
pp. 237-264.

F i e d l e r , F . E . , A Theory o f L e a d e r s h i p E f f e c t i v e n e s s , New Y o r k :
M c G r a w - H i l l , 1967.
F i e d l e r , F . E . , O ' B r i e n , G . E . and I l g e n , D . R . , The e f f e c t o f
l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e upon the performance and adjustment o f
v o l u n t e e r teams o p e r a t i n g i n a s t r e s s f u l f o r e i g n e n v i r o n -
ment, Human R e l a t i o n s , 1969, 2_2, pp. 503-514.

F i e d l e r , F . E . , P e r s o n a l i t y , M o t i v a t i o n a l Systems and B e h a v i o u r
o f High and Low LPC P e r s o n s , T e c h n i c a l Report 7 0 - 1 2 ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington, 1970.

F i e d l e r , F . E . , V a l i d a t i o n and e x t e n s i o n o f the c o n t i n g e n c y model

of l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s : A review of e m p i r i c a l
f i n d i n g s , P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1971, 7_6, ( 2 ) ,
pp. 128-148, Ca).

F i e d l e r , F . E . , Note on the methodology o f G r a e n , O r r i s and

A l v a r e s s t u d i e s t e s t i n g , the c o n t i n g e n c y m o d e l , J o u r n a l o f
A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, V o l . 55, C3], pp. 202-204 ( b ) .
•Fiedler'-, F . E . , P r e d i c t i n g , the e f f e c t s of l e a d e r s h i p t r a i n i n g and .
experience from .the c o n t i n g e n c y m o d e l , J o u r n a l
- P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 56, ( 2 ) . '
of Applied

F i s h b e i n , M . , Landy, E . , and H a t c h , G . , C o n s i d e r a t i o n of two a s -

sumptions u n d e r l y i n g F i e d l e r ' s C o n t i n g e n c y Model for the
p r e d i c t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s , American J o u r n a l
of P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, £ , pp. 457-473.
 9-8

F l e i s h m a n , E .• A- •(.•• H a r r i s / E , F , - . a n d B u r t t . H . E . . . L e ^ d ^ r s h i p and
f

S u p e r v i s i o n i n I n d u s t r y , B . o f E d u c a t i o n Research," "The" Ohio

S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1955.
F o a , V . G . , M i t c h e l l , T . R . , and F i e d l e r , F . E . , D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n
M a t c h i n g , B e h a v i o u r a l ' S c i e n c e , 1971, 1 6 , pp. 130-142.

G a l b r a i t h , J . , and Cummings, L . . , An e m p i r i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f
the m o t i v a t i o n a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f p a s t performance:
i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s between i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y - v a l e n c e ,
m o t i v a t i o n , a b i l i t y , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r and Human
Performance, 1967, 2, ( 3 ) , pp. 237-257.

G e o r g o p o u l o s , B . S . , Mahoney, G . M . , and J o n e s , W. J r . , A p a t h
g o a l approach t o p r o d u c t i v i t y . Journal of A p p l i e d
P s y c h o l o g y , 1957, 4 1 , pp. 345-353.

G h i s e l l i , E . E . , E x p i r a t i o n i n Managerial Talent, Goodyear

P u b l i s h i n g C o . I n c . , C a l i f o r n i a , 1971.

G i b b , C . A . , i n Handbook of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , (G. L i n d z e y , E d . )
V o l . I I , A d d i s o n - W e s l e y , 1969.
G r a e n , G . B . , O r r i s , J . B . , and A l v a r e s , K . M . , The c o n t i n g e n c y
model o f l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s : Some e x p e r i m e n t a l
results, J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, V o l . 55,
(3) , pp. 196-201, (a)

Graen, G . B . , O r r i s , J . B . and A l v a r e s , K . M . , Contingency Model

of Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s : Some M e t h o d o l o g i c a l I s s u e s ,
J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 5_5, ( 3 ) ,
pp. 205-210 ( b ) .

