. .15.
9%.? .
r 39

.3.

fwwm
Efififlafig

3.52%.. i 4 ‘

.l. .u.

3?. 5,

 

VHESRS

MICHIGAN sure may

I i/iiiiiii/ii ”Will/WWII

3 129 566 0792

ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Relationship Between Self-Perceived Leadership
Styles and Stressful Situations Among County
Extension Directors in Michigan

presented by

Peter Nang Achuonjei

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Agricultural and Extension
Education

 

Major professor
Carroll H. Wamhoff

Date April 29, 1996

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

6;; o} ggam

_, r ,tr‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU le An Affirmetlve Action/EM Opportunity Inetituion
mus-m

 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP
STYLES AND STRESSFUL SITUATIONS AMONG COUNTY
EXTENSION DIRECTORS IN MICHIGAN

By

Peter Nang Achuonjei

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

1 996

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP
STYLES AND STRESSFUL SITUATIONS AMONG COUNTY
EXTENSION DIRECTORS IN MICHIGAN
By

Peter Nang Achuonjei

The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to identify the self-
perceived leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan and to examine
those styles in relation to their leadership situations (situational control). A further
purpose was to determine whether a relationship existed between selected
demographic characteristics of the directors and their self-perceived leadership
styles and stressful situations. In addition, an attempt was made to predict whether
certain directors are likely to move to higher levels of aggressive behavior as a result
of job-related stress, which would negatively affect their health.

The study population consisted for all 82 county extension directors in
Michigan; 73 of them participated in the study. The questionnaires used to collect
the data were the Least Preferred Co-worker Scale, Leader-Member Relations
Scale, Task Structure Scale, Position Power Scale. and Aggressive/Adaptive

Lifestyle Scale. Statistical techniques used to analyze the data were frequency

Peter Nang Achuonjei
distribution, measures of central tendency, crosstabs, logistic regression, and
multiple regression.

Major findings from the study are as follows. More than half (64.4%) of the
directors practiced a task-motivated self-perceived leadership style, and 23.3%
practiced a relationship-motivated self-perceived leadership style. About 12% of the
respondents practiced the soda-independent self—perceived leadership style. Forty
percent of the respondents who had high situational control were task-motivated,
and 41% who had moderate situational control were relationship-motivated leaders.
These percentages represent both task-motivated and relationship-motivated
directors who were considered effective due to the leadership style/situational
control match.

Seventy-four percent ofthe directors were in the Aggressive Type 2 behavior
category, in which job stress could pose a problem to their health. Age, educational
level, and years of experience had low to negligible associations to directors' self-
perceived leadership styles and stressful situations. Further, no difference was

found between males’ and females’ self-perceived leadership styles.

To my late father, Chief Ngong Achuonjei,
of Kusu-Wum Village
for being my father and believing that I could accomplish anything
I wanted to, and for teaching me the importance of working
well with others in life.

To my mother, Martina Njang Ndum,
for giving me courage, never-ending love,
and self-confidence.

To Joy, Ngong, and Bwoonzho-Princewill,
for being my little angels who were understanding,
which made it easier for me to do my work.

and

To Justine Nsih Achuonjei,
the love of my life, who gave me courage and
was patient, humorous, and held my hand through it all.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Completing this dissertation would not have been possible without the help
of a number of people to whom I am deeply indebted. First, I wish to thank Dr.
Carroll H. Wamhoff for serving as my dissertation committee chair and for his
diligence, insightful ideas. patience, understanding, sense of humor (PRINCE), and
support, which made working on this dissertation much easier. Dr. Wamhoff was
always there when I needed him, even when that meant taking time from his family
during weekends.

Second, lwould like to express my gratitude to the other committee members:
Dr. Murari Suvedi helped locate funding resources, which made it possible for me
to accomplish this work. Dr. Frank Bobbitt’s experience and interest in working with
African students made it much easier to walk into his office and feel at home. His
suggestions on the statistical analysis and extensive suggestions on the manuscript
were extremely helpful. Dr. Michael Gold’s encouragement and useful suggestions
on the design and literature review made life easier and more interesting for me. Dr.
Kandah Yumkella, despite serving as Minister of Commerce and Industry in Sierra
Leone for the past year, kept up communication with me and motivated me to

continue work on the dissertation.

Thanks also to the following faculty members who, although they were not
officially on my committee, gave me much-needed help: Dr. James Jay provided
financial support, which made it possible for me to mail the questionnaires to the
respondents. WIthout his help, it would not have been possible to complete this
dissertation. Dr. Fred Whims’s suggestions on different types of instruments for
measuring leadership styles and stressful situations made it possible for me to
complete this work. Dr. Eddie Moore provided invaluable assistance with the
research design.

Special thanks to my friends Dr. Roberta Glaser of the United States, Dr.
Michael Neba Ambe from Cameroon, and Dr. Yonis Reyes from the Dominican
Republic, who offered support and encouragement during the course of the study.

Finally, my sincere thanks go to Dr. William Schmidt, Dr. Gilbert Veverde, Lee
Cogan, Dr. Richard Houang, and Dr. Leonard Bianchi, members of the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study of the US. National Research Center.
with whom I have worked for the past three years. Your support enabled me to

complete this dissertation.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................ x
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. xii
Chapter
I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ......................... 1
Introduction .......................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................... 2
Purpose of the Study ................................... 3
Research Objectives ................................... 3
Research Questions ................................... 4
Importance of the Study ................................ 5
Assumptions ......................................... 6
Limitations of the Study ................................. 7
Definition of Terms .................................... 7
Overview of the Study .................................. 9
ll. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................... 11
Introduction ......................................... 1 1
The Meaning of Self-Perception ......................... 11
Perceived Competence .............................. 12
Perceived Assertiveness ............................. 12
Definitions of a Leader ................................ 13
Definitions of Leadership ............................... 14
Leadership Theories .................................. 17
The Leadership Trait Approach ........................ 18
The Behavioral Approach ............................. 21
The Contingency or Situational Approach ................ 23
Fiedler’s Contingency Model for Determining Self-
Perceived Leadership Styles ......................... 25
The Leadership Grid Concept ......................... 31

vii

Differences in Leadership Styles Between Males and

Females ........................................ 33
Summary of Leadership Theory ........................ 33
Stress and Leadership ................................ 35
Definition of Stress .................................. 35
The Effect of Stressful Situations on Leaders’ Behavior ..... 35
Stress and Leadership Performance .................... 36
Stress and Health ................................... 37
The Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale ................. 38
Research on the Leadership Styles of CES Directors ......... 38
Leadership Roles of CES Directors in Michigan ............. 39
METHODS AND PROCEDURES ........................ 42
Introduction........................ ................. 42
Research Questions .................................. 42
The Study Population ................................. 43
Instrumentation ...................................... 44
The Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Scale .............. 44
The Situational Control Scale .......................... 47
The Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale ................. 51
Pretests of the Instruments ............................. 52
Data-Collection Procedures ............................ 53
Nonresponse Error .................................. 54
Data-Analysis Procedures .............................. 55
RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES .................... 59
Introduction ......................................... 59
Characteristics of the Respondents ...................... 59
Gender ........................................... 59
Age .............................................. 60
Highest University Degree ............................ 60
Years of Experience as County Extension Director ......... 62
Findings Pertaining to the Research Questions ............. 63
Research Question 1 ................................ 63
Research Question 2 ................................ 71
Research Question 3 ................................ 73
Research Question 4 ................................ 75
Research Question 5 ................................ 77
Research Question 6 ................................ 78
Research Question 7 ................................ 81

viii

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 84

Introduction ......................................... 84
Summary ........................................... 84
Summary of Findings ................................. 86
Conclusions ......................................... 89
Recommendations ................................... 92
APPENDICES
A. Frequency Distribution Tables ........................... 95
B. Letter of Approval From UCRIHS and Questionnaires ....... 105
C. Cover Letters to County Extension Directors .............. 115
D. Statement of the Researcher’s Motivation to Conduct
the Study and Leadership Letters of Recommendation
for the Researcher .................................. 119
REFERENCES ................................................ 125

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Classification of Situational Control or Favorableness .............. 28
Representative Split-Half Correlations of the LPC Scale ............ 46
Reliability Coefficients for the Scales Used in This Study ........... 52
Analysis of Leadership Styles Using LPC Scores Without

Adjusting for Situational Control ............................... 63
Respondents’ Scores on the LMR Scale ........................ 65
Amount of Training of County Extension Directors ................ 66
Amount of Experience of County Extension Directors .............. 67
Adjusted Scores on the TS Scale, Parts 1 and 2 .................. 67
Scores on the PP Scale ..................................... 68
Leadership Styles and Leadership Situations (Situational

Control) of County Extension Directors ......................... 7O
Scores on the Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale ................ 72

ANOVA Between Stressful Situations and Number of Employees
Under the Supervision of County Extension Directors .............. 74

ANOVA Between Self-Perceived Leadership Styles and Number
of Employees Under the Supervision of County Extension Directors . . 75

Correlation Coefficients Between Selected Demographic
Characteristics and Self-Perceived Leadership Style .............. 76

Correlation Coefficients Between Selected Demographic
Characteristics and Stressful Situations ........................ 77

16.

17.

18.

19.

