PATTERNS OF LEADERSEIP STYLE AND WGRKEB SATISFACTIOK Them far {#50 Deqom a; M. A. MlCHlGAN SYATE EINIVERSITY John Stephen Heinen W79 {Hag-at: Michigan Stat: " University “““““““““““ ““““ ““““ ““““ ““2“““ ““““““ “““ L 3 1293 ABSTRACT PATTERNS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE AND WORKER SATISFACTION By John Stephen Heinen During the last decade volumes of data have been collected to establish relationships between leadership styles and subordinate satisfaction. Most of this ref? search has attempted to demonstrate that consideration of employees or participation in decision making has a beneficial effect upon subordinate satisfaction (MacGregor, 1960; Likert, 1961, 1967; Argyris, 1964). To date, most psychologists have had difficulty establishing consistent relationships between the supervisor‘s leader- ship style and subordinate satisfaction. Even less has been accomplished in determining the dynamics of these relationships. Two methodological variations in this study have made several substantial additions to a role theory analysis of the supervisor-subordinate relationship. In this study 25 supervisory employees and 147 nonsupervisory employees from a medium—sized insurance company filled out separate forms of a questionnaire. The questionnaires for both groups were identical except for a set of leader» ship questions. Complementary data was obtained from both John Stephen.Heinen supervisory employees and the subordinates of each supervisor on the supervisor's leadership role behavior. Supervisors completed an adapted form of the Nelson Leadership Inventory (l9h9) on their own behavior, While the employees answered a parallel set of questions (Trumbo. 1958) concerning their own supervisor. Second. in categorizing the perceived leadership styles. the employee‘s pattern of responses to the leadership index were used rather than his modal response in a particular category. Thus a supervisor could not only be considered as a bureaucratic or a democratic leader, but also he could be categorized as a bureaucratic-autocratic leader. The data revealed that most people reported their supervisors as using some "mixed" leadership style rather than any "pure" leadership style. Several important findings emerged from this investigau tion. First, subordinates seldom reported their supervisors to be using the leadership style that he reported. Supern visors tended to report themselves as being idiocratic or democratic leaders; whereas, subordinates reported the super- visors to be more autocratic. This discrepancy was so conn sistent throughout to suggest that there existed a set of norms within each group concerning supervisory behavior. Employee job satisfaction and satisfaction with the supervisor were correlated with both the supervisory and the subordinate perceptions of the supervisor's leadership style. None of the measures of subordinate satisfaction were found John Stephen Heinen to be related to the supervisor's perceptions of leadership style; but all were strongly related to the subordinate's perceptions of leadership style. When the subordinate per» ceived the democratic or idiocratic leadership styles. his satisfaction was the highest. When the subordinate perceived the autocratic or bureaucratic leadership styles, his satis— faction was the lowest. The degree of satisfaction asso» ciated with the "mixed" leadership styles was almost as high as that associated with the democratic or idiocratic leader« ship styles. The amount of agreement between the report of the super- visor and the report of the non-supervisory employee about the supervisor's leadership style has no significant relaa tionship to employee satisfaction. From.this investigation it appears that the role rela- tionship established between the supervisor and the subor- dinate is related to subordinate satisfaction. The role expectations and perceptions of supervisors and subordinates both contribute to subordinate satisfaction. A model is presented for extending this analysis by more explicitly identifying how the role relationship of supervisor- subordinate contributes to subordinate satisfaction. Approved: Date: Dissertation Committee: (YULLR‘ E. Jacobson. Chairman 9Wufi 73.1970 J.‘Wakeley L. Messé PATTERNS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE AND WORKER SATISFACTION By John Stephen Heinen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS 1970 To my mother and father ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Credit must go to many people for their help in completn ing this thesis. Certain people merit special consideration. I am greatly indebted to my thesis chairman and advisor. Dr. Eugene Jacobson. His untiring patience. understanding. and careful direction has steered.me through my entire grad- uate education. Only with his constant advice has this thesis finally reached fruition. ‘To the other members of my committee, Dr. Lawrence Messé and Dr. John Wakeley, I would also like to extend my grati- tude. Both members offered poignant comments concerning my thesis and helped to improve the quality and accuracy of my work. Several graduate students also assisted me in.my efforts. Gerry Gillmore was extremely helpful in the analysis of the data. He devised for me all the computer programs needed to analyse the data. Doug Little offered useful suggestions for the theoretical design of the study. Without the previous work of Don Trumbo, John Nangle. Gloria Cheek Kamenske. Dr. Einar Hardin, and.Dr. William Faunce this project would not have been possible. Their excellent work in designing their study of automation and extensive data gathering set the stage for this research problem. 444 I would like to thank my wife, Jean, for her long hours of typing. Her loving support also carried.me over many periods of frustration during the project. Finally, I want to thank my parents. Through their great sacrifice and encouragement it was possible for me to reach this milestone in my education. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIG-[IRES . O O o O O O O O o . Chapter I. II. III. History of the Psychological Study of Leadership. Leadership Style . . . . . . Ohio State Leadership Studies . University of Michigan Leadership Studies Fiedler o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Nelson 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . Role Theory Model . . . . . . . Agreement Between Supervise: and SHbOrdinate o o o o o o 0‘. Different Styles of Supervision Satisfaction o o o o o o o o 0 Research Site and Data Gathering . . companies 0 o o o o o o 0 Studies Using these Data Sample 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 Definition of Leadership Style . . Index of Leadership Style . . . Length of Time with the Company. Length of Time with the Supervisor General Job Satisfaction . . . Specific Job Satisfaction . . . Satisfaction with the Supervisor 0 Application of Role Theory to Organizations 0 0.0... O O 0 O O O O O O O O O R) oo-qxur'w Chapter IV. Comparison of Supervisors and Employees on Leadership Style Index 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0 V. Relation of Satisfaction.Measures to Leadership Style and to Agreement Between Supervisor and Subordinate.................. Employee Satisfaction as a Function of Leadership Style as Perceived by the sup‘SI‘ViSU I' o g . Q 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 Leadership Style Perceived by the Employee 9 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Employee Satisfaction as a Function of the Agreement between Supervisor and Employee on Leadership Style 0 o o o o o o o o 0 Employee Satisfaction as a Function of both Leadership Style and Degree of Agreement . VIo DiSCUSSion Of RGSUltS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 VII. Role Theory of Leadership Style . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY o O o O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Appendix' AoBibliogr‘aphyoooooooooooooooooo Bo QueStiomaireltemSooooooooooooooo C. Frequency of Responses to 10 Item Leadership Stylelndex.oooo............. D. Individual Scores on Each Index . . . . . . . . . E. Classification of Supervisors into Leadership Sty-1‘3ooooooooooooooooooooo F. Classification of Employees According to Their Perception of Supervisor's Leadership Style . . 7 vi Page 37 58 60 63 68 72 77 97 106 110 112 119 120 Table I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. LIST OF TABLES Specific Job Satisfaction Index . . . . . . . Range of Scores (Nelson) . . . . . . . . . . . Range of Scores (Trumbo) . . . . . . . . . . . Range of Scores (Heinen) . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Supervisor's Response to Each Leadership Category.................. Mean Employee's Response to Each Leadership Category.................. .Difference in Mean Responses of Supervisors and Employees to Each Leadership Category . . Kuder-Richardson Correlation Coefficients of the Consistency of the Ten Items . . . . . . Kuder-Richardscn Correlation Coefficients of the Consistency of Subjects in Each Situation Correlation Between the Supervisor and His Employee Work Group on Nelson Leadership StyleIndex................. Means and Variances of Difference Scores of Employees in.Actual Work Groups . . . . . . . One-way Analysis of Variance of Difference Scores of Employees in Actual Work Groups . . Means and Variances of Difference Scores of Employees in Groups Based Upon Supervisors! Perception of Leadership Style . . . . . . . One-way Analysis of Variance of Difference Scores of Employees in Groups Based on Supervisors' Perception of Leadership Style . Page hl LLS h5 MB 53 5A 54 Table XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. Means and Variances of Difference Scores of Employees Perceiving Themselves Under Various LeadershipStyleS.............. Oneaway.Analysis of Variance of Difference Scores of Employees in Groups Based on EmployeesI Perception of Leadership Style . . Employee's General Job Satisfaction as a Function of the Leadership Style as Perceived by the Supervisors o o o o o o o o o o o o o Employee’s specific Job Satisfaction as a Function of the Leadership Style as Perceived bytheSupervisors............. Means and Variances of Job Satisfaction as a Function of the Leadership Style Perceived bytheSupervisor.............. Means and Variances of Employee Satisfaction with the Supervisor as a Function of the Leadership Style Perceived by the Supervisor Employee Satisfaction with the Supervisor as a Function of the Style of Supervision Per- ceived by the Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . Means. Variances. and Banks of Means of Employee Satisfaction for Groups based upon Leadership Style Perceived by the Employee . Employee General Job Satisfaction as a Func» tion of the Supervisor's Leadership Style Perceived by the Employee . . . . . . . . . . Employee Specific Job Satisfaction as a Function of the Supervisor's Leadership Style Perceived by the Employee . . . . . . . Employee's Satisfaction with Their Supervisor as a Function of the Supervisor's Leadership Style Perceived by the Employee . . . . . . . Mean Ranks for Satisfaction of Employee Groups based on the Leadership Style Perceived by theEmployee................ General Job Satisfaction of Employees as a Function of the Quartiles of Work Group Difn I‘GI’SEGGSCOI’GSooooooooooooooo Page 56 56 6O 6O 61 62 62 61L 61?» 65 65 67 69 Table XXVIII. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. XXXV. XXXVI. XXXVII. Specific Job Satisfaction of Employees as a Function of Quartiles of Work Group Differ" enoe S3OT83 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Means and Variances of Satisfaction with the Supervisor for Quartiles of Work Group Difference Scores 0 o o o o o o o o a g o o o Satisfaction with the Supervisor of Employees as a Function of Quartiles of the Work Group Difference Scores . . . . . . . . . . 0 General Job Satisfaction of Employees as a Function of the Difference Score of the Employees 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Specific Job Satisfaction of Employees as a Function of the Difference Score of the Employees 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Satisfaction with the Supervisor as a Function of the Difference Score of the Employees . . Means of Satisfaction Scores for Each Quartile of Employee Difference Scores . . . . . . . . 3 x 2 Analysis of Variance of General Job Satisfaction o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 x 2 Analysis of Variance of Specific Job SfltiSfEOtiDfl o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 x 2 Analysis of Variance of Satisfaction with Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 69 7O 70 71 71 72 LIST or FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Model Of the R019 Episode 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 16 2. Diagram of Relationship Between Leadership Style, Agreement and Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3. A Theoretical Model of Some Factors Involved in Leadership Process 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .100 CHAPTER I History of the Psychological Study of Leadership Leadership has long been a major interest area of psychologists. From the beginning of time, people have existed in various types of leader-follower or superior- subordinate relationships. The research in this area has progressed through many developmental stages. Yet even today there is little understanding about what makes a leader and how he Operates effectively. The initial efforts of psychologists concentrated on determining What traits identified a leader. Very few of these studies conclusively established a trait description of a leader as distinguished from.a follower (Stogdill. 