G r a e n , G . B . , O r r i s , J . B . and A l v a r e s , K . M . C o n t i n g e n c y Model
of Leadership E f f e c t i v e n e s s : Antecedent and e v i d e n t i a l
results, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1970, 4_, ( 4 ) , 285-296.

G r a e n , G . B . , I n s t r u m e n t a l t h e o r y of m o t i v a t i o n : Some e m p i r i c a l
r e s u l t s and suggested m o d i f i c a t i o n s , Journal of Applied
P s y c h o l o g y , Monograph, 1969, 5_5, pp. 1-25.

G r o s s , C . R . , An O b s e r v a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s of S u p e r v i s o r y B e h a v i o u r ,
U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s T h e s i s , Lansxng; M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1956.

Hackman, J . R . , J o n e s , L . F . , and M c G r a t h , J . E . A . , A s e t of
dimensions f o r d e s c r i b i n g the g e n e r a l p r o p e r t i e s o f group
g e n e r a t e d w r i t t e n passages, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1967,
7 0 , pp. 379-390.
 99

H a l p i n , A.W. , and Winer, J . , <!A f a c t o r i a l • Study- of the l e a d e r

Behaviour d e s c r i p t i o n - q u e s t i o n n a i r e " , in- R,H. $ t o g d i l l and
A.E. Coons .(Eds. I , Leader Behaviour: ^ I t s pe^c'rlp'tl'o'n' and
Measurement, Research Monograph," No. '88", The Ohio State
U n i v e r s i t y , 1957.

Hare, A.P., Handbook: of Small Group Research, New York: Free

P r e s s , 196 2. '

Hawkins, C.A., A Study of F a c t o r s M e d i a t i n g a R e l a t i o n s h i p

Between Leader Rating Behaviour and Group P r o d u c t i v i t y ,
Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i n n e a p o l i s , Minnesota:
U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota, 1962.

Hemphill, J.K., and Coons, A.E., "Development of the l e a d e r

behaviour d e s c r i p t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e " , i n R.M. S t o g d i l l and
A.E. Coons, (Eds.), Leader Behaviour: I t s D e s c r i p t i o n and
Measurement, Research Monograph, No. 58, The Ohio State
U n i v e r s i t y , 1957.

Hemphill, J.K., R e l a t i o n between the s i z e o f the group and the

behaviour of s u p e r i o r l e a d e r s , J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and
S o c i a l Psychology, 1950, 32, pp. 11-12.

H i l l , W., The v a l i d a t i o n and extension o f F i e d l e r ' s theory of

l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s , Academy o f Management J o u r n a l ,
1969, pp. 33-47.

H i l l , W., A s i t u a t i o n a l approach t o l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s ,
J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1969, 3_, (6).

H o l l a n d e r , E.P., Leader, Groups and I n f l u e n c e , New York:

Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964.

Hollander, E.P., and J u l i a n , J.W., Contemporary trends i n the

a n a l y s i s of l e a d e r s h i p processes, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n ,
1969, 71, ( 5 ) , pp. 387-397.

H o l l a n d e r , E.P., S t y l e , s t r u c t u r e and s e t t i n g i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
l e a d e r s h i p , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , March,
1971, pp. 1-9.

House, R.J., A path-goal theory of l e a d e r behaviour,

A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1971, 1_6, pp. 321-338.

House, R.J. , F i l l e y , A . C , and Kerr, S. , R e l a t i o n of l e a d e r

c o n s i d e r a t i o n and i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e t o R and D
subordinate s a t i s f a c t i o n , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y ,
1971, 16, pp. 19-30.
 IQO

House, R.J., F i l l e y , A . C , and G u j a r a t i , D.N., L e a d e r s h i p s t y l e ,

h i e r a r c h i c a l i n f l u e n c e and -the s a t i s f a c t i o n of. s u b o r d i n a t e
r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s : A test..of L i k e r t s i n f l u e n c e . ..
1

p r o p o s i t i o n , J o u r n a l of; A p p l i e d Psychology-, 1971, 55,

pp. 422-432. ' * " ' " - " :

House, R.J., Wigdor, L.M., and S h u l z , K., P s y c h o l o g i c a l

p a r t i c i p a t i o n , l e a d e r Behaviour, performance and
s a t i s f a c t i o n : An e x t e n s i o n of p r i o r r e s e a r c h and a
motivation theory of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Proceedings o f the
E a s t e r n Academy o f Management, U n i v e r s i t y o f Massachusetts,
Amherst: 1970.