Comparison of Perceived Leadership Styles of Male and Female

County Extension Directors .................................. 78
Classification of Respondents for Stressful-Situation

Prediction ................................................ 80
Variables in the Logistic Regression Model ...................... 81

Multiple Regression of LPG Scores WIth Selected Demographic
Characteristics of County Extension Directors .................... 82

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

The Three R’s of Leadership ................................. 17
Graphic Representation of the Contingency Model ................ 29
Leadership Grid Model ..................................... 32
Distribution of County Extension Directors by Gender .............. 60
Distribution of County Extension Directors by Age ................ 61
Highest University Degree Earned by Directors .................. 61
Years of Experience of County Extension Directors ............... 62

xii

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

lnimdusiinn

Effective leadership is the key for any organization to succeed in the future
(Blake & McCanse, 1991). Since 1990, the Cooperative Extension Service (CES)
has been going through some changes in order to meet the changing needs of its
clientele, environment, and global competition. Reforming CES leadership in order
to be more effective has been one of the top priorities of land grant university
administrators.

In response to changes in society and with a grant from the Kellogg
Foundation, a CES Strategic Planning Council was formed in 1992. Its objective
was to provide the core leadership to make recommendations for how the
organization could better meet new challenges and remain a change agent itself.
The Council established a "New Direction,” setting forth its goal to have the CES
become a more relevant, dynamic, and flexible organization that is able to have a
great influence on solving problems brought about by changes in the global
economy, the environment, demographics, family structures, values, and limited
resources. Several recommendations were made, including the need for

restructuring and for the CES to become a dynamic, visionary organization that is

1

2
adaptable to rapid change. In addition, the need for effective leadership emerged
as one of the Council’s foremost concerns.

Many states have responded tothese recommendations by restructuring their
CES organizations. In 1992, the Michigan CES also was restructured. County
extension directors were given more leadership responsibilities. However, although
it has been recommended that county extension directors in Michigan practice an
effective leadership style, it is not known what their individual leadership styles are
or whether maintaining an effective leadership style might be pushing them to set
exceedingly high standards for themselves.

Such high standards, if beyond the individuals’ abilities. could lead to stressful
situations. Stress builds up, and at some point its effects become evident in the
body’s weakest system, i.e., the cardiovascular, respiratory, circulatory, or digestive
system (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Robinson, 1980). Hence, this study was undertaken
to identify the self-perceived leadership styles of cooperative extension directors in
Michigan and to investigate whetherthere is'a relationship between those leadership
styles and stressful situations among county extension directors. This research is

the first of its kind since the Michigan CES was restructured.

Statememmneflmblem
Since 1991, the Michigan CES has been going through some problems,
which have led to the restructuring of the organization. It is not known whether the
self-perceived leadership styles of county extension directors in relationship to their

leadership situations and the possible relationship with stressful situations might be

3

part of the problem. Although research has been done in industry to determine the
effects of self-perceived leadership styles and stressful situations on the health of
workers, no such study in agricultural and extension education in Michigan was

found.

Eumcsecflbefitudx

The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to identify the self-
perceived leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan and to examine
those styles in relation to their leadership situations (situational control). A further
purpose was to determine whether a relationship existed between selected
demographic characteristics of the directors and their self-perceived leadership
styles and stressful situations. In addition, an attempt was made to predict whether
certain directors are likely to move to higher levels of aggressive behavior as a result

ofjob-related stress, which would negatively affect their health.

8 I DI . I'

To address the problem and purposes described above, specific objectives
of this study were to:

1. Identify the self-perceived leadership styles and leadership situations
(situational control) of country extension directors in Michigan.

2. Determine what types of behaviors cooperative extension directors

exhibit in stressful situations and the effect this behavior might have on their health.

4

3. Determine whether there is a relationship between the number of
employees under the supervision of county extension directors and stressful
situations or between the number of employees and directors’ leadership styles.

4. Determine whether there is a relationship between selected
demographic characteristics (age, educational degree, years of experience) of
county extension directors and the directors’ self-perceived leadership styles and
stressful situations.

5. Determine whether there is a relationship between the self-perceived
leadership styles of male and female county extension directors.

6. Predict whether some county extension directors are likely to move to
a higher level of Aggressive 1 and 2 behaviors as a result of job-related stress, and
determine whether certain demographic characteristics of the directors can be used
to predict an increase in stressful situations as a result of their position.

7. Determine whether selected demographic characteristics can be used

to predict the leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan.

Researcbfiueslicns
To accomplish the study objectives and to guide the collection of data, the
following research questions were posed:
1. What are the self-perceived leadership styles and leadership situations

(situational control) of county extension directors in Michigan?

5

2. What types of behaviors do county extension directors exhibit in
stressful situations, and what effects could these types of behaviors have on their
heaflh?

3. Is there a relationship between the number of employees under the
supervision of county extension directors and stressful situations, or between the
number of employees and directors’ leadership styles?

4. Is there a relationship between selected demographic characteristics
(age, educational degree, years of experience) of county extension directors and the
directors’ self-perceived leadership styles and stressful situations?

5. Is there a difference between the self-perceived leadership styles of
male and female county extension directors?

6. Are certain cooperative extension directors likely to move to a higher
level of Aggressive 1 and 2 behaviors as a result ofjob-related stress, and can any
of the selected demographic characteristics be used to predict which directors are
most likely to experience an increase in stress as a result of their position?

7. Can any of the selected demographic characteristics be used to predict

the leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan?

lmpcdanceoflhefitudx

Effective leadership must be present for any organization to succeed. This
sentiment about leadership as key to an organization’s success was echoed by
Hersey and Blanchard (1977): ”One major attribute that sets the successful

organization apart from the unsuccessful organization is dynamic and effective

6
leadership” (p. 428). An organization without effective leadership is in trouble
(Fiedler 8. Chemers, 1984).

Thus. because effective leadership is essential to an organization’s success,
this study of county extension directors’ leadership styles is important for the
following reasons:

1. To the writer’s knowledge, no study has been conducted on the
possible relationship between stressful situations and the self-perceived leadership
styles of county extension directors in Michigan.

2. By identifying the self-perceived leadership styles of county extension
directors and their possible relationship to stressful situations, the study will provide
Michigan State University CES administrators with useful information about the
effectiveness of county extension directors in accomplishing organizational
objectives, based on their self-perceived leadership styles.

3. County extension directors may or may not be exempt from job-related
stress. Blake and Mouton (1980) stated that one of the advantages of
understanding the effects of stressful situations on leadership is that it helps people
become aware of these situations, anticipate them, and in this way be in a better

position to deal with them, rather than allowing them to escalate.

Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in conducting this study:
1. The participants provided true and candid responses to the

questionnaire.

7
2. One way of determining the effectiveness of self-perceived leadership
styles of county extension directors is by having them respond to a leadership styles
questionnaire (Blake 8 McCanse, 1991).
3. The leadership questionnaires administered in this study have been
used in industry with overwhelming reliability, and it was assumed that they would

produce similar results with county extension directors.

l' 'l I' [II S! |

1. Only the self-perceived leadership styles and stressful situations of
county extension directors involved with the Michigan State University CES were
examined. Thus, comparisons between the county directors and regional directors
and state-appointed extension administrators are not possible.

2. The scales used in this study were developed primarily for use with
production managers in industry. Therefore, there might be some limitations to the
conclusions that might be drawn. such as the number of effective leaders, based on
Fiedler’s contingency model, and the effect of certain training programs.

3. The study was based on respondents’ perceptions of both their
leadership styles and their leadership effectiveness. Other persons might perceive

the directors’ leadership styles or their effectiveness differently.

D 6 'l' [I
The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this

study.

8

W. A leadership style in which the leader is
very friendly and bases his or her decisions on keeping his or her peers happy.

W. An appointed official who has the responsibility
for providing leadership to peers and other people within a county.

Warship. An assessment of a leader's effectiveness, based on
his or her situational control, combining task structure, member relations, and the
leader’s position of power. In this study, leadership effectiveness was determined
using Fiedler’s (1972) contingency model.

M. On-the-job experience as a county extension director.

W. A leadership style that is close to anarchy, in
which the leadership has very little control over the organization.

Leadershipjtyle. A behavioral description of consideration and initiating
structure, as measured by Fiedler’s Least Preferred Co-worker Scale (LPC).

W. A management style in which adequate
organizational performance is made possible by balancing the necessity to get out
work with keeping employees’ morale at a satisfactory level.

Bower. The amount of control that a county extension director has over his
or her employees in making decisions, as well as in reprimanding them for any
wrongdoing.

WWW. A leadership style in which the
leader is concerned with maintaining good interpersonal relations, sometimes to the

point of letting the task suffer.

9
Saginaw. A leadership style in which the leader

is between the task-motivated and relationship-motivated leadership styles, with no
clear definition of characteristics; also known as middle-of-the-road management
style.

Stress. Mental or physical distress arising from situations on the job that lead
to an inability to function normally in the workplace.

W. A situation requiring an urgent decision that the leader
might not make under normal conditions.

WWW. A leadership style in which the leader
places primary emphasis on task performance. Such a leader is a no-nonsense
individual who tends to work best with guidelines and specific directions.

W. A management approach in which independence is
achieved through workers having a common stake in the organization’s purpose,
which leads to relationships of trust and respect.

Irainjng. Formal and informal training in administration, including training

seminars.

Wm
Chapter I included an introduction to the study, a statement of the problem,
purpose and objectives of the study, research questions, importance of the study,
assumptions and limitations, and definitions of terms.
Chapter II is a review of literature relevant to the study. Topics that are

discussed include the meaning of self-perception, definitions of a leader and of

10

leadership. leadership theories, stress and leadership, research on the leadership
styles of CES directors, and the leadership roles of CES directors in Michigan.

The methods and procedures used in conducting this study are discussed in
Chapter III. The research questions are restated, and the study population is
described. The instruments used to collect the data for the study are described in
detail, and the data-collection procedure is explained. Statistical procedures used
in analyzing the data also are described.