19h8; Gibb, l95h). Stogdill (19h8) in his review of these studies concluded that: A person does not become a leader by virtre of the possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationships to the char- acteristics, activities, and goals of the followers. After the trait theory approach failed to establish the traits needed to characterize a leader, many peOple began to eSpouse an interactional approach to the under- standing of leadership. This theory claimed that several inputs have to be included: (1) the personality of the leader; (2) the followers with their attitudes, needs. and 1 problems; (3) the group itself both as regards to the structure of interpersonal relations and its syntality characteristics; and (h) the situation as determined by the physical setting, nature of the task, etc. (Gibb, 19Sh; 1969). Seldom.are all these relevant variables included in a single study. Most often leadership research takes the form of identifying the leadership behaviors or leadership style. i.e., the pattern of leadership behaviors, and their subsequent effects upon certain follower variables or char- acteristics. In order to comprehend the present approach to leadership, a brief history of different theoretical treatments of leadership style is in order. Leadership Style The classic contemporary social psychological study of leadership style was the original Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) study of boys' groups led by adults. They employed three leadership roles: authoritarian, demo- cratic, and laissez-faire. The authoritarian leader de- termined all work policies, dictated work tasks and work groups, directed the work one step at a time, kept his criterion for praise and criticism.to himself, and remained aloof from.the group. The democratic leader, on the other hand, set up all policies, work tasks, and work companions by group decisions, described the overall work process in the initial meeting, was objective in praise and criticism. and tried to become a regular member of the group. The laissez-faire leader was relatively passive and actually offered little leadership. The results showed that the bcys under authoritarian leaders were dependent on the leader and often responded aggressively to each other; whereas the democratic groups were friendly and freer in.their sug— gestions. In the democratic groups there was no change in productivity when the leader left the room; whereas, there was a sharp drop-off in productivity after the authoritar- ian leader left the room. This study gave impetus to future studies of leader- ship style and to investigations of how different leader- ship styles lead to differential effects upon the group members. Chip State Leadership Stggigg, In l9h5, the Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University developed the Leader Behavior Description Ques— tionnaire (Gibb, l95h). In this questionnaire, Hemphill defines nine dimensions of leadership behavior: (1) initi- ation. (2) membership, (3) representation, (h) integration. (5) organization, (6) domination, (7) communication. {8) recognition, and (9) production. Later, Halpin and'Winer (1952) using data from studies of air crews, extracted four orthogonal factors from these nine which account for a large amount of the variance. (1) ansideration - extent to which the leader, while carrying out his leader functions, is considerate of the men who are his followers. h (2) lgitiating_$tguctugg - extent to Which the leader organizes and defines the relation between.himself and his subordinates or fellow group members. (3) Production Emphasis — extent to which the leader stresses getting the job done. (h) Sensitivity or Social.Awareness - extent that the leader stresses being a socially acceptable indi— vidual in his interactions with other group members. Most of the present researchers in the Ohio State group (Fleishman, 1953; Stogdill, 1965) only include the first two factors in their analyses since these factors account for some 80% of the variance. This then has become their basis for describing leader behavior. University of Michigan Leadership Studies Early Survey Research Center - The early studies done at the University of Michigan Survey Research Center develOped two basic concepts of leadership style: Produc- tion-centered supervision and employee-centered supervision. Production-centered supervisors see that the workers are using the prOper methods, are sticking to their work, and are getting a satisfactory volume of work done. Employee- centered supervisors, however, emphasize the human problems of their workers. The supervisor endeavors to build a team of people Who cooperate and work well together (Katz et_al., 1950; 1951). Katz and Kahn (1966) elaborated this into four dimen- sions of leadership: S (l) Differentiation of Supervisory Role - behavior reflects a greater emphasis upon activities of planning and performing specialized skilled tasks. (2) Closeness of Supervision - degree to which the supervisor is checking and monitoring work of employee. (3) Emplgyee Orientation - degree to which the super— visor is personally involved with employees. (h) Group Relationships - behavior the leader exerts in developing the group process. This conceptualization has many parallels to the dimensions of leadership described by Hemphill (1966). Likert (1961, 1967) - Likert has probably been one of the most active contributors in this area. He talks about management in four styles ranging from authoritarian to participative. The systems are: (l) exploitive authoritan tive. (2) benevolent authoritative, (3) consultative. and (h) participative group. These four systems represent a scheme for classifying organizations on What Likert calls the human dimension of management. The four systems are based upon five leadership conn ditions: (l) the use by the manager of the principle of supportive relationships, (2) his use of group decision making and group methods of supervision,(3) his high per~ formance goals for the organization, (h) his technical knowledge, and (5) his coordinating, scheduling and plan- ning. Likert considers the first principle by far the most important for effective supervision. From.his vieWpcint it is absolutely essential that the leader be supportive and ego building. He sees the relationship developed between the leader and follower as crucial. There is much research supporting his contentions and it will be referred to later. Cartwright and Zander (1953) - Cartwright and Zander view leadership as the performance of behaviors which help the group to achieve its desired outcomes, 1.6., the leader fulfills group functions. The functions are described in two ways: (1) the achievement of some specific group goal, and/or (2) the maintenance or strengthening of the group itself. This analysis of the leadership situation is much more general than.the other descriptive approaches presented in this thesis. Bowers and Seashore - In their article Bowers and Sean shore (1966) have subsumed the previous theoretical styles mentioned into four dimensions. (1) §EEE£EE - Behavior that enhances someone elseis feeling of personal worth.and importance. (2) Interaction facilitation - Behavior that encourages members of the group to develOp close, mutually satisfying relationships. (3) Goal emphasis - Behavior that stimulates an emu thusiasm.for meeting the group's goal or achieving excellent performance. (A) Work facilitation - Behavior that helps achieve goal attainment by such activities as scheduling, coordinating, planning, and by providing resources such as tools, materials, and technical knowledge. All the previous authors! formulations overlap with this one. Fiedler Fiedler (1967) makes a distinction in style similar to the original Survey Research Center formulation. He talks about a task oriented style and a relations oriented style. However, he mainly is trying to achieve a reconciliation between trait theory and the situation. Style for him is a function of the situation and the leader's ability to exert his influence. nelson Nelson (19u9) develOped a system for classifying leadership style in terms of the way the leader defines his role based upon his internalized attitudes. He views the styles according to this type of classification: (1) Dependent (Bureaucratic) Type - leader geeks securiEy_and avoids responsibility by following management's rules and regulations literally and routinely. He avoids interaction with workers by withdrawal‘into office activities and only infrequent impersonal contacts with his men. (2) Self-sufficient (Autocratic) Type - leader seeks power and responsibility through.his own industry, initiative, ability, and technical knowledge. He makes his workers dependent upon him by his rather limited, critical, detailed one-way communication which does not develop their initiative. (3) Manipulativg (Idiocratic) Type ‘ leader EEEEE personal advancement by his ability to handle individuals effectively and get out high produc- tion. He has a superficial twenway interaction with the workers through his rather frequent, friendly contacts to stimulate interests and activity. (u) Integrative (Democratic) Type - leader seeks recog~ nition_andgparticipation for himself and his group in the control of his department. He maintains frequent, frank and informal, sincere, two-way interaction with the workers in developing group cedes, standards, and goals. Comparison Several aspects should be considered in comparing these different approaches to the classification of leadership style. One characterization can be made on the basis of the distinction previously made between leadership behaviors and leadership style. Leadership style was defined as a pattern of leadership behaviors. The formulations of the Ohio State group, Katz and Kahn, Cartwright and Zander, and Bowers and Seashore, discriminate between leaders on the basis of separate and distinct classes of behavior. Fiedler's conceptualization begins to move in the direnticn of patterns of leadership behavior. His attempts to inte- grate supervisory behaviors with situational demands are commendable. However, this system relies strongly upon his measure of the leader's evaluation of the Least Pre- ferred Co-worker (LPC score). The meaning of this measure, especially in behavioral terms, is ambiguous. Thus this formulation has not won wide acclaim among other theorists investigating leadership style. Only Likert and Nelson attempt to talk about leader- ship style in the manner in which it is defined in this thesis. Both theorists offer a classification which describes different patterns of behavior. Underlying each of their leadership style categories is a set of conditions or classes of behaviors. Rather than discriminate between leaders on the basis of specific behaviors, they consider each class of behavior and assess the degree to which the leader performs that behavior. The combination of be- haviors accross all these conditions defines each of the four leadership styles or patterns Which Likert and Nelson employ. Although both classification systems are nominal schemata, they begin to establish a basis for the ordering of leaders and leadership style. With respect to any one class of behaviors, the patterns of leadership can be arranged in a definite order. For example, on the dimension of communication the leadership styles can be arranged from the bureaucratic leader who avoids communication with his employees, to the autocratic leader who develops onenway 10 communication with his employees, to the idiocratic leader who develops a superficial two-way communication with each person, to the democratic leader who develops a sincere three-way communication with the members of the work group and between workers. The degree to Which a leader possesses certain characteristics or performs some set of behaviors can be described, rather than a simple all or none classia ffluation of behaviors. The demonstration of the group~ ing of different behaviors into a single style and a glimpse at how these separate behaviors interact with one another becomes possible. In order to consider adequately the numerous variables necessary to develop an interactional approach to the study of leadership, it is necessary to prepose a formulation which allows one both to order leadership behaviors and to combine leadership behaviors to evaluate their interactional effects. Formulations which only describe different classes of behavior which the leader performs can make no statements about how the different classes of behavior join together. ;No statements can be made as to why certain combinations of behaviors exist nor the resulting effects of them, Only the Likert and Nelson formulations allow for comparisons across and discriminations between leaders, and the estabn lishment of referents for leader interactions with subor- dinates. The Likert system suggests one important theoretical problem. Inherent in his theory is the idea that there exists one best leadership style for all situations. 11 Given the complexities discussed previously, this idea seems too oversimplified. This seems analogous to the error committed by the early psychologists who tried to establish a specific set of characteristics to define a leader. It assumes that the personality of the leader, the attitudes, needs, and problems of the followers, the structure of! interpersonal relationships of the group, and the situation itself are responsive to only one style of leadership. In Likert's eyes the most effective way to run an organization is from a participative management vieWpoint. This parallels our political beliefs about democracy and thus has won wide acclabm. However, this formulation does not seem to work in every situation. It seems to oversimplify the relation~ ships among people and present only negative aspects of all other styles. Albrook (1966) in a review of several studies found that participative management does not seem to work with all peOple and in all situations. Participative management would not be the most effective means of handling situations in which: (1) interaction is restricted; (2) the tasks are complex; (3) permissiveness is in some way restricted by higher authorities; (h) maximum.productivity is demanded; (S) the expectations of the subordinates differ; (6) the personalities and abilities of the subordinates interfere; (7) the personality and expectations of would be permisn sive leaders is contradictory; and (8) emergencies (Bass, 1965). Especially important are points 5, 6, and 7 because 12 they deal with the relationships between the superior and subordinate. It seems inconceivable to expect that these differing expectations, personalities, and abilities of the leader and the follower can always be accomodated best by a single style of behavior. This type of evidence has led William.Eddy (1962) to comment: It is evident from all the evidence brought to bear on the problem that no one method of control can be shown to be totally effective. The evidence is that individual variability, individual differences in personality traits, group characteristics, kind of task being carried out, situational demands, and other factors interact with the characteristics of management's methods to determine effectiveness of performance. These considerations of the complexity of leadership situations and the multitude of variables in the intern action of several peOple make it difficult for one to accept a single best style approach to leadership style. There- fore, an approach which is not systematically biased in favor of one style over another should be used in constructn ing a theoretical schema. Through comparison of the various conceptualizations certain theoretical requirements have been established. ~In order to recognize the complexities of the leadership situan tion, an interaction approach to the study of leadership is essential. This approach should attempt to distinguish between patterns of behavior rather than simply to identify the presence of a behavior. For only in this way canione progress toward the ordering of leadership behaviors and establishing the referents of the interpersonal relations 13 between leader and followers. In addition this approach should allow for an unbiased reflection of the inter« action components rather than favor one style over another. Of all the systems compared, only Nelsonfls formulation satisfies them all. Implicit in all these statements are several addi— tional important considerations that recommend Nelson?s system, Given the arguments in favor of a truly inter» actional approach and those Opposed to a single best style approach, it follows that (1) different peeple can employ different styles of supervision in any given situation, and (2) the same person can employ different styles of supervision in different situations. Nelson (l9h9) demonstrated that use of the different supervisory styles was not a function of the supervisor's age, education, {length of time with the company, his eXperience or rank, nor was it a function of the age, sex, race, education. or skill of his work group. Therefore, it seems that the style of leadership employed is not Specific to particular types of peOple with certain characteristics. Fiedler (1967) attempts to establish through several of his studies how the leader can analyse the situation and match his strengths and weaknesses to the demands of that situation. 'With this type of approach and allowance for certain of the complexities of the leadership situation in specific terms, additional advances in theory building can be attempted. CHAPTER II Application of Role Theory to Organizations Using the different schemes for classifying leader- ship style, investigators have attempted to show the effects of leadership upon supervisors and subordinates. Very few studies of leadership style actually look at the interrelationship of supervisor with subordinate. Almost all investigators of leadership behavior have relied upon the reports of the employees to describe their supervisors? behavior (Likert, 1961, 1967; Stogdill, 1965). Several have used measures of the supervisor-employee relationship to determine its effects upon the supervisors (Nelson, l9h9; Vroom, 1960), but seldom.the reciprocal effects upon both the supervisor and the employee. Katz and Kahn (1966) state: "Leadership is a rela- tional concept implying two terms: the influencing agent and the persons influenced." This definition suggests that the reports of supervisory behavior and the associated attitudes and characteristics of both the supervisors and subordinates should be included in any study of leadership style. In order to understand this double influencing rela— tionship, complementary data from both supervisors and em~ ployees are required. 