House, R.J., Some new a p p l i c a t i o n s and t e s t s of the path-goal

theory o f l e a d e r s h i p . Paper presented a t the F i r s t
N a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r a l O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Conference,
U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1972.

Hoyie, F r e d , e t a l . , (Eds.) Symposium: The Requirements f o r

L e a d e r s h i p i n the 1980's. Chapel H i l l , U n i v e r s i t y of
North C a r o l i n a , 1968.

Hunt, J.G., A t e s t of the l e a d e r s h i p contingency model i n

t h r e e o r g a n i z a t i o n s , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human
Performance, 1967, 2, pp. 290-308.

Hunt, J.G., L e a d e r s h i p s t y l e e f f e c t s at two managerial l e v e l s

i n a simulated o r g a n i z a t i o n , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science
Q u a r t e r l y , 1971,'" 16_, (4).

Kahn, R.L., The p r e d i c t i o n of p r o d u c t i v i t y , J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l

Issues, 1956, 1_2, pp. 41-49.

Katz, D., Maccaby, N., and Morse, N.C., P r o d u c t i v i t y , Super-

v i s i o n and Morale i n an O f f i c e S i t u a t i o n , D e t r o i t , Mich:
D a r e l Press Inc., 1950.

Katz, D., P r o d u c t i v i t y , S u p e r v i s i o n and Morale among R a i l r o a d

Workers, Ann Arbor, M i c h i g a n : Survey Research Center,
1951.

Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L., i n Readings i n S o c i a l Psychology,

( e d i t e d by) Swanson, G.E., e t a l . , New York: Holt Rinehart
and Winston, 1953.

K a t z e l l , R.A., B a r r e t , R.S. and Parker, T.C., Job S a t i s f a c t i o n ,

Job Performance, and S i t u a t i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Journa1
of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1961, 4_5, pp. 65-72.

Kaufman, H., Task performance, expected performance and

responses o f f a i l u r e as f u n c t i o n s of imbalance in" t h e 0

s e l f - c o n c e p t . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1962.
 101
Korman, A.K. , C o n s i d e r a t i o n , i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z e
ati,onal c r i t e r i a : A Reyiew;. peX^onnel^ Psychology/ 1966,
19, pp, 349-363. ' - ^- - - • -

Lawler, E.E, • I I I , Pay and: :prg^j'z:atXonal^ T,ff^dt^^ne:B[s:i\- A

P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review-, .New *focQraw^H£%l'y T971."

Lewin, K. , Lippit., R. , and White, R.K.., P a t t e r n s o f a g g r e s s i v e

behaviour i n e x p e r i m e n t a l l y c r e a t e d ' s o c i a l c l i m a t e s ' ,
J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l - Psychology, 1939, 10.

L i k e r t , R., New P a t t e r n s Of Management,

v
New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1961. ' ' ' ! !

McCurdy, H.G., and Eber, H.W., Democratic vs. A u t h o r i t a r i a n s :

A f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f group problem s o l v i n g ,
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1953 , 22,

McGregor, D.M., The Human Side o f E n t e r p r i s e , 1960, New York:

McGraw-Hill, I n c .

McNamara, V.D., A d e s c r i p t i v e - a n a l y t i c study of d i r e c t i v e -

p e r m i s s i v e v a r i a t i o n i n the l e a d e r behaviour o f elementary
school p r i n c i p a l s . Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y
of A l b e r t a , 1967.