The results and interpretation of the data analyses are presented in Chapter
IV. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, findings pertaining to each of the
research questions, conclusions drawn from the findings, and recommendations for

application of the study and further research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

lutLQdusziiQn
This chapter includes a review of literature on topics related to this study.
Topics that are considered include (a) the meaning of self-perception, (b) definitions
of a leader, (c) definitions of leadership, (d) leadership theories, (9) stress and
leadership, (f) research on the leadership styles of CES directors, and (g) the

leadership roles of CES directors in Michigan.

II I I . [S IE-E l'

Self-perception can be defined as "a set of attitudes and beliefs about one's
behavior, appearance, skills, and socially determined constellation of ideas which
endures overtime" (Jackson, 1984, p. 57). Self-perception has been and continues
to be a widely researched area in psychology. Some researchers have examined
self-perception in relation to physical characteristics ofthe individual, such as weight,
age, gender, height, language, and skin color. The assumption is that the self-
perception of an individual who is short or who is overweight might be different from
that of a tall or normal-weight individual. A person’s self-perception is likely to affect

the way he or she deals with others in society. According to Olson and Zanna

11

12
(1990), psychologists have increasingly arrived at the view that the thoughts people
voice, even if only to themselves, may determine the actions they take.
Two types of self-perceptions (perceived competence and perceived
assertiveness) that are relevant to this study are discussed in the following

paragraphs.

HEW

Perceived competence, especially perceived social competence, may
influence interpersonal relationships in a variety of ways. For example, leaders with
positive social self-perceptions may be more likely to initiate interactions with peers
and may be more approachable than leaders with negative social self-perceptions.
Conversely, leaders with negative social self-perceptions may be reluctant to initiate

interactions with peers and may elicit peer rejection (Fine, 1981).

E . | g l'

Perceived assertiveness may also have an influence on leaders’ interpersonal
relationships. Leaders who perceive themselves to be assertive rather than passive
or aggressive may tend to act assertively with peers. Likewise, leaders who develop
a perception of themselves as assertive in the course of social-skills training may
show greater treatment effects than leaders who do not develop this self-perception.

To determine people’s self-perceptions, Scares and Scares (1985) developed
the Self-Perception Inventory (SPI). The SPI has a forced-choice semantic-

differential format in which items are presented as two opposite adjectives or

13

sentences. SPls have been developed for college students, teachers, and nurses,

allowing individuals in these categories to determine their self-perceptions.

Definiticnmaieader

Cox and Hoover (1992), Bingham (1927), and Bogardus (1944) defined a
leader as a person who possesses the greatest number of "desirable traits," such
as originality, imagination, alertness, knowledge, and persistence. This definition
represented an attempt to define a leader in terms of personality variables. In
addition to personality variables, some authors have emphasized the specific actions
or behaviors of a leader. For example, Anderson (1940) defined a true leader, in the
psychological sense, as one who can make the most of individual differences and
can bring about the most differences in a group and therefore reveal to the group a
sounder base for defining a common purpose. A leader initiates and facilitates
interactions among members of a group (Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951 ). In addition, he
or she directs and coordinates the activities of the group to achieve shared goals
(Fiedler, 1967; Halpin, 1958).

Hill, Middlemist, and Mathis (1979) compiled a "wisdom” list, which they used
in defining a leader.

The leader’s influence is brought about through an effective personal

relationship between the leader and followers. The relationship "elevates

followers into their better selves (Burn. 1978).

For a leader to be able to lift followers into their better selves, the
leader must be at a higher level of being than that of the followers.
By ”higher level of being,” we mean that the leader is psychologically
mature. The degree to which the leader can create relationships which

facilitate the growth of followers as separate persons is a measure of the
psychological growth of the leader (Rogers, 1951).

14
A psychologically mature leader can best be defined as a fully
functioning person. Afully functioning person is one who is using all of his or

her faculties-and has developed them into a real unity. (p. 108)

Further, a leader is a person who has the power and disposition to inspire
confidence in others over a period of time and to cause them to act and think in the
way the leader desires them to act and think (DeAlton, 1972). Leaders also have
been defined in terms of physical, material, or symbolic attributes, as well as by the
amount of power they possess (Etzioni, 1961 ). According to Etzioni, coercive power
rests on the leader’s application or threat of physical sanctions. Such a leader
generates frustration or controls the satisfaction of needs through force.
Remunerative power is based on the leader's control over material resources and
rewards. Normative power is based on the allocation and manipulation of symbolic
rewards and deprivations. A leader can be considered as a catalyst who makes

things happen in an organization. Thus, to be considered a leader, an individual

must be in a group situation.

i i f i
In the course of the literature review, no universally accepted definition of the
term ”leadership” was found. Writers typically have presented a wide range of
pertinent definitions (Brewer, 1984; Gibb, 1969; Hollander, 1978; Rauch 8. Behling,
1981; Stogdill, 1974). Bowers and Seashore (1981) defined leadership as an
influencing process that takes place when one person has changed his or her

behavior because of another’s actions. It follows that the ability to communicate

15

either by word or actions in such a way that others accept one’s points can be
considered leadership.

Stogdill (1974) defined leadership as the process of influencing the activities
of an organized group in its efforts toward setting and achieving goals. On the other
hand, Lassey (1976) stated that Stogdill’s definition might apply only to a particular
circumstance and that no single definition of leadership is universally acceptable.
Lassey said that leadership is a role that leads to goal achievement, involves
interaction and influence, and usually results in some form of changed structure or
behavior of groups, organizations, or communities.

Hollander (1978) and Rauch and Behling (1981) claimed that leadership is
a process of mutual stimulation that, through the successful interplay of relevant
differences, controls human energy in the pursuit of a common cause. This means
that at times there will have to be conflict, but depending on how the leader handles
the conflict, it could result in a more productive means of goal achievement.

Hersey and Blanchard (1977) defined leadership as the process of influencing
the activities of an individual or a group toward goal achievement in a given situation.
From this definition, it follows that the leadership process is a function of the leader,
the followers, and other situational variables.

Cox and Hoover (1992) also examined the many active terms used to
describe leadership. In doing so, they developed the following list of actions leaders
engage in: to go ahead of, to show the way, to guide, to cause progress, to create

a path, to control actions, to direct, to influence, to command, to be first, to be chief,

16
and to begin. Any and all of these active terms can serve as metaphors for the act
of leadership.

lvancevich, Szilagyi, and Wallace (1977) defined leadership as the
relationship between two or more people in which one attempts to Influence the
other(s) toward the accomplishment of a goal or goals. Koontz and O’Donnell
(1957) stated that leadership involves influencing people to work toward the
achievement of a common goal. Similarly, Massarik (1983) defined leadership as
interpersonal influences exercised in situations and directed, through the
communication process, toward the attainment of a specific goal or goals.
Leadership involves an attempt on the part of the leader (influencer) to affect
(influence) the behavior of the follower (influencee) or followers in particular
sfluafions.

A more comprehensive definition of leadership is the one advanced by Blake
and McCanse (1991). They stated that leadership can be depicted in many ways--
inspirational, prescriptive, and so on—depending on what the leader thinks will work.
A sound way of exercising leadership is through what they called the "three R’s of
leadership”: resources (R1), relationships (R2), and results (R3) (see Figure 1). The
authors described the three R’s as follows:

(R1)—Resources are what people as individuals have to contribute; they are

the human resources, i.e., the knowledge, abilities, skills, and motivations

people have available in using technical, financial, and other non-human or
indirect resources.

(R2)-Relationships are the interactions between people. They are

symbolized in Figure [1] by two black heads facing one another. Of course,
in a team situation, we may be talking about more than two people. R2

17

characterizes the degree of individual and team commitment to teamwork in
all face-to-face groups, relations with customers, clients, or whomever one
deals with in day-to—day interactions. This is the domain of organization
culture which defines ”how we do things.”

(R3)—Results are realized from team interaction and problem solving. These
are measurable as evidenced in productivity, profit. creativity and in novation,

sales and service, i.e., they measure the degree to which organizational
purpose is met.

Fl.

:::::::::::> .

Resources Results

Relationships

Figure 1: The three R’s of leadership.

Source: Black, R., & McCanse, M. (1991). Leadershjpjjlemma
W. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

l I l . II .
Three major approaches have been taken to studying leadership. These are
the trait, behavioral, and contingency or situational approaches (Kerlinger, 1973).

Each of these approaches is discussed in the following pages.

18

II I I l . I 'l E I

Leadership trait theory emerged around the turn of the century, and it
attracted an enormous amount of research attention. The basic premise was that
if one could identify leadership traits, it would be possible to transfer those traits to
nonleaders. As a result of his extensive work in this area, Stogdill (1974) identified
five broad categories of leadership traits: personality traits, intelligence and ability
traits, physical characteristics, task-related-competence characteristics. and social
background characteristics. Each of these is discussed in the following paragraphs.

W. A personality trait is some consistent quality of behavior
that characterizes the individual in a wide range of his or her activities and is fairly
consistent over a period of time (Woodworth & Marquis, 1948). Researchers have
characterized leaders as being able to adjust to new situations and tolerate stress
(Ghiselli, 1963; Grant 8. Bray, 1986; Krishnan, 1965; Mann, 1960; Stogdill, 1974);
being aggressive or assertive (Miner, 1968); having independence, integrity, self-
confidence, objectivity, and originality (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Brown, 1964; Gordon,
1963; Krishnan, 1965); being resourceful and enthusiastic (Lange 8 Jacobs, 1960;
Leman & Solomon, 1952); and having technical skill, perception, knowledge,
memory, imagination, endurance, and courage.