11L 15 Gibb (l95h) in commenting on the interactional theory, notes that very few recognize the importance of the leader's perception, the follower's perception, and the group3s perm ception of themselves and others in relation to the varin ables of leadership style. At that time he recognized no theory capable of filling this void. Role Theory Model Within the last few years there has been an increase in the application of role theory to the study of organiza- tions. These efforts have been stimulated by Katz and Kahn (1966) The Social Psychology of Ogganizations and by Kahn et a1. (196A) Organizational Stress. Both of these works build upon the efforts of Linton (1936), Newcomb (1950), Parsons (1951), and Rommetveit (1954). Linton (1936) linked role to the definition of status. He defined status as a position in a social system occupied by designated individuals and role as the behavioral enacting of the pate terned expectations attributed to that position. In 1950, Iewcomb used these terms in elaborating the framework of social psychological theory. He was interested in roles and role relationships. Role relationships are based upon the behavioral and attitudinal relationships among the occupants of particular roles. Finally Rommetveit (l95h) elaborated a model of role relationships which served as the basis for both the Katz and Kahn and the Kahn_§t~al. approach. This model will also serve as the basis of this investigation and will be discussed later. 16 Katz and Kahn (1966) have defined organizations as Open social systems. At the social psychological base of these systems are the role behaviors of the members, the norms prescribing and sanctioning these behaviors and the values in which the norms are embedded. Their application of this theoretical perspective to the analysis of organin zations and the application of the model to the study of role conflict within organizations suggests a fruitful approach to the study of leadership style. With further investigation and elaboration this model may serve as an integrative force in organizational theory. Rommetveit (l95h) developed his model of interpersonal relations based upon the expectations of the role sender and role receiver. Each behavioral activity forms a com- plete tnit or role episode (see Fig. l) and is broken down into four parts: role evaluation, sent role, received role, and role behavior. e: Role Sender Focal Person Expectations Sent Role Eeceived Role Role Behavior Perception Informa— Perception of Compliance; of Focal tion Role and Per- Resistance; «F Person's Attempts l ception of "side 1 Behavior: at Influ— aRole Sending effects" ence Evaluation I II III IV 2 Fig. l A Model of the Role Episode (adapted from.Katz and Kahn, 1966). 17 Role evaluations - are the evaluative standards applied to the behavior of any person who occupies a given organizational office or position. Sent role - consists of the communications stemming from role expectations and sent by a member of the role set as he attempts to influence the focal person. Received role - the focal person's pgrception of the role sendings addressed to him, including those he "sends" to himself. Role behavior - the response of the focal person to the complex of information and influence he has received With this model in mind, one proceeds to a more Spe- cific look at the relationship between the leader and the follower. Nelson (l9h9) was concerned primarily with the way the leader defined his institutional role. He develOped his styles of leadership upon the assumption that any established leadership process will develop a pattern of social interaction based upon a common set of expectations. These patterns of interaction result in the expectation or behavioral tendency develOped in the leader as a product of experience with his group. Jacobson (1967) views these styles of leadership as training situations and the leaders in a constant training role. They train the subordinate in what to expect in the superior-subordinate relationship and how to behave. At the same time Katz and Kahn (1966) assert that each individual responds to the organization in terms of his perceptions of organizational activities, 18 which may not correspond to the actual organizational be- haviors. Accordingly, every individual will respond to the training of his supervisor in terms of his own percep- tions of the supervisor's behavior, which may not accur- ately reflect that training. This study applies role concepts to an analysis of leadership style. Contemporary role theory is based on exploration of the different ways in which members of an interacting group perceive each other's performance and influence each other through expectations about the other‘s performance. The interaction theory of leadership style, discussed previously, deals with a Specific type of inter- acting role relationships. The supervisor in his role of leader influences the subordinate in particular ways. The Rommetveit model is concerned with the transmission of expectations for role behavior. In that model the super- visor as role sender has a set of prescriptions and pro- scriptions for the subordinate role, while the subordinate, as role receiver, perceives What the supervisor expects of hime This thesis will focus more upon the supervisory role and role behaviors and only implicitly on eXpectations for the employee role. The supervisor's leadership style is a means of defining the supervisor's own role vis-a-vis the employee. His behavior serves as a cue to the subordinate as to what is expected of him.in certain situations. In most organizations the proper role behavior for a subordi- nate is usually learned on the basis of inference from 19 others' behaviors rather than through any direct attempts at transmitting expectations to him. This study will look at how the different cues provided by the supervisor's role behavior are perceived in supervisor-subordinate relationn ships. Supervisory role behavior acts as the means by which the leader communicates or trains each of his followers in relation to the "do's and don'ts" associated with his office. From.the Jacobson viewpoint of leadership style, the supervisor uses particular styles in order to communi- cate role expectations for the subordinate role. A super- visor's leadership style indicates the type of relation- ship he is attempting to establish with his subordinates. The manner in which he perceives his own leadership style defines the role relationship he is trying to establish with his subordinate. On the other hand, the subordinate has certain percep- tions and cognitions of the cues he receives from.the super- visor's role behavior. His perceptions of these cues give him.implicit directives as to what his relationship to the supervisor should be. A subordinate's perceptions of the supervisor's leadership style serves as a basis for his response to his role relationship with the supervisor. Focusing upon the supervisor's role will allow an analysis of certain types of responses to the role behavior cues furnished by the supervisor. The directives of a super- visor that are received by subordinates can be studied through an analysis of subordinate reports. Two aspects of 20 subordinates' reports associated with the supervisor‘s role behavior will be investigated in this thesis. First, the degree of agreement between the perceptions of the supera visor and the perceptions of the subordinate about the supervisor's leadership style will be determined. Then.the relationship between the supervisor's behavior and the subn ordinate's report of satisfaction with a number of job aspects will be studied. The supervisor's behavior will be indexed both from.the reports of the supervisor and the re- ports of the subordinates. Agreement Between Supervisor and Subordinate There is little research on the degree of agreement be- tween supervisors' and employees' perceptions of leadership style. Vroom.(l96h) suggests that employee reports about their supervisor's behavior are subject to bias based upon their liking for the supervisor. He feels it is necessary to establish a certain degree of agreement between the subordiu nate's report and other reports of the supervisor‘s behavior from different sources in order to control the potential bias in these reports. In evaluating the leadership abilities of a foreman, Besco and Lawshe (1959) found that the perceptions of the sub- ordinates of a foreman in no way correlated with the percep- tions of a foreman's superiors. A glaring discrepancy has also been demonstrated between what the supervisor thinks he does and what his subordinates say he does in the area of giving recognition (Likert, 1958). 21 Vroom (196C), in his dissertation, attempted to distinv- guish between psychological participation and objective par~ ticipation for a group of supervisors. He used selfmrepcrts of the supervisors as measures of psychological participation. He used reports from.peers of the supervisor, subordinates of the supervisor, and superiors of the supervisor as measures of objective participation. Much to his dismay he found no relationship between his measures of objective participation and psychological.participation. In fact he found a minor negative correlation between his measure of subordinate re~ ported participation and his measure of the supervisor‘s psychological participation. He attributes this lack of agreement mostly to the fact that his measures of objective participation are only one item.indexes, but this lack of agreement is worth investigation on a larger scale. The most thorough investigation into the area of agrees ment between supervisors and employees concerning supervisory behavior is that of Gross (1956). Using time sampling methods, he-had observers establish the amount of time each supervisor spent in various activities. Also he had super- visors fill out a checklist denoting the amount of time they spent in each activity. Employees filled out a similar form describing the amount of time their supervisor spent in each of these activities. Gross found no consistent relationship between the observations of the supervisor's behavior and either the supervisor's perception of his own behavior or the employees' perception of the supervisor's behavior. 22 Also no consistent relationship could be established between the supervisor‘s perceptions of his own behavior and the employees' perception of the supervisor's behavior. The Gross study is similar to the study to be reported here with the exception that Gross examined the amount of time spent in various activities rather than the leadership style involved. The first hypothesis to be tested is de- rived from.the findings described in the paragraphs above. Hypothesis I. There will be a lack of agreement between the supervisor’s perception of his own leadership style and his employees' perception of the supervisor's leadership style. The supervisor has been described by Jacobson (1967) to be in a training role. The training of the employee in the expectations and behavior of his supervisor is a learn- ing situation, and thus follows learning principles. The employee will know the expectations of his supervisor only after repeated contacts with the supervisor. His learning of these expectations should proceed according to the standard curves of learning performance. Increasing the length of time a person is with the company and increasing the length of time a person works with a particular supervi~ sor should increase the probability of agreement between the supervisor's and employee's perception of the supervisor?s leadership style. As the length of time he has been with the company increases, the subordinate's ability to perceive correctly the supervisor's style of leadership should be facilitated by the subordinate's increased knowledge of company 23 policies, both formal and informal. This information should allow the employee to understand some of the expectations and pressures Operating on the supervisor in his dealing with the employees. In addition, working with a particular supervisor for a long time affords the employee the Opportunity to inter- act with the supervisor in different situations a number Of times. These interactions more clearly establish the specific expectations the supervisor holds. The more chances an employee has to experience and verify the super- visoris expectations and behavioral patterns, the more accurate he will be in his perceptions Of the supervisor?s leadership style. Hypothesis II. The longer a subordinate works with a company, the greater will be the agreement between the supervisor‘s perception of his leadership style and the employee's perception Of the supervisor3s leadership style. Hypothesis III, The longer a subordinate works with a particular supervisor the greater will be the agreement between the supervisor‘s perception Of his leadership style and the employee's perception Of the supervisor’s leadership style. flypothesis IV. The agreement between the supervisoris and employee's perception Of the supervisor?s leader“ ship style will be greater for employees with the supervisor a long time than for those with the company a long time. Different Styles Of Supervision Not all persons have the same expectations about a given role position. The role involves a range of differ- ent behaviors. Similarly for the leadership role there i m not a single set of expectations for all role occupants. 211. Nor does each role occupant have the same set Of expecta- tions for each situation. These points are Often over~ looked in the analyses Of leadership style. Generally, leaders are grouped into categories of leadership style on the basis Of their modal reSponses to questions about leadership behavior. This practice ignores the complexi- ties Of the leadership situation. In this study, each supervisor will be identified on the basis of his tctal pattern of responses across the en.tire Nelson Index, i.e., the set Of questions based upon.Nelson=s theory of leader- ship style. In this study an adaptation Of the Nelson Index devised by Trumbo (1958) was used. One Of the questions used was: When hiring a new employee, the superv visor should select a man who is: l. intelligent and has a good deal of drive. 2. a hard worker and who doesn't need much super- V1s1on. Open~minded and willing to share reaponsibilities agreeable and willing to follow the regulations. PM) In defining their leadership role, some supervisors report only a limited range Of expectations and behaviors that consistently reflect a specific pattern. Other super- visors chocse a broad range of expectations and behaviors to match different situations. The former group is labeled as using a uniform leadership style bec use they report only a limited rang e of the total supervisory behaviors; the latter is labeled as using a mixed leadership style because they extend their range Of behaviors across the spectrum Of supervisory behaviors. If the set of expecta~ tions and behaviors that the supeicvisor uses is limited, 25 then the expectation and behavior patterns that the employee has to learn are limited also. In those cases, employees should find it easier to generalize expectations about the supervisors from one supervisory situation to another. Eyppthesis V. The more uniform is the supervisor’s report§d_leadership style, the greater will be the agreement between his perceptions of his leadership style and the employee's perceptions of the super~ visor’s leadership style. Satisfaction One of the major reasons for investigating role rela- tionships is to determine the impact of differential role expectations. A basic concern has been to establish the relationship between differential role expectations and differential attitudes. The primary purpose of studies in leadership style is to see how various role relationships affect work related attitudes. In almost all studies of leadership style, job satisfaction and satisfaction with the supervisor have been used as dependent measures of the differential effects of leadership style. A bureaucratic leader!s relationships with employees are formal, infrequent, and impersonal. The supervisorts rule—centered approach may lead to apathetic workers who identify neither with the company nor the supervisor. The authoritarian leader directs the employees in a very detailed and critical manner. They are completely subservient to the leader and may be negative and antag— onistic to all his suggestions and actions or may give unquestioning obedience. 