Maier, N.R.F., An experimental t e s t of the e f f e c t o f t r a i n i n g

on d i s c u s s i o n l e a d e r s h i p . Human R e l a t i o n s , 1953, 6_,
pp. 161-173.

Mann, F.C., Toward an understanding o f the l e a d e r s h i p r o l e i n

formal o r g a n i z a t i o n . In Dubin, e t a l . (Eds.) Leadership
and P r o d u c t i v i t y , 1965, Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Co.

Mann, R.D., A Review o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e r s o n a l i t y

and performance i n small groups, P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n ,
1959, 56, pp. 241-270.

M i t c h e l l , T.R., Leader complexity, l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and group

performance, Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Urbana,
111: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1969.
M i t c h e l l , T.R., Leader complexity and l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e , J o u r n a l
of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1970, 16, 166-174.

M i t c h e l l , V.F., Expectancy t h e o r i e s o f managerial m o t i v a t i o n ,

S t u d i e s i n Personnel Psychology, S p r i n g , 1972, V o l . 4,
No. I , pp. 31-42.

M i t c h e l l , T.R.-, B i g l a n , A., Onoken, G.R. and F i e d l e r , F.E.,

The contingency- model: c r i t i c i s m and suggestions.
Academy of' Management J o u r n a l , 1970, 13 , pp. 253-268.
 102
M i t c h e l l , T . R . and F o a , V . G . , An e x a m i n a t i o n o f the e f f e c t s o f
c u l t u r a l t r a i n i n g on the i n t e r a c t i o n o f h e t e r o c u l t u r e
t a s k g r o u p s , Urbana, I l l i n o i s : Group E f f e c t i v e n e s s R e s .
L a b o r a t o r y , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1968.
M o r s e , N . C . , and Reimer, E . , The e x p e r i m e n t a l change o f a
major o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e , J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and
S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1956, 5 1 , pp. 120-129.

M u l d e r , M . , and S t e m e r d i n g , A . , T h r e a t , a t t r a c t i o n t o group
T

and need f o r s t r o n g l e a d e r s h i p : A l a b o r a t o r y experiment

i n a n a t i o n a l s e t t i n g , Human R e l a t i o n s , 1963, 16,
pp. 317-333.
N e a l y , S . M . and B l o o d , M . , L e a d e r s h i p performance o f n u r s i n g
s u p e r v i s o r s a t two o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e v e l s , J o u r n a l o f
A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1968 , 5_2, pp. 414-422.

N e a l y , S . M . and Owen, T . M . , A m u l t i - t r a i t m u l t i - m e t h o d a n a l y s i s
o f p r e d i c t o r s and c r i t e r i a o f n u r s i n g performance,
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o u r and Human Performance, 1970, 5_,
pp. 348-365. ~

O ' B r i e n , G . E . , Group s t r u c t u r e and the measurement o f p o t e n t i a l

l e a d e r i n f l u e n c e , A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1969,
2 1 , pp. 277-289.
Osgood, C . E . , S u c i , G . J . and Tannenbaum, P . H . , The measurement
~- o f meaning, Urbana, 111: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1957.
P o r t e r , L . W . , and L a w l e r , E . E . , I I I , M a n a g e r i a l A t t i t u d e s and
Performance, I r w i n , 1968.
Posthuma, A l l a n B . , Normative Data on the L e a s t - P r e f e r r e d C o -
worker S c a l e (LPC) and the Group Atmosphere Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
CGA). T e c h n i c a l Report 7 0 - 8 , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington,
S e a t t l e , Washington: 1970.

R o l a n d , K . M . and S c o t t , W . E . , P s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s o f
e f f e c t i v e leadership i n a formal o r g a n i z a t i o n . Personnel
P s y c h o l o g y , 1968 , 21_, (3) .