Intefligenseandahilliyflaits. Studies on leaders’ intelligence and ability traits
have had mixed results. Some researchers have suggested that ifthere is too great
a difference between the intelligence quotient (IQ) of the leader and that of the

average member, this will work against the leader (Bass 8. Stogdill, 1990). Although

19

Kiessling and Kalish (1961) and Roadman (1964) reported a linear relationship
between leadership, intelligence, and ability, other researchers have found an
overlap between the scores of leaders and nonleaders on IQ tests, indicating that
superior intelligence is not an absolute requirement for leadership. Ghiselli (1963)
confirmed this contention when he found that there was a curvilinear relationship
between leadership and managerial success. The conclusion that can be drawn
from these findings is that people with very high or very low le tend not to be good
leaders: This would indicate that the most successful leaders in today’s institutions
tend to be those of average intelligence.

WW. Investigations of the relationships of physical
characteristics such as age, height, weight, and appearance to leadership have had
mixed or contradictory findings (Bass, 1949). Bernard (1928), Kohl and lrle (1920),
Nutting (1923), and Sheldon (1927) found that physique. energy, and health were
characteristics of leaders. On the other hand, the Standard and Poors (1967)
WWW indicated that those who
received promotions were individuals who, early in their lives, evidenced signs of
accomplishment. The Register also indicated that the average age of executives
was 50 years. This means that promotion would be based on experience in the
position, which is a function of age.

WW. Hambrick and Mason (1984) found
that when the managers of an organization had entrepreneurial experience, the firm

engaged in product innovation and expansion of markets. Other researchers have

20

found that leaders are characterized by a high need for achievement (Andrews,
1967; Slater, 1955) and by the achievement of organizational goals and objectives,
competence, good facilitation, enabling others to make effective contributions, and
giving direction (Hollander, 1978). The more visionary the leader, the more likely it
is that the organization will continue to grow as a result of its task-oriented approach.
It follows that the more visionary the leader is, the more effective he or she will be
in achieving organizational goals.

W. Leadership appointments tend to be made
from among individuals who have had extensive experience in the organization.
Miller and Dirksen (1965) found that leaders tended to come from higher
socioeconomic backgrounds, whereas Baldwin (1932) reported that there was no
relationship between socioeconomic background and leadership status. Based on
several studies, Bass and Stogdill (1990) concluded that (a) high socioeconomic
status was an advantage in attaining leadership status, (b) leaders who achieved
high-level positions in industry tended to come from the lower socioeconomic strata
of society, and (c) leaders tend to be better educated now than they were in the past.
This means that experience, socioeconomic status. and education can influence
lower-strata employees to strive for leadership positions.

Bass and Stogdill (1990) also reported a positive finding with regard to social
characteristics, which suggested that leaders are active participants in various
activities. They interact easily with a wide range of personalities, and this interaction

is valued by others (Bentz, 1964). Leaders are also valued by group members

21

because they have such characteristics as nurturance (Roff, 1950) and popularity
(Harell & Lee, 1964), which foster loyalty and cohesiveness in the group. Despite
the prolific research on trait-oriented characteristics of leaders, however, this writer
failed to discover a consistent pattern of leadership traits. Current writers seem to
support the situational or behavioral approach to the study of leadership (Suraphol,
1984). However, the studies on social characteristics have made a significant

contribution to the field by analyzing the various traits of leaders.

IbeBebavicralAppmacb

The belief that the leadership-tralt-oriented approach to studying leadership
had reached a dead end motivated researchers to attempt to describe the behaviors
rather than the traits of leaders. The behavioral approach basically involves
examining leader behavior in relation to work groups. This approach seeks to
explain leadership in terms of what leaders do, whereas the trait approach attempts
to describe leadership on the basis of what leaders are (Hodgets & Altman, 1979).
Two major studies on leadership style were conducted at the Ohio State University
and the University of Michigan. I

W. In the Ohio State University study, which
was led by Hemphill and Coons (1967), two sets of questionnaires—the Leadership
Behavior Description Questionnaires (LBDQ)-were developed, each consisting of
150 questions. Respondents were to describe a leader by choosing one of five
alternatives for each question. On one of the questionnaires, the leader was to

indicate the style of leadership he or she used. On the other, subordinates indicated

22

the style they thought their superior exhibited. Two characteristics of leadership style
emerged from the Ohio State University study: initiating structure and consideration.
Initiating structure refers to the leader's behavior in endeavoring to establish well-
defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and procedural
methods. Consideration refers to behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust,
respect, and warmth in the relationship between the leader and members of his or
her staff (Halpin, 1966).

According to Suraphol (1984), initiating structure and consideration have been
found to be separate and distinct dimensions. A high or low score on one dimension
does not necessitate a high or a low score on the other. The behavior of the leader
according to the LBDQ could be any combination of the two dimensions.

Korrnan (1966) remarked that the main weakness ofthe Ohio State University
study is that the measurement of leadership style by the leader does not correlate
with that done by subordinates. Nevertheless, despite the shortcomings of this
study, it laid the groundwork for further research in the area of leadership using the
behavioral approach.

WWW. Likert (1956) led the leadership study at the
University of Michigan, which was an attempt to explain leadership by examining a
cluster of characteristics that seemed to be related to each other. The questionnaire
used in the study. which is commonly known asthe Least Preferred Co-worker Scale
(LPC), consisted of two parts. The first part was designed to measure subordinates’

perceptions of their supervisor’s leadership behavior, and the second part was

23

intended to measure subordinates’ perceptions of their peers’ leadership behaviors
(Taylor 8. Bowers, 1972).

Two distinct leadership styles or concepts emerged from these studies:
employee centered, i.e., employee oriented, and job centered and production
oriented, i.e., task oriented (Fiedler & Leister, 1977; Likert, 1950; Morse & Reimer.
1956). According to the survey results, leaders who were described as production
or task oriented emphasized the production aspects of the job, whereas employee-
centered leaders stressed relationship aspects. According to Ivancevich et al.
(1977), the main weakness of both the Ohio State University and University of
Michigan studies was that they ignored situational factors that influence supervisors'

leadership styles.

II 3 I. 5'! I. IE I

Research efforts to determine what constituted the most effective leadership
style continued after the Ohio State University and University of Michigan studies.
Such studies on self-perceived leadership styles centered on the contingency or
situational approach. This approach was an attempt to explain leadership style by
using the interactive relationships among the leader, the followers, and situational
factors. Several theories have been developed that recognize one or more
conditions that might moderate the leader's style and effectiveness. These theories
attempt to explain why some individuals are successful in certain organizations but
not in others (F iedler, 1967; Reddin, 1970). Questions that these theories attempted

to address were (a) How does one know when a leader is effective? and (b) What

24
factors determine whether or not a given style of leadership behavior will be
effective?

W. The path-goal theory states that, when leaders can
clarify goals and the paths for attaining those goals, there is a higher probability of
effective outcomes; also. environmental factors affect the performance and
satisfaction of subordinates (McDermott, 1981). Filley, House, and Kerr (1971)
identified two primary propositions of the path theory. First, they stated that leader
behavior is acceptable and satisfying to subordinates to the extent that they see it
as an immediate source of satisfaction or as an instrument to future satisfaction.
Second, leader behavior will be motivational to the extent that (a) it makes
satisfaction of subordinates’ needs contingent on effective performance. and (b) it
complements the environment of subordinates by providing coaching, guidance,
support, and rewards, which are necessary for effective performance.

Ihupemnimndiiimitmtlm. According to Sims (1977) and Hunt and
Larson (1977), the operant conditioning theory states that leader behavior is
dependent on the management of reinforcement contingencies in the environment.
This means that, as a leader is rewarded for providing good leadership (e.g., through
an increase in pay, promotion, certificate, and so on), that person would want to do
more so as to maintain his or her high administrative profile. Stogdill (1974) and
Sims (1977) supported this theory, adding that a leader's management of reward

contingencies might constitute another style of leadership. Reinforcement studies,

25

especially those by Skinner (1978), have shown that a desired outcome can be

brought about by applying operant conditioning on a subject under study.

WWII-E 'II II. Sll

In his contingency model, Fiedler (1967) presented a theory of leadership
effectiveness by stating that a group’s success in achieving organizational goals
depends on two factors: (a) the leader’s style, as measured by the score on the
Least Preferred Co—worker Scale (LPG); and (b) how favorable the situation is to the
leader in tenns of the amount of control and influence he or she has over the group,
task, and results. The LPC, which Fiedler had developed, was used to measure the
leader's orientation. It required the leader to think of all the people he or she had
ever worked with and then to think of the persons with whom he or she worked least
well. Fieldler (1971) associated low LPC scores (mainly negative ratings) with a
production-centered leadership style and high LPC scores (mainly positive ratings)
with a relationship-centered leadership style. In another study, Fiedler ( 1983)
claimed that certain types of people perform better in some leadership situations
than in others and that the same person will not necessarily excel in all leadership
roles.

Leadersmqstyle. Fiedler, Chemers, and Mahar (1976) defined leadership
style as the underlying motivation of leaders. The contingency model identified two
main self-perceived leadership styles—task oriented and relationship motivated—as

determined by the leader's score on the LPC. In the Ohio State University and

26

University of Michigan studies, researchers developed theories of how to measure
employee-centered and production-centered self-perceived leadership styles or how
to recognize such behavior in a leader. Leaders who score high on the scale (high-
LPC leaders) are viewed as being relationship motivated, and those who score low
on the scale (low-LPC leaders) are viewed as being task motivated. F iedler and his
associates described how each of the leadership behaviors or styles can be
recognized in a leader, as follows:

Relationship—motivated (high LPC) leaders tend to be most concerned with
maintaining good interpersonal relations, sometimes even to the point of letting the
task suffer. In relaxed and well-controlled situations, this type of person tends to
reverse his or her behavior and become more task conscious.