26 Employee relationships under an idiocratic leader are informal. This type of supervisor deals with each person individually. However, the ambition and competition he builds between the workers may modify somewhat their satis- faction with him and the job. The democratic leader develops a very close relation~ ship with his employees. Through his involvement in the work group, he fosters COOperation and satisfaction among the members. Recent literature on leadership styles and satis— faction have proposed similar relationships. Most of the studies have attempted to establish a positive relationship between human relations or employee-centered leadership styles and both job satisfaction and satisfaction with the supervisor. Likert and his colleagues at the Survey Research Center (1961) have provided the most abundant evidence in favor of such an interpretation. However, Vroom.(l96u) has stated that the evidence is not conclusive enough at this point to definitely affirm such a prOposi- tion. Hypothesis VI. There will be more employee job satis- ac 1on or ose employees under democratic and idi- ocratic supervisors then for those under bureaucratic and autocratic supervisors. hypothesis VII. There will be more employee satisfac- tion with the supervisor for employees under democratic and idiocratic supervisors than for those under bureau- cratic and autocratic supervisors. Vroom (196A) feels that only those aspects of the super- visor’s behavior that are perceived by the subordinates are related to job satisfaction. In his analysis of the amount 27 of time supervisors Spent in various activities, Gross (1956) found that the employees' satisfaction with the amount of time spent in these activities was not related to actual observations of the supervisorzs behavior, but was related to employees3 perception of the supervisor's behavior. These studies seem to indicate that employee satisfac~ tion scores reflect employee perception of the supervisor's style and not necessarily responses to any sent role. The manner in which the supervisor describes his leadership style may not affect employee satisfaction. What the super- visor does has an effect upon the employee's satisfaction. At this point it is not clear whether the effect upcn employee satisfaction stems from what a supervisvr does in his relaticns ip with the employee or merely upon what the employee perceives the supervisor doing. In either 801* ' [[1 Ho I'D case the mere agreement that exists between the uperv u 5 i! i—J ’D D (I; l and the employee3s reports of the supervisori, \ U) ‘- - \ 'l ,4 p ‘r J Q. havicr, the more closely emplzyee satisfacti relate t; both. Several factors could alse determine an employee‘s perception of the superviser‘s behavior besides the behavior itself. The norms develcped among employee work groups as to how supervisors act, could predispos the employee to perceive the supervisor?s behavior in another way. Many people often have prescnceived notions of supervisors (1 0" U1 0 d. 5‘ before they enter a job or even take their first jv of these factors are common in affecting the emplavee s 28 perception of a supervisor’s behavior. Generally these other conceptions of the supervisor's behavior interfere with the employee’s correct perception of the supervisor's behavisr. The superviscr=s role behavior is employed as cues for employee behavicr. The employee who agrees with the super- visir on the perception of the supervisor's behavior per- ceives the correct cues. Operating on those cues the emp ployee establishes the role relationship the supervisor intended and is rewarded accordingly. With the repeated occurrence of these behaviors and rewards the employee begins to internalize this pattern of role behavior. Inter- nalization of the role behavior is a determinant of the employee satisfaction. In the case in Which the employee agrees with the supervisor on the perception of the super- visor?s role behavior, he will internalize role behavior for which he will be rewarded consistently. Those employees who do not agree with their supervisors on the supervisor's role behavior use a different set of cues for their role behavicr. This role behavior will not be rewarded as much as the role behavior of the employees Who agree because it will not always be consistent with the eXpectations of the supervisor. Therefore, the following hypotheses are pro- posed: Hypothesis XIII. There is no relationship between.the leadership style reported by the supervisor and the employee‘s Job satisfaction. Hypothesis IX. There is no relationship between the leadership style reported by the supervisor and the employee’s satisfaction with his supervisor. 29 H cthesis X. There is a relationship between the leadership style perceived by the employee and the employeeis job satisfaction. Hypothesis XI. There is a relationship between.the 'Ieadership style perceived by the employee and the employee's satisfaction with his supervisor. Hypothesis XII. The greater the degree of agreement between.the supervisor=s report of leadership style and the employee‘s perception of the supervisor's leadership style, the greater the employee's job satisfaction. Hypothesis XIII. The greater the degree of agreement Estween the supervisor‘s report of leadership style and the employee's perception of the supervisor's leadership style, the greater the employee's satis- faction with his supervisor. CHAPTER III Research Site and Data Gathering Companies Under the auspices of the School of Labor and Indus- trial Relations at Michigan State University, a team of researchers led by Eugene Jacobson, Professor of Psy- chology; William.Faunce, Professor of Sociology; and Einar Hardin, Professor of Economics, investigated the relation- ships between automation and attitudes toward change. Two medium sized insurance companies were surveyed to determine the relationships of supervisory practices, com» munication, employee personality, and employee work history to employee response to change. The change process anae lysed was the introduction of the companies first IBM 650 electronic data processing machine. The first study involved a company employing about 500 persons, 300 of them.housed in the central home office building. Questionnaires were administered to both super- visory and nonsupervisory personnel in February, 1957, approximately three months after the computer had been in use. A second study, in another insurance company, with approximately #00 persons, investigated the same problems. 30 31 Here the questionnaire was administered to supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel in.November, 1957. Studies Using These Data A general overall view of the results of this research can be found in two articles: (1) Jacobson, Trumbo, Cheek, and Nangle (1959); and (2) Faunce, Hardin, and Jacobson (1962). Jacobson, Trumbo, Cheek, and Nangle describe the study and report four facets of nonsupervisory employees' responses to change. Faunce, Hardin, and Jacobson (1962) summarize research findings on employee response to tech- nological change. The most detailed reports of the two insurance company studies are found in the doctoral dissertations of Don Trumbo (1958), John Nangle (1961), and Gloria Cheek Kamenske (1965). Trumbo reported on a number of factors related to attitudes toward change. He described a change scale index, and reported relationships between favorable attitudes toward change and other employee characteristics. Nangle investigated the effects of intra-organizational. communications and the reSponse to them on attitudes to- ward change. Gloria Cheek Kamenske's main concern was with the personality variables involved in attitudes toward change. Specifically she dealt with anxiety and dogmatism measures as they related to change factors. Several other investigations of aspects of employee reSponse to change were reported by one or more of the 32 research team.members. Included in.Appendix A is a bib- liography of the research articles originating from this data. Sample This study will use only the data from the investi- gation of the second insurance company. Supervisors who have three or more employees reporting to them are in- cluded in the analysis. The study pOpulation consists of twenty-five supervisors and 15h employees. Work groups of employees reporting to one supervisor have from three to sixteem.members. Definition of Leadership Style Index of Leadership Style In the survey of the insurance companies the ques- tionnaires for both supervisory and nonsupervisory person- nel were identical except for the set of questions on supervisory style. This set of questions was matched with the supervisors reporting about their own way of hand- ling different situations, and the employees reporting on how their supervisor handled the same type of situa- tionu The fcur basic styles which Nelson describes are the bureaucratic, the autocratic, the idiocratic, and the democratic. According to Nelson the basic dimension underlying these leadership styles is the communication pattern which the supervisor develOps with his subordinates. The bureaucratic leader attempts to avoid all communication 33 and contact with his subordinates. He is rule-centered and develops only official relationships, emphasizing loyalty to himself and the company. The autocratic leader has one—way communication with his subordinates based upon his own technical knowledge and skills. His self-centeredness is expressed through his repetitious, detailed criticisms of the subordinates and his expectations for their blind obedience to his every directive. A two-way communication exists between the idiocratic supervisor and his subordinates, but only in so far as it allows the supervisor to manipulate employee interest and motivation. This type of supervisor tries to develOp ambition within the individual worker and competition among the workers through a diplomatic distribution of individual rewards and punishments. The development of the group is the prime consideration of a democratic supervisor. He integrates his subordinates into a cooperative team through close, frequent, and sincere two-way communication. Nelson's Leadership Inventory was converted into a multiple choice format to measure the supervisor's percep- tions of their own supervisory style. The employees' per- ceptions of their supervisor’s leadership style was measured by a scale which is complementary to the supervisor scale. Both were constructed by Trumbo (1958). .The original survey instrument contained twenty-five Nelson type leadership questions for the supervisors and 3’4 twenty questions for the employees. In order to make com- parative statements about the supervisors! leadership style from the point of view of both the supervisor and the subor- dinate, only those items with identical stems for both groups were used in this analysis. This reduced the set of questions to ten. Each item.was designed to produce infor- mation about characteristic ways of dealing with a different situation or problem.in leadership practice. The situations included problems of getting out the production, supervisor development, type of employee to hire, method of reorganiz- ing departmental work, maintenance of discipline, basis for ratings and promotion of an employee, handling of employee suggestions, training a new employee, means of disseminat- ing orders and information, and selection of supervisors. For each of the ten questions the supervisor or employee was presented with four alternatives, each alternative representing one of Nelson's four styles (see Appendix B). Responses in each category were tallied and a distribution of the sums of the ten responses across the four alterna- tives was defined as the index of leadership style. For instance, supervisor number two listed no bureaucratic responses, two autocratic, and four idiocratic and demo- cratic responses each. Supervisor number eleven gave three bureaucratic responses, two autocratic, two idiocratic, and three democratic responses. 35 Length of Time With The Company This was a single item index. Each respondent was asked, "when were you hired by (name of company)?" The year in which they were hired was used as the measure of the length of time that each person had been employed by the company. Length of Time With The Supervisor A single item was used to determine the length of time anyone worked under a particular supervisor. The specific question asked was "how long has this person been your supervisor?" In the question preceding this one the re- spondent was asked to name the person to whom.they reported directly. General Job Satisfaction This was one of two measures of job satisfaction. General job satisfaction is a measure of a person's overall satisfaction with the job. The index is based on the answer to the question "Taking everything into account, how satis- fied are you with your job?" §p_ecific Job Satisfaction The second measure of job satisfaction was obtained 1flxrough the summation of answers to questions about four- teen aspects of job satisfaction. Aspects of the Job in- 01l1ded.in this index are listed in Table I. 36 TABLE I Specific Job Satisfaction Index ” _——_: Attitude Object Specific Aspects Job 1. Variety in the work. 2. Degree of interest of job. 3. Amount of work. A. Accuracy demanded. 5. Control over work pace. 6. Skill needed. 7. Planning necessary. 8. Responsibility demanded. 9. Judgment needed. 10. Importance to the company. Supervision 11. Amount of supervision. Security 12. Security felt in the Job. Reward 13. Amount of pay. 14. Chance for promotion. Satisfaction'With The Supervisor Satisfaction with the supervisor is a two item index based on the questions "How do you feel about the relation- ship between you and your supervisor?" and “How do you feel about the way your supervisor handles his (her) job?" Re- sponses to both questions are summed as an indicator of satisfaction with supervisor. All of the satisfaction items used in this study were Likert style items with alternatives ranging from."com- pletely satisfied" to "not satisfied." The entire set of items described in this chapter from.the questionnaire used in the second insurance company study can be found in Appen- dix B. CHAPTER IV Comparison of Supervisors and Employees on Leadership Style Index The Nelson Index of leadership style is a measure of four ways in.which an industrial supervisor can interact with his subordinates. A brief summary of each of these styles is that the bureaucratic leader relies upon the rules and formal structure of the organization to lead his work group; the autocratic leader directs the situation on the basis of his own ability and technical knowledge; the idiocratic leader manipulates the workers through.his own pleasant personality and knowledge of people; and the demo- cratic leader attempts to develop the workers into a cohe- sive and participative unit. Characteristics of the Index itself and the response patterns of the supervisors and the employees are described in this chapter. Two methods have been used for scoring this Index. Nelson (l9h9) administered his Index to a group of foremen in.the form of paried comparisons. Each item could be scored from O to 3, since each was compared three times. There were twenty-one problem.areas, giving a highest pos- sible score of sixty-three. The range of scores obtained in the study from.a possible 0 to 63 are shown in Table II. 37 38 TABLE II Range of Scores (Nelson) (N = 220) fJ 1 $2M Bureaucratic 9 - 38 Autocratic 18 - 50 Idiocratic l9 - 52 Democratic 18 - 52 a,‘-5-~—I -. ... . ..n._ ._.