Rosenblaum, et a l . , M o r a l e and p r o d u c t i v i t y consequences o f

group l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e : S t r e s s and type o f t a s k . Journal
o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 5_5, ( 4 ) , pp. 343-348.

R o s e n t h a l , R . , E x p e r i m e n t e r expectancy and the r e a s s u r i n g n a t u r e

o f the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s d e c i s i o n p r o c e d u r e . Psychological
B u l l e t i n , 1968, 70, ( 6 ) , pp. 3 0 - 4 7 .

S a l e s , S . M . , S u p e r v i s o r y s t y l e and p r o d u c t i v i t y : A Review o f
theory. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 1_9, ( 3 ) ,
pp. 275-288.
 1Q3

S a l e s , S.M., A l a b o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of; the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of

two i n d u s t r i a l s u p e r v i s o r y dimensions-, . Unpublished M.S.
t h e s i s , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1964.

Sample, J.A., and Wilson, T.R. Leader behaviour, group

p r o d u c t i v i t y and r a t i n g o f l e a s t p r e f e r r e d co-worker,
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 19 65, I ,
pp. 266-270.

Shaw, M.E., S c a l i n g Group Tasks: A Method f o r Dimensional

A n a l y s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of F l o r i d a , Cmimeo.), 1963.

Shaw, M.W., A comparison of two types of l e a d e r s h i p i n v a r i o u s

communication n e t s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l
Psychology, 1955, 50, pp. 127-134.

Shaw, M.E., and Blum, J.M., E f f e c t s o f l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e upon

group performance as a f u n c t i o n of task s t r u c t u r e ,
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1966, 3_,
pp. 238-242.

Skinner, E.W., R e l a t i o n s h i p s between l e a d e r s h i p behaviour

p a t t e r n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s ,
Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22_, pp. 485-494.

Spector, P., and S u t t e l , L., An Experimental Comparison of the

E f f e c t i v e n e s s of Three P a t t e r n s of L e a d e r s h i p Behaviour,
Washington, D.C: American I n s t i t u t e f o r Research, 1957.

S t o g d i l l , R.M., P e r s o n a l f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h l e a d e r s h i p :
A survey of the l i t e r a t u r e . J o u r n a l of Psychology, 1948,
25, pp. 35-71.

S t o g d i l l , R.M., V a l i d i t y o f l e a d e r s h i p behaviour descriptions,

Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22^, ( 2 ) .

Student, K u r t , R., S u p e r v i s o r y i n f l u e n c e and work group

performance, J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology, June, 1968.

Tuckman, B.W., Group composition and group performance of

s t r u c t u r e d and u n s t r u c t u r e d t a s k s . J o u r n a l of Experimental
S o c i a l Psychology, 1967, 3_, pp. 25-40.

Vroom, V., Ego involvement, job s a t i s f a c t i o n and job

performance. Personnel Psychology» pp. 159-177 T 1962.

Vroom, V., The s e l f - c o n c e p t : a balance t h e o r e t i c a l treatment.

Unpublished Manuscript. P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of
P e n n s y l v a n i a , 1969.
 104

Vroom, V., and Mann, F,C, f Leader a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and employee

a t t i t u d e s , " Person^^ 1960, 13, pp. 125-140.

Vroom, V. , Work and- Motivation,. New: York: John Wiley, 1964.

Whyte, W.F., Money and M o t i v a t i o n : An A n a l y s i s o f - I n c e n t i v e s i n

I n d u s t r y, New York.; Harper, 1955. ~ '

Wilson, Stephen R., L e a d e r s h i p , p a r t i c i p a t i o n and s e l f - o r i e n t a t i o n

i n observed and non-observed groups, J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d
Psychology, 1971, 55, C5J, pp. 433-438.

Wofford, J.W., B e h a v i o u r a l s t y l e s and performance effectiveness,

Personnel Psychology, 1967 , 20^, ( 4 ) .

Z a l e z n i k , A., Human Dimensions of L e a d e r s h i p , New York: Harper

& Row, 19TFI

View publication stats