Task—motivated (low LPC) leaders place primary emphasis on task
performance. These leaders are no-nonsense people, who tend to work best from
guidelines and specific directions. If guidelines are lacking, these leaders’ first
priority is to organize and create guidelines and then assign the various duties to
their subordinates. However, under relaxed and well-controlled situations, task-
motivated leaders take the time to be pleasant and pay more attention to their
employees’ morale.

SituationaLchtLQl. Fiedler and Garcia (1987) viewed situational control as
a major determinant of leaders’ behavior because it provides them the power and
influence that determine the degree to which they can implement plans, decisions,

and action strategies. By definition, therefore, situational control or leadership is the

27

degree to which a leadership situation provides control, influence, and power to get
the job done. Fiedler and Garcia also defined situational control as the degree to
which leaders can predict and determine what their groups are going to do. and what
outcomes their actions and decisions are going to have. Three components
indicating the degree of control and influence a leader has over a situation are
leader-member behavior, task structure, and position power.

Leader-member behavior is the degree to which the group supports,
respects, and likes the group leader. This is considered the most important single
element in situational control, which means that the leader's chances of
accomplishing tasks are greater given the loyalty, dependability, and supportive
nature of the group. Fiedler (1973) stated that an unreliable, undependable, and
nonsupportive group may or may not follow orders.

Task structure is the degree to which the goals, procedures, and specific
guidelines for particular tasks are clearly spelled out. According to Fiedler et al.
(1976), highly structured assignments that delineate how a job is to be done in step-
by-step detail give leaders more influence over their groups than do vague,
nebulous, and unstructured assignments. Therefore, the first requirement of task
structure is a clearly defined assignment.

Position power is the degree to which the position the leader holds gives him
or her authority to reward and punish group members. Stated another way, leaders
will have more power and influence if they can hire and fire and discipline and

reprimand members than if they cannot (Fiedler, 1983).

28

The three elements-leader-member relations, task structure, and position
power—form the situational-control dimension of leadership. Fiedler (1969)
concluded from several studies that leader-member relations was the most factor in
determining a leader’s influence over the group, whereas task structure and position
power were rated as second and third, respectively. Fiedler (1976) classified
situational control Into eight cells or octants and divided them into three categories

of high, moderate, and low control (see Table 1).

Table 1: Classification of situational control or favorableness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Control Moderate Low Control
or Favorable Control or Unfavorable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Leader-
member Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor
relations
Task High High Low Low High High Low Low
structure
Position Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak
power
Source: Fiedler, F. E. (1973). The trouble with leadership training is that it

doesn’t train leaders. Esycholchlpday, 6(9), 26.

According to Fiedler (1973), high situational control (Octant 1) means, for
example, that the leader has good relations with the group, a highly structured task,
and a strong position of power. He cautioned, however. that having a high degree

of situational control does not necessarily mean that a leader is effective. Results

29

from more than 30 years of research showed that task-motivated leaders tended to
perform best in situations in which they had high control, as well as in those in which
they had relatively low control.

To elaborate on the relationship between situational leadership classifications,
Fiedler and Garcia (1987) developed a schematic of the contingency model to
indicate the association between the relationship-motivated, task-motivated, and

position-power components of leadership (see Figure 2).

 

 

 

i
E
'3
.2
.18
my: Moderate Low
Control Control Control
Figure 2: Graphic representation of the contingency model.

Source: Fiedler, F. E, &Garcia, J. E. (1987). W

”.me‘re ee' e-._|eee._l.e|.

performance. New York: John WIley & Sons, p. 166.

As shown in Figure 2, relationship-motivated leaders generally perform best
under situations of moderate control, and task-motivated leaders perform best in
situations of high or low control. On the other hand, both relationship-motivated and

task-motivated leaders perform well under some situations but not others. Fiedler

30

(1983) stated that, for leadership to be effective, there must be a correct match
between leadership style and the leadership situation; this match can be improved
by changing either the leadership style or the leadership situation (situational
control). However, Fiedler cautioned that, although it is possible to change
personality and the motivational structure that is part of personality, this is a difficult
and uncertain process. It is, however, relatively easy to modify the leadership
situation (Fiedler, 1976).

According to Fiedler, the process of developing situations that match one's
leadership style is called job engineering, which involves changes in leader-member
relations, task-structure, or position power. Further, Fiedler (1983) indicated that the
success of job engineering depends on training individuals to recognize their own
perceived leadership styles, to be able to diagnose the control provided by their
leadership situation, and to change their leader-member relations, task structure,
and/or position power to match the leadership situation to their personal styles. In
1976, Fiedler developed a new training method for leaders called Leader Match,
which he found to increase leadership effectiveness.

With regard to improving organizational effectiveness, Fiedler (1972) had
suggested that the first step in doing this was to determine which leaders are task
motivated and which are relationship motivated. In addition, he stated that the
organization should carefully categorize its managerial jobs. Finally, Fiedler

suggested that, in leadership training, more effort should be devoted to teaching

31
leaders how to modify their environments and their jobs so that these fit their style
of leadership. Doing so would improve leadership effectiveness and productivity.

WW. Even though researchers have used the
contingency model extensively in determining perceived leadership styles of
administrators in business, the model has been criticized on two fronts. One
criticism of the model has been that it is method bound, especially with regard to the
LPC score (Fiedler 8 Garcia, 1987). In particular, critics have claimed that scores
on the LPC measure do not correlate highly with the usual personality trait scores,
and that they do not correlate with leader behavior ratings.

Another criticism is that there is no absolute metric for the situational control
dimension. The question is whether the situational control dimension has been
interpreted too ”flexibly,“ as some critics have claimed (Fiedler 8 Garcia, 1987). The
authors and the critics have agreed that the basic hypothesis of the contingency
model is best represented at this time by measures that conceptualize situational

Control in terms of high, moderate, or low zones of control.

II I I l . E . I C l
Black and McCanse (1991) designed a model for identifying leadership styles

by means of a managerial grid. Figure 3 is an illustration of their leadership grid.
According to this model, a 1,1 (lmpoverished Management) leadership style

is one in which the leader exerts minimum effort to get the work done, to sustain

organizational membership. A 1.9 (Country Club Management) leadership style is

32

one in which the leader shows more concern for people than for productivity. He or

she is well-liked by the employees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"9h
9 1:9 I I I I I 99
9
—CountryClubManagernent TeaInManagemem
8 were Workecccrrm ietrorn
needeolpequelor ' - ..
_ acme-mm ”WW m _
7 m end, mg m "09mm: «mm “I
§ 6
S MlddleoltheRoadManagernem_.
5
g 5,5
4 Min omi Emmeri- —._
WWW...»
hang .____
a l l
R-lrnpovenshedManagemnt Many-COMM --
2 Exertlonofnin'lnurnel'lortto Emmett-0mm
required doneh ' manicured:
'— wmw W'Gt’mmm -
1
low 1'1 I I I I I I 9’1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ®
Low own-hum High

Figure 3: Leadership grid model.

Source: Blake, R., 8 McCanse, M. (1991). Leadership_djlemrna
selutjenserid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

On the other side of the grid, a 9,1 (Authority-Compliance) style is one in
which the most efficiency is required. The leader is almost a workaholic and has
little time to develop any relationships. His or her goal is to get the work done. On

the other hand, a 9.9 (T earn Management) style is both production oriented and

33

people-relations oriented. This leadership style is most preferred if it can be
achieved, according to Blake and McCanse (1991). In between all of these is the
5,5 (Middle-of-the-Road) style, in which just enough is done to keep performance
and relationships going. The way the leader resolves conflict will reflect the style on
the leadership grid that he or she is practicing.
D'tli . I I I . S! I
BetweerLMalesandEemales

There has been an ongoing debate about whether the leadership styles of
women and men really differ. Some quantitative research has indicated no
difference between male and female leaders, whereas in other quantitative studies
differences were found between male and female leaders (Samgeun, 1991).
Morrison, White, and Van Velsor (1987) investigated leadership differences at the
Center for Creative Leadership. They found that "as individuals, executive women
and men seem to be virtually identical psychologically, intellectually, and
emotionally“ (p. 85). However, Schein (1988) discovered from a review of leadership
research that the differences in leadership styles within each gender were greater
than those between the genders. That is, the differences among women (or men),
considering variations in background, experience, and so on, were greater than the

differences between women in general and men in general.

SummanLQLLeadersbiplbeDry
Despite the criticisms of the contingency theory, it is still one of the most

widely used models for determining the self-perceived leadership styles of

34

administrators in industry and organizations. Blake and McCanse (1991) developed
a leadership dilemma solutions grid that can be used in determining other perceived
leadership styles beyond the contingency model. The measurement instrument
presents some difficulty when attempting to compare the perceived leadership styles
analytically with other variables. On the other hand. there are no universal variables
of leadership. Various researchers have studied different variables based on the
particular leadership theories they supported. There is, therefore, controversy
among researchers on which approach provides a satisfactory answer to what
constitutes the best leadership style.

Fiedler’s contingency theory, one of the theories of leadership used in this
study, is based on discovering two main things:

1. Whetherthe leader’s primary goal is to develop close relationships with
others or to accomplish assigned tasks.

2. Whether the leader has situational control, i.e., the extent to which the
job situation gives the leader power, control, and influence.