__. Trumbo (1958) did not use the same format in his adap- tation of the Nelson Index for use in a medium.sized insur- ance company. Instead of paried comparisons, he presented the four styles as multiple choice alternatives in a set of twenty-five hypothetical leadership situations, and asked a group of supervisors to select preferred alternatives. Trumbo constructed a similar twenty item.scale to measure employee perceptions of their own supervisor's style. On both scales Trumbo's scoring system.assigned one point for each itemi His theoretical range of scores was 0 to 25 for supervisors, and O to 20 for the employees. The range of scores for each style appears in Table III. The Trumbo adaptation of the Nelson Index was used in 1958 in a study of a second insurance company conducted by Hardin, Trumbo, Nangle, and Cheek. It is reported in this monograph, but only those questions with identical stems for both supervisors and employees were tabulated for 39 TABLE III Range of Scores (Trumbo) - m Supervisors (N : M6) Employees (N :223) (0-25) (0-20) Bureaucratic 0-10 0-12 Autocratic 1-12 0-15 Idiocratic 3-16 0- 9 Democratic 2-15 O-lh this analysis. This author found a range of responses in the second insurance company that is similar to the range Trumbo found in his study (see Table IV). TABLE IV Range of Scores (Heinen) fi wk ——_—_f—;_" m Supervisors (N 525) Employee (N 815k) (0-10) (0-10) Bureaucratic 0-3 0-5 Autocratic 0-5 0-8 Idiocratic 1-7 0-6 Democratic 1-6 0-7 The distribution of responses, as evidenced by the mean number of responses per category (see Tables V and VI), across all three studies are basically the same for no the three supervisory groups and also for the two employee groups. There are two minor differences. First, Nelson’s supervisors did not give as much weight proportionately to the idiocratic category as did Trumbo's and Heinen's group of supervisors. There are also some differences in the proportionate weighting of the categories by the ems ployee groups. TABLE V Kean Supervisor‘s Response to Each Leadership Category i;— m t m Nelson (N I 220) Trumbo (N - E6) Heinen (N = 25) h B 23.72 u.ou 1.16 I 33.u9 7.65 3.56 D 3h.5h 8.52 3.12 TABLE VI Mean Employee's Response to Each Leadership Category .. --._., - Trumbo (N = 223) Heinen (N = 15h) B n.7o 2.07 A 5.68 2.55 I 2.92 2.15 D 6.39 3.01 111‘ In examining the difference between the mean response of the supervisors and employees (Table VII) both the Trumbo and Heinen studies show that the supervisors give a higher mean response for the idiocratic and democratic categories than do the employees; whereas, the employees give a higher mean response for the bureaucratic and autocratic categories than do the supervisors. TABLE VII Difference in.Mean Responses of Supervisors and Employees to Each Leadership Category W Trumbo Heinen Sup Emp Dif Sup Emp _b—‘ Dif ‘— ‘N : h6 ‘ N z 223 N = 25 N x 15h B n.0h h.70 -.66 1.16 2.07 -.91 A k.78 5.68 -.90 1.96 2.55 -.59 I 7.65 2.92 u.73 3.56 2.15 1.k1 D 8.52 6.39 1.13 3.12 3.01 .11 The three studies indicate that a similar pattern of supervisory style, as perceived by the supervisor and by the employees, can be obtained using two forms of the Nelson Index in three different work settings. Two other kinds of information are offered by Nelson and Trumbo about the characteristics of this index. Nelson computed test-retest coefficients on his data and found correlations of .83 for the bureaucratic category, .67 for the autocratic category, .61 for the idiocratic category A2 and .69 for the democratic category. Trumbo, on the other hand, correlated item scores with total scores. For the supervisors, he divided the sample at the median on the basis of scores on a particular scale, and compared propor- tions of upper and lower groups selecting scale alterna- tives to each item. ‘Within the supervisor's index the items were consistent with each of the subscales with three exceptions. For the employee group,methods and tables developed by Flanagan (1939) and Kelley (1939) were em- ployed to obtain an estimate of the itemetotal score cor- relation. This method uses respondents in the upper 27% and lower 27% of the total score distribution and compares the proportion of correct responses to each item. Again, three items failed to correlate positively with the total score. From.these analyses Trumbo concludes that there is evidence that for most items, the alternatives are mean- ingfully related to the leadership patterns which they were designed to reflect. As mentioned in the theoretical section of this mono- graph, leadership style is not static. It is assumed that the style of supervision a person employs can vary from situation to situation. When Trumbo adapted the Nelson Index to allow the respondent to choose from.among four alternative responses to leadership situations, he con- structed a set of items that were intended to illustrate a wide variety of situations. For instance, in the employee questionnaire, two of the items are: 11.3 1. If I suggested an improvement in the section, my supervisor would be most apt to l. Urge me to send it directly to the Operating Committee. 2. Urge me to talk it over with the others for their comments. 3. Ask to have time to go over it before he makes any comments. A. Go over it with me; point out that this is the way to get ahead. On this item a choice of "1" response would be coded as indicating a preference for the bureaucratic style, a choice of "2" would indicate a preference for the demo- cratic style, a choice of "3" would indicate a preference for the autocratic style, and a choice of "h" would indicate a preference for the idiocratic style. 2. My supervisor attempts to maintain discipline by l. Letting each employee be responsible for his own conduct once he knows the rules. 2. Helping employees work out a common standard of action based on the rules. 3. Taking direct personal action against serious violators of the rules. A. Treating all employees alike and according to the rules. On this item a choice of "1" would be coded as indicat- ing a preference for the idiocratic style, a choice of "2" would indicate a preference for the democratic style, a choice of "3" a preference for the autocratic style, and a choice of "h" a preference for the bureaucratic style. Similarly, each of the items suggests to the reSpon- dent a different situational context in which the four styles of leadership might be used. When the respondent is presented with tem items like these, one possibility is that the respondent will be con- sistent from item to item, in the sense that he will choose L111 that alternative that always refers to one style. A re- spondent, for instance, could consistently check the alter- native c:ded "bureaucratic" on all ten items. Table VIII indicates the extent to which.the respon- dents were consistent from situation to situation, that is from.item.to item. A Kuder-Richardson correlation coef- ficient estimate of reliability was used to determine the internal consistency. The low correlation coefficients indicate that each item.is measuring separate aspects of leadership style. The Kuder-Richardson estimate would approach 1.0 if an employee Who selected a bureaucratic response on one item would consistently choose a bureau- cratic response on the other items and if another employee who did not select a bureaucratic response on one item would not choose a bureaucratic response on the other. If, on the other hand, an employee who selected a bureau- cratic response on one item would be equally likely to choose any of the four leadership style responses on the other items, the Kuder-Richardson coefficient value would approach a value of .00. The latter is what appears to be the case. Table VIII shows no strong tendency for supervi- sors or employees to be consistent in selecting one kind of alternative as they considered the ten.hypothetical leader- ship situations. However, bcth the supervisory group and the employee group are consistent in their response of leadership style to any single situation. The Kuder-Richardson correlation AS coefficients of subject consistency (Table IX) reveal that each supervisor or employee has a strong tendency to re« spond in the same way to a particular situation as every other supervisor or every other employee. A common pattern of responding to each situation is established within these two groups. TABLE VIII KudernRichardson Cor the Consistenc elation Coefficients of C y r the Ten Items —* ‘— :- B A I D Supervisor (N 3 25) -.05 .09 .19 .30 Employees (N a 154) .O9 .34 -.O7 .39 TABLE IX KudernRichardson Correlation Coefficients of the Consistency of Subjects in Each Situation B A I D Supervisor (N = 25) .77s .87* .58* .83* Employees (N = 15A) .89* .96* .95s .91s *p <: .01 These three sets of data demonstrate the feasibility of using the pattern of responses to the Nelson Index to describe the supervisor=s and employee’s perceptions of leadership style. First, the similarity among the three 116 studies in.the distribution of responses across the total index indicates the consistency of response that has been obtained at separate times in different populations and with different forms of the Nelson Index. Secondly, the large test-retest coefficients that Nelson obtained and the large item.to total score corre- lations that Trumbo obtained, when combined with the first set of data, give additional credence to the notion that the Nelson Index is internally consistent. The third set of data suggest that it is theoretically sound to describe leadership style in terms of the total pattern of responses to the entire Nelson Index. The Kuder- Richardson correlation coefficients of Table VIII show that each person describes leadership style as a composite of several characteristic responses to different situations. The Kuder—Richardson correlation coefficients of Table IX show that most of the supervisors and.most of the employees respond to any one situation in the same way. These three analyses provide evidence about the con- sistency and complexity of the data derived from using the Nelson.Index. All three forms of evidence suggest the use- fulness of further analyses of leadership style based on the Nelson Index and in.particular, analyses of agreement between the perceptions of the supervisor and the employees who report to him. In terms of leadership style it has already been stated that the response pattern of the supervisors is different #7 from that of the employees. The supervisors seem to prefer the idiocratic and democratic categories over the autocratic and bureaucratic. The employees seem.to prefer the auto- cratic and democratic categories, although it is in the autocratic and bureaucratic categories that they give a higher number of responses than do the supervisors. (See Tables V, VI, and VII.) The employee's mean number of responses in the democratic category is 3.01 and in the autocratic categzry it is 2.55, whereas, their mean number of responses in the idiocratic category is 2.15 and in the bureaucratic category it is 2.07. But their mean.number of reSponses in the bureaucratic category is .91 higher than the supervis2rs' 1.16 mean bureaucratic response. The employees' mean autocratic response is .59 higher than the supervisors? mean autocratic response of 1.96. When a supervisor‘s responses on.the leadership style index are compared with the responses on the leadership style index of employees who report to him, a different pattern of consistency is revealed. By correlating the supervisor‘s number of responses in each of the categories of leadership style with the average number cf responses in each of the categories for the supervisor's entire work group, a measure of the degree of correspondence is obtained (see Table X). For example, one supervisor's bureaucratic score is O and his work group's average bureaucratic score is 2. His autocratic score is 2 and his work group‘s aver- age score is 4.71. The supervisor's idiocratic score and #8 and democratic score are both A, while his work group's idiocratic score is 1.29 and the group‘s democratic score is 1.86. There is not a significant degree of correspon- dence or agreement between the supervisor and the employees in their description of the supervisor's leadership style. However, within the supervisory group and within the emw ployee group, the responses are highly consistent. Certain normative within group patterns about supervisory role behavior appear to have developed in this organization. There also seems to be a difference in these normative patterns for supervisory personnel and nonpsupervisory personnel. TABLE X Correlation* Between the Supervisor and.His Employee Work Group on.Nelson Leadership Style Index. it” W N=25 Bureaucratic -.22 Autocratic .13 Idiocratic .06 Democratic .08 *Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient The preceding data suggested further analysis of both leadership style and the agreement of the supervisor and employee on their perceptions of leadership style. First, an attempt was made to classify the respondents on the basis of preferred styles of leadership. Most research to 1+9 date has classified supervisors on the basis of ”pure“ types of the basic styles described by Nelson. In this study, supervisors will be classified according to the distribution of their responses to the Nelson Index, resulting in "mixed" as well as "pure“ types. Two separate classification schemes were devised, one based upon.the supervisor3s perception of his own leadership style and the other based upon the employee1s perception of the superviscr3s style. . Supervisor's responses were classified into five types. Two are "pure" types, idiocratic and democratic, each of which contains five or more responses in.the identifying category and three or less in every other category. For example, supervisor Olk'would be a demo- cratic supervisor because he has five responses in the democratic category, two in the idiocratic, three in the autocratic, and zero in the bureaucratic. The two "mixed" styles, democratic-idiocratic and idiocratic-autocratic, contain a four/four distribution or a four/three distribu- tion in the two major categories with two or less in the other two. The fifth style of supervision is a combination of all four, or a "thoroughly mixed" style in Which the supervisor reports two and three responses in each cate- gory. The number of supervisors assigned to each cate- gory is: Style Number of Supervisors Idiocratic (I) 7 Democratic-Idiocratic (D&I) 6 Democratic (D) 5 so Bureaucratic-Autocratic- Idiocratic-Democratic (BAID) Idiocratianutocratic (1&A) mI \n our: TOTAL See Appendix E for a listing of the supervisors in each category and their response patterns. Since there were more employees, the classification scheme for the employees was more elaborate, although the same basic operations were followed to assign employees to the types of leadership style. For the democratic, auto- cratic, and bureaucratic "pure" types, the identifying categories have four or more responses and at least two more than the other categories. Among the employees there existed no "pure" type of the idiocratic style. Six styles mix two or more categories: bureaucratic-autocratic, bureaucratic-idiocratic, bureaucraticndemocratic, autocratic-idiocratic, autocratic-democratic, and idiocratic-democratic. Each of these styles contains at least three or four responses in the identifying categories and two or less in the other two. Two styles have responses equally distributed in three categories and none in the fourth. These are the bureaucratic—autooratic-democratic style and the bureaucratic-idiocratic-democratic style. The remaining style is the combination of all four or thoroughly mixed style in which responses are distributed equally across all four categories. The number of employees in each style grouping is: Democratic (D) Autocratic (A) Bureaucratic Bureaucratic Bureaucratic Bureaucratic Autocratic & Autocratic & Idiocratic & Bureaucratic Bureaucratic Bureaucratic 51 Democratic (BAID) Style Number