Researchers have found that it is possible for a leader to improve his or her
leadership effectiveness by matching his or her perceived leadership style with the
job situation. Fiedler (1976) contended that it is important for leaders to recognize
their leadership styles in order to determine whether they are effective or not and

how they could improve through training.

35
Stressandieadersbip
DeflnflinnmStLess

Stress in an organization has been defined in a number of ways. Selye
(1979) defined stress as the nonspecific response of the body to any demand. This
definition emphasizes the role of emotional arousal in the production of the stress
reaction, which can be caused by a number of factors.

Stress also has been defined as the effect brought about by environmental
conditions, noise (Broadbent, 1971), long hours of work, tediousness of the job,
deadlines, and so on. It has been found that environmental conditions can produce
various effects on a leader’s style (Fiedler 8 Fiedler, 1975; McGrath, 1970).

Stress has been fOund to affect task-oriented behavior and performance in
several ways (Fiedler 8 Fiedler, 1975; Green, Nebecker, 8 Alvares, 1980; Lazarus,
1966). As a result of stress, people tend to reach premature closure and make
fewer distinctions in using information (Broadbent, 1971) and often behave
abnormally (Staw, Sandelan, 8 Dutton, 1981).

II Eli I [SI (IS! I'
I I , B I .

Stress is a ubiquitous fact of organizational life because it profoundly affects
the way in which a leader behaves (Fiedler 8 Garcia, 1987). In their research,
Fiedler and Garcia examined stress on leaders arising from their relationship with
their boss. They found that when the relationship between leader and boss was

bad, this affected the leader’s job performance. Gruenfeld, Rance, and

36

Weissenberg (1969) identified the ten most stressful situations in business as
managing conflict, meeting project deadlines, having too much to do, having to
discipline, making a mistake, speaking before a group, denying a request, making

decisions, asking for a raise, and having problems with the boss.

WSW

People who are under stress are less able to perform cognitive tasks or make
accurate observations than those who are not under stress (Siegel 8 Loftus, 1978).
Also, during stressful situations. executives are likely to become more directive than
participative (Lowin, 1968). This means that stressful situations are likely to affect
leadership style, as discussed above.

Three additional studies on stress and leadership that are relevant to this
study were conducted by Gladstein and Reilly (1985); Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snock,
and Rosenthal (1964); and Graham (1982). Gladstein and Reilly found that when
stress was induced in a business simulation by introducing threats and the pressure
of time, decision making became centralized. This suggests that the leadership style
changed to authority compliance as the leader made decisions unilaterally. Kahn
et al. found that two distinct sources of stress in organizations were role conflict and
role ambiguity. Graham discovered that the job stress of professional employees of
county extension services was lower when the leaders oftheir district program were
described as higher on the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. This means
that leaders who maintained good relationships with their co-workers had lowerjob

stress.

37
Stressandtlealth

The relationship between stress and health has been acknowledged in the
psychological and medical professions. Selye (1956) was the first investigator to
contend that stress produces illness. Since then, several researchers have found
that illness is particular to the character of'stress and is therefore specifiable; that is,
certain patterns of stress predispose people to hypertension, other patterns of stress
predispose to respiratory disorders, still others to digestive disorders, and so on
(Blake 8 Mouton, 1964).

Soderman (1992) conducted a study on how Michigan farm families coped
with stress. The research was conducted from 1986 through 1991. Soderman
developed a recording system whereby community health personnel measured and
recorded the study participants’ blood pressure, cholesterol level, height, and weight.
The researcher found that respondents fell into two groups. Farmers who were
identified as Type A were those who behaved very differently than usual under
pressure and generally overreacted whenever they perceived that control was
slipping away. The Type A personalities also were likely to become somewhat more
agitated and aggressive under stress. In contrast, the Type B personalities were
quite different. They were found to react to stress more calmly, "rolling with the
punches” and seeing a stressful event or necessary life changes as perhaps
troublesome but also as some of the many challenges that can be expected as one
rounds the curves of life. Soderman also found that when stress was excessive over

long periods of time, It could have deleterious effects on the body, although

38
perceived stress and health problems over the five-year period under study were

difficult to interpret.

IIE 'IEII'I'EIISI
Robinson (1980) developed the Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale to

determine the stress category into which agricultural professionals fall. This rating
scale is used to examine people’s personality or dominant behavioral styles and
indicates how each style may increase or decrease stress, which is injurious to
health. This scale was developed along the lines of the LPC scale. It includes 20
7-point Likert-type items indicating the level of aggressive or adaptive behavior and
how that behavior relates to health. The rating instrument contains pairs of
descriptive words with opposite meanings, and respondents describe their behavior
by choosing a point on the 7—point continuum between the two extremes. This scale
was used as one of the measurement devices in the present study and is described

in greater detail in Chapter III.

B I III I I. fill [CESD' l

Suraphol (1984) investigated the interrelationships between leadership style,
locus of control, and other characteristics of county extension leaders in the
Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service. The researcher used the LPC
developed by Fiedler (1976). He found that approximately 50% of the county
leaders practiced a task-motivated leadership style, whereas 39% practiced a

relationship-motivated style. An additional finding was that task-motivated leaders

39

had moderate situational control. Another finding was that relationships between
leadership style and other selected characteristics were of no practical importance.
In addition, Suraphol found that two independent variables, training in administration
and tenure as county leader, contributed the most In explaining the perceived

leadership styles of the respondents.

I I I. Bl [CESD'I 'll'l'

In 1992, the WW
Qernrnjneefiemrt was published (Cooperative Extension Service, 1992). Among
other things, it contained the recommendations ofa special committee to restructure
the Michigan State University CES. In that report, county extension directors’
leadership responsibilities were described as follows:

They are responsible for both administrative leadership and program
coordination at the county level.

They have primary leadership with the county CES advisory board.
They should not be tied to a specific program area.
They take leadership for addressing major local issues.

They speak for the county CES office and maintain an effective public
relations program.

Specific responsibilities of the county director include the following:
Works with county staff members in utilizing short-term and long-range
program planning to develop plans of work which reflect annual priorities for

the county as well as state and federal CES commitments.

Provides leadership for the development and successful operation of an
overall county advisory council and leadership development program.

40

Coordinates the county staff’s issue identification process.

Provides leadership for effective Extension programs. Monitors and guides
programming efforts of staff for relevance, completeness, and effectiveness.

Coordinates the preparation of annual reports and other reports of activity
and accomplishment for the public, county government and CES
administration.

Works with county staff members to assure compliance with equal
employment, affirmative action and other civil rights requirements.

Shares responsibilities with county staff for meeting MSUICES commitments
to diversity/pluralism at the county level.

Serves as a spokesperson for the county CES program, establishes a
harmonious and productive work environment, and creates and maintains
positive public relations for CES at the loml level.

Develops county CES budget request. Manages county CES budget and
monitors expenditures according to established organizational procedures.

Shares with county staff the preparation of requests for special funding,
contracts and grants, and develops proposals that enhance programs and the
organizational mission at the county level.

Procures office space, equipment and supplies.

Provides leadership forthe selection, orientation and performance appraisal
of county professional staff members according to established organizational
procedures. Has input into the selection process for provost-appointed staff
members.

ls responsible for personnel management for county clerical and support
staff.

Works towards resolution of disagreements and problem relationships within
the county.

Participates in professional development activities to maintain effectiveness
in leadership and management roles and to maintain a disciplinary
competence in the educational role.

41

Carries out an effective educational program in one or more identified
program areas as approved by the regional director.

The report also mentioned that the educational criterion for appointment as
a county CES director is at least a bachelor’s degree (a master’s degree is
desirable). In addition, to be appointed as a county extension director, an individual
should have demonstrates leadership abilities and human relations and
communication skills. The restructuring gave the county CES directors more power
in several areas. Along with this power, they were expected to have effective

leadership ability.

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

introduction

The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to identify the self-
perceived leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan and to examine
those styles in relation to their leadership situations (situational control). A further
purpose was to determine whether a relationship existed between selected
demographic characteristics of the directors and their self-perceived leadership
styles and stressful situations. In addition, an attempt was made to predict whether
certain directors are likely to move to higher levels of aggressive behavior as a result
of job-related stress, which would negatively affect their health.

The methods and procedures that were used in conducting the study are
described in this chapter. The research questions are restated, followed by a
description of the population forthe study. The questionnaires used in the study are

discussed, and the data-collection and data-analysis methods are described.

Researcbfiuestlcns
1. What are the self-perceived leadership styles and leadership situations

(situational control) of county extension directors in Michigan?

42

43

2. What types of behaviors do county extension directors exhibit in
stressful situations, and what effects could these types of behaviors have on their
heahh?

3. Is there a relationship between the number of employees under the
supervision of county extension directors and stressful situations, or between the
number of employees and directors’ leadership styles?

4. Is there a relationship between selected demographic characteristics
(age, educational degree, years of experience) of county extension directors and the
directors’ self-perceived leadership styles and stressful situations?

5. Is there a difference between the self-perceived leadership styles of
male and female county extension directors?

6. Are certain cooperative extension directors likely to move to a higher
level of Aggressive 1 and 2 behaviors as a result ofjob-related stress, and can any
of the selected demographic characteristics be used to predict which directors are
most likely to experience an increase in stress as a result of their position?

7. Can any of the selected demographic characteristics be used to predict

the leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan?

Wu
The population for this study consisted of all 82 county extension directors in
Michigan. There were three acting directors who were not included in the study.

Hence. 79 county extension directors were surveyed.

44
Instrumentation

This researcher used the contingency model of leadership effectiveness
theorized by Fiedler (1967). According to the model, a leader’s success is
contingent on two factors: (a) leadership style, which is the person’s underlying
motivation, and (b) leadership situation, which is the degree to which the job
situation gives the leader control and influence. These two factors of the
contingency model were used in the present study to better understand the status
of county extension directors’ leadership as CES administrators.

The questionnaires that were used to collect data for this study included the
Least Preferred Co-worker Scale (LPC), three subscales of the Situational Control
Scale (the Leader-Member Relations Scale (LMR), the Task Structure Rating Scale,
and the Position Power Rating Scale), and the Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale.

Each of these scales is described in the following pages.

W
The LPC scale was developed by Fiedler in 1983 (see Appendix B). The

scale consists of 18 8-point bipolar scale items, such as:

Friendly: : : : : : : : : Unfriendly
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Cooperative: : : : : : : : : Uncooperative
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The favorable pole of each scale is scored as "8” and the unfavorable pole

as ”1." The sum of scores on the 18 items on the scale constitutes the LPC score.

45
Fiedler and Chemers (1984) suggested that scores of 73 or above are called high
LPC, which means that the leader's perceived leadership style is relationship
motivated. A score of 64 or below is considered low LPC, which means that the
leader is task motivated, and a score of 65 to 72 is considered middle of the road,
which means that the leader is socio-independent.

Leaders who have low LPC scores describe their least preferred co-worker
in very negative terms, meaning that they are basically task motivated. They prefer
situations in which their ability to perform a task is secure—that is, when the group
supports them, when their position power is high, and when the task is structured.
They also seek to develop pleasant work relations. and their behavior is then
seemingly friendly and considerate toward co-workers (Fiedler, 1973). In short, a
low-LPC leader favors work over relationships, whereas a high-LPC leader prefers
good co-worker relationships over task accomplishment.

W. The construct validity of the LPC Scale has been
supported in a number of studies (Bass, 1960; Fiedler, 1975; Fiedler et al., 1976;
Posthuma, 1970; Rice, 1978). For example, Rice sampled 66 out of 114 studies
involving more than 2,000 empirical relationships between LPC scores and other
variables. He concluded that the LPC was a valid measure of social distance,
personal need, cognitive complexity, and interpersonal relations, as well as task
orientations. On the other hand, Bass reanalyzed 81 measures that had been

administered to 163 respondents and concluded that (a) low LPC scores tended to

46
differentiate between socially stereotyped subjects, and (b) low-LPC participants
were task oriented.

The LPC Scale also has been tested for construct validity in laboratory
situations. Fiedler and Chemers (1974) reported an average correlation of .50
between the LPC Scale and group performance. This correlation means that about
25% of the variation in group performance can be accounted for by the leader’s LPC
score. The LPC Scale or contingency model by Fiedler (1967) is the most widely
used instrument in research on leadership (Bass 8 StOQdill, 1990), which is an
indication of its high construct validity.

WW. Several researchers have reported that the LPC
has very high internal consistency (see Table 2). Rice (1978) reported a median
split-half reliability of between .89 and .90 forthe LPC Scale. The studies mentioned
indicate the solid base of reliability of the LPC Scale in measuring self-perceived

leadership styles.

Table 2: Representative split-half correlations of the LPC Scale.

 

 

 

 

Researcher and Scale Reliability Number of Subjects
Godfrey, Fiedler, 8 Hall (1959) .92 482
23-item scale
Arbuthnot (1968) . .86 106
17-item scale
Meuwese (1964) .91 178

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Fiedler, F. E., 8Garcia, J. E. (1987). NemepmeehesJeefleetrye

3o‘0bl" 0‘II‘ 0 quO'OIH‘quIoOIOIII‘

New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, p. 73.

47
II S'l I. It: llS I

The Situational Control Scale, designed by Fiedler et al. (1976), consists of
three subscales: Leader-Member Relations, Task Structure, and Position Power.
All three scales may be found in Appendix B. Because leader-member relations is
the most important aspect of situational control, followed by task structure and
position power, the scales were composed to reflect this difference. The Leader-
Member Relations Scale is designed to have twice the weight of the Task Structure
Scale and four times the weight of the Position Power Scale (maximum numbers of
points total 40, 20, and 10, for the LMR, Task Structure, and Position Power scales,
respectively).

W. This scale is made up of eight
5-point Likert-type items that measure the support the leader receives from his or her
group members and determine whether the group members work well with each
other. A leader's score on the scale is the sum of scores on the eight 5-point items.
According to Fiedler (1976), a score of 30 or above indicates that the leader has
good leader-member relations. On the other hand, a score of 20 to 29 indicates
moderate relations, whereas a score of 20 or below indicates poor leader—member
relations.

W. This scale consists of two parts. Part 1 includes
10 3-point Likert-type items concerning the extent to which the goal of the
assignment or job is clearly stated. Items also concern whether there is more than

one way to accomplish a task and how easy it is to determine whether the job has

48
been done correctly. The sum of a person’s scores on the 10 items indicates the
level of that individual’s task structure. A score of 14 or above indicates a high task
structure, whereas a score of 7 to 13 indicates a medium task structure, and a score
of 6 or below indicates a low task structure.

Fiedler and Chemers (1984) found that, without adequate training and
experience, leaders necessarily have a lower task structure. To account for this
discrepancy, they developed a second subscale to be used in conjunction with
Part 1 of the Task Structure Scale. Part 2 contains two items: “Compared to others
in this or similar positions, how much training has the leader had?" and "Compared
to others in this or similar positions, how much experience has the leader had?” The
response choices are ”No training at all,“ “Very little training,” "A moderate amount
of training,” and ”A great deal oftraining." Values assigned to each choice range
from 0 to 3. For job experience, the choices are "No experience at all," "Very little
experience,” ”A moderate amount of experience,“ and 'A great deal of experience."

The sum of scores on Part 1 is adjusted by subtracting from it the sum of
scores on Part 2. Fiedler and Chemers (1984) cautioned, however, that Task
Structure scores of 6 or below should not be adjusted with scores from the job
training and job experience part.

W. The Position Power Scale is composed of five 3-
point Likert-type items that measure the extent to which a leader can reward and

punish his or her subordinates and hire or promote them, and whether the leader is

49

given support and legitimate power through an official title of authority. This scale
was used to measure the legitimate power of the directors.

The sum of scores on the five items indicates the leader’s position power.
According to Fiedler and Chemers (1984), a score of 7 to 10 on the scale indicates
high position power. A score of 4 to 6 means that the director has moderate position
power, and a score of 3 or below indicates low position power.

Finally, to determine overall situational control, the scores from the LM R, Task
Structure, and Position Power scales were summed. A score of 51 to 70 denoted
high situational control, a score of 31 to 50 indicated moderate control, and a score
of 10 to 30 meant that the director had low situational control. F iedler and Chemers
(1984) explained the ranges of situational control as follows:

1. High control means that the leader has a great deal of control and
influence, exemplified by good leader-member relations, high task structure, and
high position power.

2. Moderate control is a situation in which a Ieadertypically is presented
with mixed problems—either good relations with subordinates but an unstructured
task and low position power orthe reverse: poor relations but a structured task and
high position power.

3. Low control is a situation in which a leader’s control and influence are
relatively low. That is, the group does not support the leader, and neither task
structure nor position power gives the leader much influence. This is more

challenging and, to some individuals, a more stressful situation.

50
WW. Michaelson (1973) showed that

leaders with considerate socioemotional behaviors performed best in moderate-
control situations, whereas those with task-relevant behaviors performed best in the
same situations in which task-motivated (low-LPC) leaders performed best. Fiedler
and Garcia ( 1987) mentioned that Shaw and Blum (1966) found similar results by
comparing leader behaviors in groups with relatively moderate control and
nonstructured tasks. Suraphol (1984) stated that, because the three subscales of
situational control, along with the LPC Scale, have been used as measurement
instruments in leader-member training programs and at least 19 studies have shown
that groups trained with the Leader Match program improved significantly more than
control groups, the validity of the subscales is accepted.
BeliahflfiLQLlhuituatiQnalJantLQLlaflables. Fiedler and Garcia (1987)
indicated that situational control has been operationalized in different ways, for
example, with different religions (Meuwese 8 Fiedler, 1965), heterogeneity in
language and culture (Fiedler, 1967), and stress induced by working in a foreign
environment. Such research has shown that situational control can be measured by
means of the contingency theory to indicate the degree to which a leader has a
direct influence on the task. Most of the studies have supported the contingency
model predictions (Fiedler, 1971, 1978). A number of researchers have found the
situational-control factors to be reliable and predictive of leadership behavior

(Chemers 8 Skrzypek, 1972).

51
III 'IEII' l'illSl

Robinson (1980) developed the Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale for
persons in agricultural professions. This rating scale is used to examine an
individual’s personality or dominant behavior style and how it may increase or
decrease stress, which is injurious to health. The scale was developed along the
lines of the LPC Scale. It is composed of 20 7-point Likert-type items indicating the
level of aggressive or adaptive lifestyle and how it is related to good health. The
rating instrument contains pairs of descriptive words (scales) with opposite
meanings; between the extremes is a series of numbers from 1 to 7 (see
Appendix B).