of Employees 30 21 (B) 9 & Autocratic (BA; 11 & Idiocratic BI 7 & Democratic (BD) 7 Idiocratic (AI) u Democratic (AD) 8 Democratic (ID) 1h Autocratic Democratic (BAD) u Idiocratic Democratic (BID) 6 Autocratic Idiocratic 26 TOTAL 1737 See Appendix F for a listing of the employees in each category and their response patterns. measure his agreement with his supervisor. A difference score was computed for each employee to The score was obtained through the following formula: = Villas -3421“, -Ael2|:s - slats - Deli] Dife Bs As Is Ds Be Ae Ie De Difference Difference supervisor the number score of employee. between the number of responses the lists in the bureaucratic category and of responses the employee lists in the bureaucratic category. Difference supervisor the number autocratic Difference supervisor the number idiocratic Difference supervisor the number between the number of responses the lists in the autocratic category and of responses the employee lists in the category. between the number of responses the lists in the idiocratic category and of responses the employee lists in the category. between the number of responses the lists in the democratic category and of responses the employee lists in the democratic category. This score for each employee was correlated with the length of time the employee had been with the company and the 52 length of time he had worked under his present supervisor. The correlation between the employee's difference score and his length of time with the company was .00, and the cor» relation between the employee’s difference score and his length of time with the supervisor was .04. Within the total group of supervisors and employees there is little agreement on perceptions of leadership style. This is related to the distinctly different pat— terns of responding to questions about leadership style that the supervisors and employees use. With the differ- ence score, one can order employees on the amount of agree- ment that does exist between the employee and his own supervisor. Three different methods of indexing agreement have been used. First, employees were matched with their own supervisors and a degree of agreement was obtained for each actual work group (AWG). Then these groups were com- pared. Second, the supervisors were grouped on the basis of their reported leadership styles (Supper LS) and the employees under each group of supervisors were compared. Third, employees were grouped on the basis of their per- ceptions of leadership style (Emp ) and the groups per LS were compared. For all three indices of agreement a one- way analysis of variance was performed on the data. Even though the total set of employees showed little agreement between supervisors and employees, the analysis of the difference scores in the actual work groups did show a range of agreement between supervisors and employees. 53 Table XI shows the mean and variances for each of the actual work groups and Table XII is the analysis of variance table. The significant F test indicates that there were some actual (work groups with a high degree of agreement between the sup- ervisor and employees and others with little agreement. By inspecting Table XI one observes that there is high agreement in work groups 31 and 63, but very little agreement in work“ group 5. This table also shows differences in variance among the groups as well as mean differences. Snedecor (1958) has devised a correction formula for a one-way analy- sis of variance test with unequal variances. In this case the Snedecor correction shows that the corrected F value would actually be much larger. We will therefore report the more conservative value. TABLE XI Means and Variances of Difference Scores of Employees in Actual Work Groups __ Group N Mean Variance Group N Mean Variance 002 7 .51 .0027 026 3 .38 .0242 003 3 .31 .030u 027 12 .MA. .0255 00k 13 .us .0169 031 3 .17 .0153 - 005 7 .70 .0066 032 12 .32 .01u2 006 5 .k2 .0287 051 3 .30 .0012 008 3 .56 .0068 052 15 , .hl .0166 ' 010 5 .AA .0098 053 10 .h9 .0095 011 7 .35 .0128 056 h .33 .0051 01k u .33 .0210 059 5 .hh .0191 017 6 .58 .0188 061 3 .39 .0181 020 7 .A6 .021 063 6 .20 .00u0 022 3 .5h .016 06k 3 .32 .0118 025 S .39 .0101 5h TABLE XII One-way Analysis of Variance of Difference Scores of Employees in.Actual'Work Groups Source SS df MS F p Treatment 1.79 2h .07hh n.20 <<:.001 (Work Groups) Error 2.29 129 .0177 Both the SupperLS and EmPperLs analysis of agreement indicates that the style of leadership perceived has a definite relationship to the degree of agreement between the supervisor and his subordinate. Table XIII shows the mean and variance difference scores in the groups of ems ployees under the different leadership styles perceived by the supervisors. TABLE XIII Means and Variances of Difference Scores of Employees in Groups Based Upon Supervisors' Perception of Leadership Style Style N Mean Variance D 20 .3475 .0298 I & A 22 .3609 .0170 BAID 26 .3907 .0252 I a D ' 33 .u287 .0215 I ' 51 .h776 .02h8 55 A significant difference between the means (Table XIV) was obtained through the use of analysis of variance. TABLE XIV 0ne-way.Analysis of Variance of Difference Scores of EmployeesiilGroups Based on Supervisors' Perception of Leadership Style Source SS df MS F p Treatment .37 h .0938 3.8M. <:.01 SupperLs Error 3.59 1A7 .02hh Under each basic leadership style group there are several supervisors and their respective work groups. In examining the difference between the means reported one must note that there were also significant differences among the different employee groups reporting to those supervisors who perceived themselves as a BAID type or an I type. For the groups based upon the employee's perception of leadership style, large differences in the difference scores were obtained (see Tables XV and XVI). In examining Table XV, based on employee responses, one discovers three aspects of the data that account for the relationship between dif- ference scores and style groups. Those style; that fall in the tOp third on agreement are the styles in which the em- ployee perceives his supervisor to have some idiocratic characteristics. The styles in the middle third do not 56 contain any idiocratic characteristics, but do contain democratic properties. The bottom third of the styles contain neither democratic nor idiocratic features. TABLE XV Means and Variances of Difference Scores of Employees Perceiving Themselves Under Various Leadership Styles Style N Mean Variance A a I A .21 .0003 BAID 26 .30 .012k I a D 14 .33 .01u0 B a I 7 .36 .00 8 A & D 7 .39 .02 A BID 6 .hl .0052 D 30 .A2 .0263 B a D 7 .AS .0139 BAD k .52 .0285 B a A 11 .53 .0085 A 22 .5 .0185 B 9 .5 .0130 TABLE XVI One—way Analysis of Variance of Difference Scores of Employees in Groups Based on Employees' Perception of Leadership Style Source SS df MS F p Treatment l.uu 11 .1306 7.38 <::.001 EmPperLs Error 2.u0 135 .0177 57 The evidence in this chapter suggests that the super- visor's role behavior is perceived quite differently by supervisors and by subordinates. The three methods of analysing agreement indicate there are some groups which have very high agreement between supervisor and subordi- nate and others with very low agreement between supervisor and subordinate. CHAPTER V Relation of Satisfaction.Measures to Leadership Style and to Agreement between Supervisor and Subordinate The effect of supervisory role behavior on employee satisfaction has often been an interest of psychologists. It has been proposed here that the supervisor's role be- havior serves as cues for the employee as to how he is to act. The use of these leadership styles or cues may have an effect on an employee's satisfaction with the job and especially satisfaction with his supervisor. However, it has previously been shown that the supervisor's role be- havior is reported differently by supervisors and subor- dinates. An initial attempt to evaluate the influences of the supervisor's reported role behavior on employee satis- faction as opposed to the effects of the employee's per- ception of that role behavior on employee satisfaction will be examined in this chapter. Three measures of satisfaction are being used in this study. Job satisfaction is measured in two ways. The first is a measure of the overall feeling of satisfaction that the individual has with his job. The second, is a composite index of responses to fourteen specific aspects of the job. Satisfaction with the supervisor is the third type of satis~ faction measured. Each of these three types of satisfaction 58 59 will be analysed in terms of relationships with leadership style and the difference score. For all three measures of satisfaction and the difference score, a low score reflects a positive statement and a high score reflects a less posi- tive statement. The relationships to be investigated are diagrammed in Figure 2. An explanation of each relationship appears below. supper Fig. 2. Diagram of Relationship Between Leadership Style, Agreement,and Satisfaction. The relationships are correlations between: (1) (2) (3) The supervisor's perception of his own leadership style, and the employee's job satisfaction, and satisfaction with his supervisor. The employee's perception of his own supervisor's leadership style and the employee's job satisfac- tion and satisfaction with his supervisor. The relationship in (2) should be much stronger than the relationship in (l). The degree of agreement between the supervisor and the employee on their perceptions of the super- visor's leadership style and employee's job satis- faction and satisfaction with his supervisor. 60 Although the arrows within the diagram indicate direction of the effects, this study will attempt to establish only the existence or non-existence of the relationship. Em loyee Satisfaction as a Function 0 _Leader§hip Style as Perceived7by the Supervisor The employee's general job satisfaction and his spe- cific job satisfaction appear to be related to the leader- ship style perceived by the supervisor (see Tables XVII and XVIII). TABLE XVII Employee's General Job Satisfaction as a Function of the Leadership Style as Perceived by the Supervisor One-way Analysis of Variance Source SS df MS F p Treatment 14.37 4 3.59 2.79 <:.05 supperLs Error 191.89 149 1.29 TABLE XVIII Employee's Specific Job Satisfaction as a Function of the Leadership Style as Perceived by the Supervisor ‘1 fl One-way Analysis of Variance Source SS df MS F p Treatment 1136.22 4 248.06 2.48 <505 supperLs Error 16809.98 147 114.35 61 However, in examining Table XIX of means and variances for both measures of job satisfaction, one again discovers a lack of homogeneity of variance. Applying Snedecor's (1958) formula to these data, the F value depreciates slightly. It appears that employee job satisfaction is only somewhat related to the leadership style that the sup-” ervisor perceives. TABLE XIX Means and Variances of Job Satisfaction as a Function of the Leadership Style Perceived by the Supervisor* General Job Satisfaction Specific Job Satisfaction Group N Mean Variance Group N Mean Variance D 20 2.05 .75 I-A 22 32.91 171.81 I-A 22 2.14 1.03 D 20 33.40 126.04 IaD 33 2.33 1.43 I-D 33 37.91 98.03 I 53 2.57 1.34 BAID 25 38.12 81.63 BAID 26 3.00 1.38 I 52 40.00 100.65 *In this table and all subsequent tables of satisfaction scores, a low score represents high satisfaction and a high score represents low satisfaction. The leadership style that a supervisor perceives does seem to be related to the extent to Which an employee is satisfied with his supervisor (see Tables XX and XXI). In this case, the correction for the heterogeneity of variances does not change the interpretation of the relationship. 62 TABLE XX Means and Variances of Employee Satisfaction with the Supervisor as a Function of the Leadership Style Perceived by the Supervisor Group N Mean Variance I-A 22 3.59 4.51 D 20 4.10 5.09 I-D 33 4.51 4.92 I 53 5.45 6.78 BAID 26 5.61 4.62 TABLE XXI Employee Satisfaction with the Supervisor as a Function of the Style of Supervision Perceived by the Supervisor One-way Analysis of Variance Source SS df MS F p Treatment 84.29 4 21.07 3.73 <:.01 SupperLS Error 842.65 149 5.65 However, a note of caution must be extended to the reader in interpreting the differences between the means of the various groups. Within groups of supervisors who per- ceive their leadership style as either I or I-D, there are significant differences in employee satisfaction with the supervisor. 63 Both Tables XIX and XX indicate that employee satis- faction across all measures is highest when the supervisor perceives his leadership style to be idiocratic~autocratic or democratic. Employee satisfaction is lowest when the supervisor perceives his leadership style to be bureaucratic-autocratic-idiocratic-democratic or simply idiocratic. Idiocratic-democratic style is associated with intermediate levels of employee satisfaction. Leadership Style Perceived by the Employee When the employees are grouped on the basis of the leadership style that they perceive in their supervisor there are significant differences among the perceived leadership styles and employee's general job satisfaction (Table XXIII), the employee's specific job satisfaction (Table XXIV), and the employee's satisfaction with the supervisor (Table XXV). In Table XXII the mean, variance, and rank of the means is presented for all theee measures of satisfaction, In order to compare the effects of the leadership style perceived by the employees on all three measures of employee satisfaction, a Spearman rank order correlation was computed among the three ranks of mean satisfaction. The Spearman correlation between general job satisfaction and specific job satisfaction is .93, the correlation betWeen general job satisfaction and satis— faction with the supervisor is .91, and the correlation between specific job satisfaction and satisfaction with the 64 supervisor is .90. All three rank order correlations are significantly different from.zero at the .01 level. TABLE XXII Means, Variances, and Ranks of Means of Employee Satisfaction for Groups based upon Leadership Style Perceived by the Employee General Specific Satisfaction Job Job with Satisfaction Satisfaction Supervis r Rank Rank Rank Group N of Mean Var. of Mean Var. of Mean Var. Mean Mean Mean D 30 1 1.83 .87 3 34.07 95.33 1 3.40 4.04 I—D 14 5 2.36 1.09 4 34.36 108.23 2.5 3.50 3.39 BAD LL 3 2000 050 5 314.050 65025 L]— 3075 2019 BID 6 3 2.00 .80 1 25.83 57.81 2.5 3.50 2.58 BAID 26 7 2.54 1.02 8 39.20 115.04 7 4.92 4.84 BBI 7 3 2000 086 2 28.71 13300? 5 ”.028 2.77 A-I 4 6 2.50 2.25 6 35.50 32.75 8.5 5.00 1.50 BnD 7 8 2.71 .49 7 38.86 96.12 6 4.57 4. AnD 7 10 3.00 1.14 9 41.71 132.78 8.5 5.00 4.86 BeA 11 11 3.18 1.42 12 44.18 55.24 11 6.54 4.98 A 22 9 2.77 1.63 10 42.19 64.35 10 6.36 6.32 B 9 12 3.33 1.55 11 42.33 106.45 12 6.67 8.67 TABLE XXIII Emplovee General Job Satisfaction as a Functi;n of the Supervisoris Leadership Style Perceived by the Employee Oneuway Analysis of Variance Source SS df MS F p Treatment 32.6671 11 2.9697 2.40 'Ho>cH muouomm meow mo Homo: HmofluonooLB m .m .mHm oH\\\-I.IIw.IIIqu muoucmm Ilsa IIIIIII III, e x ..g: ‘\ >uw snowmen , .// N\ F\ v H m /2 M _ Imuwuowm, N Mumnpmwm (A commameo _ t1 names " m.H0mH>Homom m mo coflumoonom _ oamum oH>um m.mw>onEm .w “ HOmH> mahpm " luomsm Hmopfl QHSmHopmoq mflnmuopmoq QHSmHo 4V . m.mo>oHQEw upmoa m.uom mo :oflpmmouwm Op On Ifl>Homsm mo mmoo m.uom..n>uomom .v . mcoflummoumm .m.A§m Hofl>mnmn omsommom omcommom oaou mos camum toa>pm 0H0“ coonm m.uomH> .ficmm , new one mo Hmuofl>msom Hmuofi>m5om luomsm How \7 .mflflmuopmoq QHSmuopooA moofiumoonmm .m noncommum .N " oaon cohonEo Hospo< po>Honom maou " Hmouofi po>floonwm Mom noncommum .m :30 was How . _ each :30 was mpHMpGMum .H o How monopomum .H Hofl>mnom Hofl>mamm Hofi>maom oHom “ Hofl>mnom Hofl>mncm How>mnmm maom Hmsuom oHom po>floouom mo muamcHEHoqu m floored mach po>floouom mo mucmafiEHoucn cohonEm " Homfl>uomsm 7 H x x \v , a \ \ \ m / mucuomm \\.\. m Hmsoflumwflammuo 101 own leadership style. All four factors in this relationship have to be weighted by a factor of importance in order to more accurately determine the leadership style of the super» visor. For any one supervisor a particular component may not influence his use of a particular leadership style. One com” mon example of this sort of behavior is the archetype of the Theory X manager (McGregor, 1960). This type of supervisor starts with certain assumptions about the supervisory role and the employee role and ignores employee behaviors. The role behavior of the supervisor can be considered from two perspectives. The first is his role behavior as he perceived it. The second is his role behavior as observed by some other person. Self-perceived role behavior and role be- havior as observed by another person may or may not corre- spond. The degree of correspondence between the two depends in part upon the ability of the supervisor to report his own behavior accurately and the norms, values, and abilities of the person observing the supervisor's behaviors. The more nearly the norms and values of the observer correspond to those of the supervisor, the greater the degree of correspon» dence likely in their reports of the supervisor's behavior. The employee's role behavior is determined by a similar set of components. The standards the employee has for his own P016 are one component determining his role behavior. These standards are the basis for his conceptualization of what his own role in the organization is. .Another factor is his standards for the supervisor's role. These are eXpres- sions of how the employee thinks a supervisor should act. 102 Parallel to this component is the employee's perceptions of what the supervisor's leadership style actually is. These perceptions serve as the employee's representation of the supervisor's leadership style. The final component is the employee's perceptions of what his supervisor thinks the ideal employee should be like. This is the employee's per- ception of the supervisor's set of expectations for his employee role. These four factors combine with other fac- tors to produce the employee's behavioral response to the supervisor‘s leadership style. Again each factor’must be weighted by its importance to the employee. The role behavior of the employee may also be consid- ered from two prospectives. The first is the employee's role behavior as he himself perceives it and the second is his role behavior as observed by some other person. The degree of correspondence between.the two is dependent in part upon the ability of the employee to report his own behavior accurately and the norms, values and abilities of the person observing the employee's behavior. The more the norms and values of the observer correspond to those of the employee, the greater the degree of correspondence likely in.their reports of the employee's behavior. Arrows l and 2 represent similar functions at different points in the role relationship. Arrow 1 represents the role sending process of the supervisory role. It is the behavior of the supervisor directed toward the employee. This arrow indicates an interaction of all three stages of the supervisory role with the three stages of 103 the employee role in the influence process. Arrow 2 is a feedback loop. It is the employee's response to the supera visor's sent role. This arrow also indicates an interac- tion of all three role aspects between both members of the role relationship. Blocks A and B are enduring states of the organization and person which affect the leadership process. Each one can and does modify the process at different points in time. Organizational factors have a major influence on the leadership process. Within each organization there exists a set of expectations regarding the roles of both supervi- sors and.employees. The organizational structure, func- tional specialization, and division of labor are other po- tent factors. Arrows 3 and 5 represent similar effects upon the leadership process. .Arrow 3 reminds us that organu izational factors have an effect on the supervisor's detera minants of his role behavior. ‘Arrow 5 represents these same effects on the employee's determinants of his role behavior. The organizational effects on the role person's cognitions are both direct and indirect. For both the super- visor and the employee there exist a set of eXpectations held by the organization for their respective roles. Also their respective positions.within the organizational struc- ture can.have explicit effect upon the manner in which they integrate their four determinants of role behavior and the inportance they attach to them, Organizational norms and structure may or may not be considered in the person's defi- nition of his role behavior. 10h Arrow n represents the effect of the organizational factors on the interaction between the supervisor and sub: ordinate. Since the feedback process is the converse of this relationshipg Arrow h refers to this interaction also. In both cases organizational norms and organizational structure dictate the manner and form of these interactions. Personality factors are the person's enduring predis- positions to respond in particular ways. Arrows 6 and 9 refer to ways in which.personality affects a person's defi- nition of his own role and his perception of others! roles. In both of these cases it is the person's perception of his own personality that is influencing his determinants of role behavior. The person.may be inaccurate in.his estimation of his personality, but it is this estimate which affects his ideals and perceptions of his own and others role behavior. Arrows 7 and 109 on the other hand, refer to the effects of personality'cn the individual's behavior. In all cases the person's perceived role behavior is molded or tempered by the personality of the individual. The more accurate a per- son is in estimating his personality in the determination of his role behavior the more likely his actual role behavior will.correspond to his self-perceived role behavior. For example” a high authoritarian supervisor who insists he is a democratic supervisor will not appear to either an outside observer or his employees as a truly democratic supervisor. Arrow 8 represents the effect of the personality of the supn ervisor and that of the employee on the role sending and 105 feedback process. The interaction of the two different per- sonalities affects the way messages and behaviors are trans- mitted by the supervisor and by the employees. This model is an initial attempt to integrate super- visornsubordinate role relationship with the organizational system. Each aspect of the model requires the development of well defined measurement procedures and every component needs to be tested empirically. BIBLIOGRAPHY Albrook, R. C. "Participative management: time for a second look," Fortune. May, 1967, pp. 166 ff. Argyris, C. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: John.Wiley, 196M. Bass, B. M. 40r anizational Psychology. Boston; Allyn and Bacon, 1 . Besco, R. O. and Lawshe, C. H. "Foreman leadership as perk. ceived by supervisors and subordinates," Personnel Psychology. 1959, $2,,573aSB2. ’fi’ Blau, P. M. "Structural effects," American Sociological ReView. 1960, Eli, 1785.93. fir— Bowers, D. G. and Seashore, S. E. "Predicting organizational effectiveness with a fourefactor theory of leadership," Administrative Science Quarterly. 1966, ll, 238—263. Cartwright, D. and Zander,.A. group Dynamics. New York: Harper and Row, 1953. Cronbach, L. J. "Proposals leading to analytic treatment of social perception scores," in.Tagiuri, R. and Petrullo, L. (Eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. SEanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1933, 3 3"3790 Davis, J. A.. Spaeth, J. L., and.Huson, Carolyn. "A techn nique for analysing the effects of group composition," American Sociological_Review, 1961, 26, 215-25. Eddy, w. Dimensions of Organization Behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Faunce, W. A., Hardin,_E., and Jacobson, E. H. "Automation and the employee," The.Annals 2£_the.American.Academ 3;,Pglitical and Social Science. 1962, EEG, Marc 9 0-68. 106 107 Fiedler, F. E. A Theory of Leadership_Effectiveness. New York: McGrawaHill, 1967. Flanagan, J. C. "General considerations in the selection of test items and a short method of estimating the product- moment coefficient from the data at the tails of the distribution," Journal 9;,Educational Psychology. 1939, fig, 67h~80. Fleishman, E. A. "Leadership climate, human relations, train- ing, and supervisory behavior," Personnel Psychology. 1953. 53. 205-222. Gibb, C. A. "Leadership," in Lindzey, G. (Ed.), Handbook_o§ Social Psycholo . Cambridge, Mass.: AddisonAWesley, 19311.9 VC‘IO 29 87 -920. Gibb, C. A. "Leadership," in Lindzey, G. and.Aronson, E. (Eds.)9 Handbook of Social Ps cholo . Reading, Mass.: Addison~WesIey, I969, VoI. K, EUS-ZEE. Gross, C. R. An observational analysis of supervisory be~ havior. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1956. v . Halpin, A. w. and Winer, B. J. _$he Leadership Behavior of the Airplane Commander. Columbus: *Uhio StatE'Univer- sity Research FoundatIOn, 1952. Hastorf, A. H., Bender, I. E., and'Weintraub, D. J. "The influence of response patterns on the firefined empathy scere'," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology. 1955, 9:1,. 3h1a3113. ’”"""' "" Hemphill, J. K. "Development of the leader behavior des- cription questionnaire," in Bowers, D. G. and Seashore, S. E. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1966, 11, 238-263. "*"" Jacobson, E. "Effective executive leadership styles: a critique," in Wickert, F. R. and McFarland, D. E. (Eds.) Ensuringg‘xaecutive Effectiveness. New York: Appelton- CenturyuCrofts, 1967. Jacobson, E. and Seashore, S. E. "Communication.practices in complex organizations," Journal of Social Issues. 19519 Z (3)9 28‘14—00 Jacobson, E., Trumbo, D., Cheek, Gloria, Nangle, J. “Employee attitudes toward technological change in a medium sized insurance company," Journal gffiApplied Psychology. December, 1959, g; (6 . 108 Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., and Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational Stress. New'York: John'Wiley and Sons, 196h. -Kamenske, Gloria Cheek. Some personality factors in attitude oward technological change in a medium sized insurance company. Un.published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. The Social Psychology of Organi- .zatigg§. New'York: JOhn.Wiley and Sons, 1966. Katz, D., MaOOUby. ZN., and.Morse, Nancy. Prod.uctivigy, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation. Ann Arbbr, Michigan: InStItute for'Soc ialIReseardh, 1950. Katz, D., Maocoby, N., Gurin, G., and Floor, L. Productivity, Supervision, and Morale amon Railroad.Workers. .Ann Arbor, Michigan: 'Institute orISooiaI Research, 1951. Kelley, T. L. "The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items, " Journal of Educational Psychology. 1939, 30, 17-2h. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, B. "Patterns of aggres- sive behavior in experimentally created 'social clia mates‘," Journal of Social Psychology. 1939, 10, 271-299. Likert, R. "Effective supervision: an adaptive and relative process," ‘Personne1_Psychology. 1958,11, 317-352. Likert, R. New Patterns of'Management. New'York: McGraw- Hill, 1961. Likert, H. Human Organization. New'York: McGraweHill, 1967. Linton, 2. The Study of Man. New'York: Appleton-Century, 193 . ‘ McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise. New'York: McGrawaHi11,*1960. Meltzer, L. "Comparing relationships of individuals and average variables to individual response." American Sociologica1 Review. 1963, 28, 117-123. Nangle, J. E. The effectiveness of communications in pre- paration for change in an insurance company. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Nelson, C. w. DeveIOpment and evaluation of a leadership attitude scale for foremen. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertati:n,'University of Chicago, 19h9. 109 Newcomb, T. M. Social Psychology. New York: Dryden Press, 1950. Parsons, T. The Social System. New'York: Free Press, 1951. Robinson, W. S. "Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals," American Sociological Review. 1950 (June), 325.9 351"3§70 Rommetveit, R. ggeia14Norms and Roles. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, l95uo Secord, P. F. and Backman, C. W. Social Psychology. New York: McGraonill, 196h. Snedecor, G. W. IStatistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press, 1956. *— Stogdill, R. M. "Personal factors associated with leader- ship," figurnallgf Psychology. l9h8, 25. 37~71. Stogdill, R. M. .Managers, Employees, Organizations. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research.Monograph, 125, 1965. Tagiuri, R. "Social Preference and its perception," in Tagiuri, R. and Petrullo, L. (Eds.), Person-Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford, California: *Stanfcrd University Press, 1958, 316-336. Tagiuri, R. "Peran perception," in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E (Eds.) Handbook of Social Psyphplogy. Reading, Mass.: Addisoanesley, 1969, Vol. 3 39§;Hh9. Tannenbaum, A. S. and Bachman, J. G. "Structural versus individual effects " American Journal of Sociology. Trumbo, D. E. An analysis of attitudes toward change among the employees of an.insurance company. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958. Vroom, V. l§gge_Per§gnality Determinants of_fihe Effects of Participatigg. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice HaTI:”I9EUL Vroom, V. Work and Motivation. New'York: John.Wiley and SOT-3.3 9 19611.. Weiss, R° S. and Jacobson E. "A method for the analysis of the structure of complex organizations," American Sociological Review. 1955, 29, 661-668. APPENDICES APPENDIX.A BIBLIOGRAPHY (associated with Insurance Company Data) Faunce, W. A. Social stratification and attitude toward change in job content, Social Forces. 1961, 22 (2), December. Faunce, W. A., Hardin, E., & Jacobson, E. H. Automation and the employee, (The annals 93 the AmericanAcadeggy 23 Political and Social Science. 1962, égg, March, 60-68. Hardin, E. _Computer automation, work environment, and employee satisfaction, Industrial and_§gbgg Relations Review. July, 1960, l§_(h). Hardin, E. The reactions of employees to office automation, Monthly Labor Review. September, 1960, Q; (9).. Hardin, E. Job satisfaction and the desire for change, Journal of Applied Psychology. 1965, 51 (1), 20-27. Jacobson, E., Trumbo, D., Cheek, Gloria, & Nangle, J. Employee attitudes toward technological change in‘a medium.sized insurance company, J6urna1,g£.Applied Psychology. December, 1959, g; (6). Kamenske, Gloria Cheek. Some personality factors in atti- tude toward technological change in a medium.sized insurance company. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. «an 111 Nangle, J. E. The effectiveness of communications in pre- paration for change in an insurance company. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1961. Trumbo, D. E. .An analysis of attitudes toward change among the employees of an insurance company. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958. Trumbo, D. E. Individual and group correlates of attitudes toward work-related change, Journal g§,Applied Psychol- 5151. 1961: 9.5 (5)9 338-314J-t. APPENDIX B (Questions used in the insurance company study that are analyzed in this thesis, from questionnaire prepared by Trumbo, Cheek, angle, and Jacobson.) (The first ten questions appeared only on the supervisors' questionnaires.) The purpose of the following questions is to get your idea about the practical value of different supervisory practices for this organization. We are not asking you which method would be ideal nor which method is now actually being fol- lowed in your department. Instead, we are asking_you to tell us Which method you consider the most effectIVe super- visory mEthOd“in this organization. Directions: Check the one answer which you feel would be the most effective supePVisory method for each situation. Sometimes you may not see much difference between two or more choices or may not like any of them. Always make a choice even if you are fcrced to guess. l. The best way to get steady and dependable production is a. praising employees when they deserve it, and appeal- ing to their desires for self improvement. b. careful direction and disciplining of employees. c. to establish a pay schedule based on a job evalua- tion. d. through the employees' desire to be part of a satisfying work team. 2. The average supervisor needs development most in a. the proper use of official channels and forms for making reports, filing complaints, handling trans- fers, requisitioning, etc. b. how to understand the employees? ideas, problems, and standards. c. the basic technical knowledge he’ll need in the department he‘s supervising. d. the ways to deal with individuals efficiently with- out causing friction. 112 3. 113 When hiring a new employee, the supervisor should select a man who is as ho Go d. intelligent and has a good deal of drive. a hard worker and who doesn't need much an ervision. opennminded and willing to share respon31b lities. agreeable and willing to follow the regulations. When a major reorganization of the employees? work is necessary in his department, the supervisor Should a. b. C. d. ask the personnel department to reassign the em! ployees impartially. call the employees together and get their sugges- tions about the reorganization. use this Opportunity to shift employees to jobs Where each of them will feel happiest and thus work best. use his own judgment and assign each employee to the kind of work the supervisor knows he does best. To maintain departmental discipline, the supervisor should a. help the employees work out a common standard of action based on the rules. b. treat all employees alike and according to the established rules. c. see to it that each employee learns company rules and .an therefore be responsible for his own conduct. d. take direct personal action on anyone who commits a serious violation of company rules. The rating or promotion of an employee should be based primarily on a. b. Co d. the ambition and ability to learn that he has Shown. his technical knowledge and ability, and his departu mental experience. objective records showing the amount of experience he's had, his length of employment, and his job skills. the recommendations of a supervisormemployee merit- rating committee. 11h 7. An employeeis suggestion for an improvement ii the department should be 8.. b. Co d. passed up through the supervisor, whose knowledge of the technical needs of the department may enable him to improve the suggestion. encouraged by the supervisor, so that the employees9 initiative is developed and supported. passed around among others in the department for their comments and suggestions before it's sent up. sent directly to the Operating Committee. 8. A supervisor should train a new employee by an showing him repeatedly how to do the job, until the supervisor sees that he's developed efficient wor habits in it. making the job interesting to him.by praising him him when he does it well and correcting him.tactn fully when.he shows his weak points. giving him a completed written set of instructions to study, so that he can learn the right methods from.the start. explaining What the job requires, then allowing him to develop his cwn.methods from.the supervisor’s suggestions and his own experience and knowledge. 9. The supervisor can give out new orders and information most effectively by a. b. r".- I_ . . d. discussing them with the employees and getting their questions and comments. sending written notices to every employee concerr*d. explaining the orders or information to each em- ployee cencerned. telling each employee about them informally at the appropriate time and place. 10. When a man is recommended for promotion to superviscr, the most important thing to consider is his 8.9 b. C30 d. ability to use practical psychology in getting things done. technical ability, initiative, creativity, and experience in the department. understanding of, and respect for, official policies and przgrams. standing among the employees as a leader. (The next thirteen questions appeared only on the employees? questionnaires.) 11. What is your supervisoris name? 12. How long has this person been your supervisor? years? ,months? 115 13. When were you hired by Years? Months? . Some supervisors are more likely to handle certain situations in one way than in another way. Check the 233 answer which best describes the way your supervisor would handle each of the following situations. Notice: “Supervisor" refers to the person to whom you report directly. lu. My supervisor would prefer to hire a person who is a. intelligent and has a good deal of drive. b. a hard worker, who doesn7t need much supervision. c. cpenmminded and willing to share responsibilities. d. agreeable and willing to follow the regulations. 15. Ratings and promotions in this department seem to be based on a. a personis records which show his job skills, length of employment, etc. b. a person's technical knowledge and experience in the department. 0. a personis ambition and ability to learn. d. recommendations by both supervisors and employees. 16. My supervisor is most apt to give out new orders and information by a. discussing them with the group, getting the group’s comments and questions. b. sending a written notice to every employee concerned. 0. explaining the orders or information to each em- ployee concerned. d. telling each employee about them informally at the apprOpriate time and place. 17. My supervisor seems most interested in developing his ability to a. properly make reports, handle paperwork, etc. b. handle any problems of work flow, machine Operation, eta. c. understand employeesg ideas, interests, and stand- ards. d. deal with individuals efficiently without causing friction. 18° 19° 20. 21. 22. 116 My supervisor‘s idea of training seems to be a. b. c. d. to repeat instructions until he3s satisfied that the person is really efficient. to develOp the persen's interest in the job by praising his progress. to make sure the person has a complete set of in- structions and job requirements. to explain What the job requires then let the person develop his own methods. If a major reorganization of the werk in this depart— ment were necessary, my supervisor would prcbably. 8.0 b. 00 d. notify us that the personnel department wzuld reassign us as fairly as possible. try to persuade certain employees to take the new assignments. ask the work group for suggestions on how the reassignments should be made. tell the employees they were being reassigned in the best way to get the work out. My supervisor tries to get the work out by a. carefully directing and disciplining employees. b. appealing to the individual's desire for self— improvement. c. following plans for scheduling work in detail. d. trying to get employees to work together as a team. If I suggested an improvement in the Settiwng my super- visor would be mist apt t? a. b. Co d. urge me te send it directly to tee Operating Commitu tee° urge me to talk it o‘er with the others for their eomments. ask t; have time to go over it befzre he (she) makes any comments. go over it with me; point cut that this is the way to get ahead. My supervisor attempts to maintain dissipline by a. b. c.‘ d. letting each employee be responsible for his own conduot once he knows the rules. helping employees work out a common standard of action based on the rules. taking direct personal action against serious vioa lators of the rules. rules. 117 23a Supervisors seem.to be chosen around here on the basis of a. how well they are liked by fellow employees.' b. their ability to influence peeple to get things done 0 c. how well they know official policy. 2 d. how well they know the technical aspect of the work. 2h. How do you feel about the relationship between you and your supervisor? a. completely satisfied. b. very satisfied. c. quite satisfied. d. somewhat satisfied. e. not satisfied. 25. How do you feel about the way your supervisor handles his job? a. completely satisfied. b. very satisfied. c. quite satisfied. d. someWhat satisfied. e. not satisfied. (The rest of the questions appeared on both supervisors' and employees' questionnaires.) 26. Taking everything into account, how satisfied are you with your job? a. completely satisfied. b.‘ very satisfied. 0. quite satisfied. d. someWhat satisfied. e. not satisfied. The following check list gives you an Opportunity to express how you feel about certain aspects of your job. Consider the first aspect listed in the column.to the left. Place a check mark under the statement in Column A which best describes how satisfied you are with this aspect of yew ob. Comp pletely satisfied a CS, Very satisfied a VS, Qu te satisfied 8 Q3, Somewhat satisfied a SS, Not satisfied - NS. Job Aspect Column.A CS VS QS SS NS 27. The amount of variety in my work. 28. The amount of work re- quired on my job. 29. 30. 31. 32. 3h. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. no. 118 The degree of accuracy demanded by my job. My control over the pace of my work. The importance of my Job for the company. The amount of supervision I get on my job. The amount of skill needed on.my Job. The amount of responsi- bility demanded by my Job. The amount of planning I have to do on my job. The amount of Judgment I have to use on.my job. The degree to which.my work is interesting. The amount of security I feel on my job. My chances for promotion to a better job. The amount of pay I get on.my job. CS VS SS NS 119 00.? mm.N mm.N O¢.¢ Om.N O¢.N OO.m OO.m Nm.m ®®.m mO.m mm.m ON.m mm. vH.m 0H.m mN.v ON.v O¢.m h®.¢ Ov.N OO.N Hm.N OO.N om.H Q hm.H bH.N OO.N Ov.N mh.N om.H om.N OO.m b®.N OO.N Om.H mm.N ON.N OO.H mN.N mm.H mN.N OO.m O®.N OO.N OO.N mv.H bb.H O®.H ON.H H OO.N mm.m mm.N OO.H mh.H OH.m hN.N mm.H Nm.H OO.H Nv.m OO.m om.N mm.m mv.N Om.H Om.H ON.H Ow.H hm.H ON.N om.N mO.m mm.m Hb.v ¢ OO.N OO.N MN.m ON.H Om.N OO.N om.H OO.N Om.H OO.H Nm.H mm.H OO.H OO.N hm.H OO.N mh.H OO.H OO.N hm.H OV.N N¢.m mh.N mm.N OO.N m cmmuw>4 owhonEm [\mmnmmmhvohmmm Z NH m O ¢H MH ON b O h NN NH O OH HH b vN OH Hm mv Nu «m m m o no Nm MN hH O M 5m mH Ho OH 5 O OH HH wH H m OH NN OH 5H mH HH 0 PH m 0 Om HN m 5H MH m wH O m NH OH HH «H OH ON Om MN 0% m m OH w. 2 m mm O H d mwmonmEm NH OH OH ON 5N mH MN HH OH OH NH vN mm wH d‘lnr-INQ'u-INmmfl‘mfi'HV‘MQNV‘HNNr—IQ‘ND Q VNMI‘V‘LDKDNNKDI-INMVQ‘NVQ‘Lflml-OQ‘Q‘NH NNMONMr-lNMOOMMNHNMHNHNMHMN H d HOmH>Hmm5m xoch thum QHQmepmmq EmuH OH Op noncommmm mo hucmovmum U NHQmem< Orqrqrqo.4r4cwc>Ocnrqr4c>NkOr4r4oaHJHrup4«wN m #00 moo HOO mmO OmO mmO NmO HmO NMO HMO hNO ONO mNO NNO ONO bHO wHO HHO OHO woo woo mOO woo MOO N00 .02 MHOB m.uomH>Hmmom APPENDIX D Individual Scores on Each Index Emp. Leadership Style Difference Satisfaction Scores No. B A I D Score GJS sis ss 002 0 2 1 1 5 59 7576 2 .5 o 3 .55 2 311 5 106 2 5 1 2 .51 1 30 7 111 1 5 1 2 .19 3 #3 8 117 3 3 1 3 .15 3 30 6 178 2 5 1 2 .51 3 38 6 186 1 5 3 1 . 5 LI- ’45 9 188 3 5 2 0 . 1 1 13 7 003 1 2 2 5 2 11 I20 1 3 2 1 .11 3 he 6 111 2 3 2 3 . 211 3 113 6 169 1 h 1 1 .55 2 M3 6 '%§% 1 3 5 l 2 2M 3 1 k 2 .32 3 kl 6 092 2 1 3 1 .21 1 10 5 10h 3 2 l t .55 3 51 7 121 11 5 0 1. .62 .3 52 8 139 3 t 0 2 .57 3 53 8 151 3 3 3 1 .28 3 35 8 161 1 1 1 1 .51 3 50 6 166 2 5 O 3 .58 2 13 10 191 5 2 1 2 .58 k 53 9 201 2 3 1 1 .51 3 11 k 202 3 3 3 1 .28 2 12 7 222 2 3 2 3 .37 t 56 10 223 O l 1 5 .17 3 A2 6 005 1 0 7 2 1 1 688 u 3 0 1 .85 1 3 5 110 5 2 2 1 .88 5 57 10 137 2 u 2 2 .65 5 50 6 205 1 k 2 3 .65 3 an 6 212 11 2 2 2 .52 3 13 8 217 3 3 0 k .81 2 18 g 220 5 2 2 1 .68 3 39 Emp. N0. 006 0'8?) 1511 167 17k 219 008 58-3 113 21).}. 010 13$ 1 1%. 172 011 O96 098 107 168 199 208 9% . 1 133 1 . 195 017 135 175 179 183 203 020 581? 086 O91 093 100 133 176 Leadership Style wOHONNww wPHFNNO owOFO OONHHme NNFONH HFOH mmeFO w A HwNU'Lle-‘NO OWHNI—‘NO NNI—‘l—‘w l—‘OwWOONN OUJNNNH [mm-4w FOWNNN Nw-F'NNwOi-J NHNl—‘F‘t—‘O‘ NWNNN U'wal-J-F‘NUJN F'Nl—‘KJOUJO‘ l-‘NwU'l OWUJWH-F‘ H Prwmmwrm wNOHNWF ommwm fiqmmmrww wammm ONOH NFHFHF U 121 Difference Score .62H .11 .110 .37 .57 .58 2%? .35 . 5 . O .117 .32 £11 .32 .110 .32 .20 .55 Satisfaction Scores GJS mewwaw wmmmwmw HHme mwaFFFH mmHHmF HHHN wmewH SJS SS aphsm (TFndeN +rbaamr#H4¥T commomnn NNNN OWJLAHOM? -4\9R%OUH7bJ O22 headership Style Difference HNOWUJNHl-‘w-F—Nl-‘N [UHF-'0 ONLQDJOH U'UUI—‘H U3 HI—‘wNNNWI-‘ONOHH l—‘NOO A NOHwWHO‘F‘WNwNI-J Ni—‘O‘N WF'NNWUT FWW WHowWNONNN-F'Hw OHNN meHmHooowwHF waP mmmmmw Homm H NNwNwWF-F—NHN-F'F' WHNN \HNWi—‘UIH OOH-F: U wOU‘LWNOwU'L-F'l-‘H l-‘bo \HU'LO-P' troqrxcnnpkocaownfiifiwp Uiowr0\ 122 Score .37 .68 .58 .17 .37 .12 O 20 ~11? .58 .20 .37 .71 .37 .3; '55 .65 .42 .32 .37 .32 .62 .1h .00 .2k .28 .28 .32 .15 Satisfacticn Scores GJS N—F'HN-F'NHwi-‘l-JNHN l-J’uoU'l-F' Hw-F'WNUJ 47me wHHmeml—‘mmt—JWH WNNU) SJS 32 39 119 38 33 31 51 60 2O kl 47;.) m m U1 2-4 U1- Hi—‘mwfv-J‘JJ F0 .anonn+goa3 ‘ \2.) [—1 R. \O R) GD “3 K1) 18 1:- 0‘ SS NNO‘N-F‘ ng EWHCD «331.0 m mes--1 m 0\ N41" mu: m 0‘ m oommmmmmmmmmm Emp. NC’ 0 051 295 052 2'35 236 238 2h2 218 218 251 256 282 281 288 292 293 297 298 053 226 2L1? 257 260 269 2711 277 278 291 299 . 2.5 , 275 283 0 9, 231 2115 286 081 261 280 Leadership Style A 4T¥7H¥7 +4 NFFH mowomm meHH meFHHmFNwH wFONFHHmOOHHFFON wme w mme meHmw owmmm wrmmmwmmmmH HmOOHmmmmFmOPme HHNH mHmF meer wmwwm mHHmwwomOFw mmwmmwFHmwrmePm wwHF meNmH wmwmm mmmHFHmHmHm wHNWNFwawmmOHFH mmmF O 123 Difference Scores .35 .28 .28 .37 . 9 .12 .32 .20 .110 .51 .57 .20 .37 .110 .55 .69 .37 .32 .110 .119 .115 60 .20 Satisfaction Scores GJS N'uoU'LN 544:”erpo WI‘le'x/o'v) wFJWHH-FTWNNWN WWI—’l-J-F‘w m-F‘me I-"LJ-P‘Hh) bot-”4&1; SJS ‘11 28 17 116 36 118 ' 7 38 19 28 53 h2 32 3'9 h6 15 18 LLLL 29 29 38 31 22 36 hB 26 17 110 30 39 SS NFN UHfihJNtJNHTUHUUPQvIOWDRJ Nb.) 0‘8-P’U'LCIJOS'O‘U'LO‘ cru1m¥7a3 rufifmwc NU‘LN 12h Emp. Leadership Style Difference Satisfaction Scores A No. B I D Score GJS SJS SS 083 3 3 2 2 1 111.1 “227 2 1 3 1 .20 5 12 1 211 3 3 2 1 .1 3 31 5 282 1 3 2 1 .2 5 50 7 279 2 3 2 3 .11 1 11 5 285 3 2 2 3 .1 2 -2 8 296 1 5 2 2 .2 1 18 8 ‘ggé 2 2 1 5 1 31 * 1 2 0 7 .21 1 18 2 285 1 2 3 1 .21 1 33 2 270 1 2 2 1 .17 2 31 8 APPENDIX E Classification of Supervisors into Leadership Styles (Refer to Appendix D for Response Patterns) Leadership Style Idiocratic Democratic & Idiocratic Democratic Blend Idiocratic & Autocratic Supervisor Number 00 00 008 010 017 052 056 002 006 O26 027 051 061 003 011 020 031 081 011 022 053 063 025 032 059 125 No. in Work Group 13 gocrqtrta touupxpvixa trwiowniewc 7...: H . UINUI 0‘ Owyl APPENDIX F Classification of Employees According to Their Perception of Supervisor’s Leadership Styles ‘Lgadership Style Employee Number Report t: Superviecr No. Democratic 083 8 214 8 136 10 107 11 109 11 195 11 105 17 179 17 079 25 207 25 111 26 196 26 158 27 210 27 173 31 181 31 185 31 128 32 1&3 32 206 32 219 1 256 52 292 52 293 52 2&7 53 231 59 245 59 096 11 199 .1 225 61 Autocratic 076 2 106 2 111 2 178 2 186 2 188 2 166 1 127 Leadership Style Employee Number Report to Supervisor No. 093 20 111 22 112 26 081 27 118 27 215 27 251 52 260 53 289 53 296 63 137 5 219 6 069 22 131 25 108 27 Blend 111 3 222 1 075 10 162 10 168 11 112 11 091 20 125 25 160 27 193 32 191 32 197 32 299 3 250 58 275 6 286 59 280 61 279 63 285 53 l 63 167 6 085 11 086 20 116 25 230 56 229 59 Bureaucratic 110 5 191 1 220 5 212 5 080 6 113 8 175 17 288 O\\J‘L 4: m 270 128 Leadership Styie_ Employee Number Report to Supervisor No. Bureaucratic & 169 3 Autocratic 121 1 164 A 115 22 238 52 238 52 297 52 228 61 183 17 291 53 139 1 Bureaucratic & 119 27 Idiocratic 257 53 277 53 228 53 082 h 258 51 295 51 Bureaucratic & 091 11 Democratic 278 S3 261 61 117 10 176 20 101 1 081 20 Autocratic & 092 1 Idiocratic 227 63 216 52 282 52 Autocratic & 115 27 Democratic 122 32 205 5 201 h 120 3 211 32 262 63 Idiocratic & 223 8 Democratic 172 10 098 11 208 11 090 32 235 52 252 59 218 27 100 20 157 32 151 6 129 Leadership Sty13_ Employee Number Report to Supervisor NC. 28A 52 27A 53 265 61 Bureaucratic, 117 2 Autocratic a 177 27 Democratic 217 5 132 27 Bureaucratic, 298 S2 Idiocratic & 171 6 Democratic 200 32 283 56 180 32 203 17 MIC 111111111111 If