Scores on the Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale are the sum ofthe ratings
on the 20 items. A score of 110 to 140 (Aggressive Type 1) indicates that
respondents who fall in this category, are over 40 years of age, and smoke are likely
to develop cardiac illness. A score of 80 to 109 (Aggressive Type 2) indicates that
the respondent is prone to cardiac illness, but the risk is not as high as it is for
Aggressive Type 1 people. A score of 60 to 79 (Aggressive/Adaptive Type)
indicates a healthier pattern than either Aggressive Type 1 or 2. A score of 30 to 59
(Adaptive Type 2) meansthe respondent’s behavior is on the Iess-cardiac—prone end
of the spectrum. It also meansthat the respondent is relaxed and copes adequately
with stressful situations. Finally, a score of 20 to 29 (Adaptive Type 1) indicates that
the respondent tends to the extreme of noncardiac traits. The person’s behavior

expresses few of the reactions associated with cardiac disease. The

52

Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale was used in this study to determine whether a
leader’s behavior was aggressive, aggressive/adaptive, or adaptive, and to discover

the association of that behavior with the health of the respondent.

Eretestsctthelnstruments

A panel of experts, which comprised selected faculty members and
administrators from Michigan State University, were given the questionnaires to be
used in the study, to establish face and content validity. Based on their suggestions,
the questionnaires were modified and then pretested for reliability with 20 retired
county extension directors on August 3, 1995. Because the respondents did not
leave any questionnaire items blank, every item was included in the reliability test.
The reliability data are summarized in Table 3. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from a

low of .62 for the Position Power Scale to a high of .91 for the LPC Scale.

Table 3: Reliability coefficients for the scales used in this study.

 

 

 

 

Scale No. of Items Cronbach’s
Alpha

Least Preferred Co-worker Scale (LPC) 18 .91
Situational Control Scale

Leader-Member Relations Scale (LMR) 8 .91

Task Structure Rating Scale-Part 1 10 .73

Position Power Rating Scale 5 .62
Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale 20 .80

 

 

 

 

 

53
WW

Before undertaking the data collection, the researcher received approval from
the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) to
conduct the research (see Appendix B). Two weeks before the survey officially
began, a letter co-signed by the researcher and his dissertation advisor was sent out
on Department of Agricultural and Extension Education letterhead, notifying each
county extension director of his or her inclusion in the study population (see
Appendix C). The purpose of the letter was to explain the nature of the study and
to encourage all of the directors to participate. To improve the survey response rate,
the researcher used Dillman’s (1978) total design method for mailed surveys.

A list of 82 county extension directors was obtained from the Michigan State
University CES office. From the list, it could be seen that three counties had only
acting directors; they were excluded from participating in the study. Thus, a total of
79 county extension directors constituted the survey population. Three sets of
computer-generated mailing labels were produced for each respondent in the
population, in case follow-up mailings were needed. Each director was given an
identification code, which matched the code number on the questionnaire. This
enabled the researcher to follow up on nonrespondents.

A cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and a questionnaire were
sent to all directors in the first mailing on August 24, 1995 (see Appendix C). Once

a completed questionnaire was received from a respondent, the researcher sent him

54

or her an acknowledgment and appreciation letter. As the questionnaires were
returned, the codes and names were checked off the register.

On November 5, 1995, two weeks after the deadline given in the first letter,
a reminder letter was sent to directors who had not yet returned their surveys. A
third mailing, which included a reminder letter and another copy ofthe questionnaire,
was sent to nonrespondents after the second deadline. The dissertation committee
advisor also sent nonrespondents a reminder via electronic mail a few days after the
third deadline had passed. Atotal of 73 county extension directors responded to the

survey, for a response rate of 92.4%.

Housemate:

To determine whetherthere was any significant difference between early and
late respondents, a t-test independent sample analysis was done to compare the
responses of early respondents to those of late respondents. Selected items from
the LPC Scale, the Task Structure Scale, the LMR Scale, and the Aggressive/
Adaptive Lifestyle Scale were used in the analysis. No significant differences were
found between early and late respondents. Miller and Smith (1983) claimed that
researchers have found that late respondents often are similar to nonrespondents.
However, in this study, the late respondents were not significantly different from
early respondents, so it was concluded that the results could be generalized to the

entire population of county extension directors.

55
DatkAnalxsisEmcedures

The returned questionnaires were maintained according to their codes in
order to facilitate data entry into the computer and subsequent analysis. The data
were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
computer program.

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage)
and correlational analyses were used to analyze the relationship between self-
perceived leadership styles and stressful situations. Descriptive statistics also were
used to analyze selected demographic characteristics of the county extension
directors in relation to their self-perceived leadership styles and stressful situations.

To answer the first and second research questions, central tendency and
frequency distributions were used to separate participants’ responses into categories
for descriptive purposes. For Research Question 1 (What are the self-perceived
leadership styles and leadership situations [situational control] of county extension
directors in Michigan?), the sum of each director’s scores on the LPC Scale was
obtained. Based on that sum, the director was then divided into one of three
categories delineating the three self-perceived leadership styles. Respondents with
scores of 64 or less on the LPC Scale were considered as using a task-motivated
leadership style. Those with scores of 65 to 72 were considered as using a socio-
independent leadership style, whereas directors with scores of 73 or higher were

considered as using a relationshipmotivated leadership style.

56

To determine the leadership style/situational control match, scores on three
scales—Leader-Member Relations (LMR), Task Structure (TS), and Position Power
(PP)—were added together. Each scale had its own range for interpretive purposes;
these score ranges were explained earlier in this chapter. To obtain a match
between a leadership style and situational control, so as to determine the
effectiveness of the leader, the sum of scores on the LMR, TS, and PP scales was
obtained. The total score of each respondent was then categorized in terms of a
leadership style/situational control match (low control = 10-30, moderate control =
31-50, and high control = 51-70). Based on their LPC scores, the respondents were
then categorized, using their scores on the leadership style/situational control match,
into one of the following three groups: low control, moderate control, or high control.

To answer Research Question 2 (What types of behaviors do county
extension directors exhibit in stressful situations, and what effects could these types
of behaviors have on their health?), the Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale was
used. Frequencies, sums, and percentages were calculated. Directors’ scores on
the scale were used in determining their behavior type as follows: Aggressive Type
1 behavior (110-140), Aggressive Type 2 behavior (80-109), Aggressive/Adaptive
behavior (60-79), Adaptive Type 2 behavior (30-59), and Adaptive Type 1 behavior
(20-29). Based on these scores, the relationship between directors’ behavior in
response to stress and their health was determined.

To answer Research Question 3 (Is there a relationship between the number

of employees under the supervision of county extension directors and stressful

57
situations, or between the number of employees and directors’ leadership styles?),
the directors were divided into three groups, according to the number of employees
they supervised. Then an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to
determine whether differences existed among the three groups in terms of
leadership styles and stressful situations.

To answer Research Question 4 (Is there a relationship between selected
demographic characteristics [age, educational degree, years of experience] of
county extension directors and the directors’ self-perceived leadership styles and
stressful situations?), Pearson correlation coefficients were used to determine
whether there was a relationship between the dependent variables (leadership style
and stressful situations) and the independent variables (selected demographic
characteristics).

In interpreting the correlation coefficients for Research Questions 3 and 4, the
descriptions proposed by Davis (1971) were used. This is the most commonly used
convention for describing measures of association between variables. A positive
relationship between the variables indicates that a high score on one variable is
associated with a high score on the variable correlated with it, whereas a negative
relationship or correlation indicates that a low score on one variable is associated
with a high score on the other variable. The following are descriptors of correlation

coefficients (whether positive or negative):

58

Coefficient Descriptor

.70 or higher Very strong association
.50 to .69 Substantial association
.30 to .49 Moderate association
.10 to .29 Low association

.01 to .09 Negligible association

To answer Research Question 5 (Is there a difference between the self-
perceived leadership styles of male and female county extension directors?), the
cross-tabs (2 x 2) statistical technique was used to compare the self-perceived
leadership styles of male and female county extension directors.

To answer Research Question 6 (Are certain cooperative extension directors
likely to move to a higher level of Aggressive 1 and 2 behaviors as a result of job-
related stress, and can any of the selected demographic characteristics be used to
predict which directors are most likelyto experience an increase in stress as a result
of their position?), logistic regression analysis was used.

To answer Research Question 7 (Can any of the selected demographic
characteristics be used to predict the leadership styles of county extension directors
in Michigan?), multiple regression analysis was used.

Results of the data analyses are presented and discussed in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSES

introduction
The results of the data analyses are presented in this chapter. First, the
demographic characteristics of the respondents are discussed. Next, the results of
the data analyses for the research questions are presented. Each question is

restated, followed by the findings pertaining to that question.

Cl I . I' [II B l I

On the questionnaire, the county extension directors were asked to indicate
their gender, age, highest university degree, and years of experience as county
extension director. The distribution of respondents according to these

characteristics is discussed in the following pages.

Gentle:

Of the 73 county extension directors who participated in the study, 70% were
males and 30% were females (see Figure 4). Since Harrison’s (1984) study, the
percentage of female county extension directors in Michigan has increased from

9.9% to 30%.

59

60

Female (22)
30%

  

Male (51)
70%

Figure 4: Distribution of county extension directors by gender.

The mean age of the 69 directors who responded to this item was 45.2 years,
with a standard deviation of 5.4. They ranged in age from 33 to 56 years (see
Appendix A). For analysis purposes, the directors were categorized into the
following age groups: (a) 33 to 39 years, (b) 40 to 44 years, (c) 45 to 49 years, and
(d) 50 to 56 years (see Figure 5). The largest percentage of respondents (35.6%)
was between 45 and 49 years old. No director was younger than 33 years, nor was
any of them older than 56 years. These findings indicate that county extension

directors in Michigan are mature individuals.

II. I ll! . 'l [1
Highest university degree refers to the leader’s formal educational

qualifications. As shown in Figure 6, most of the directors (63%) had master's

61
degrees, whereas slightly more than one-fourth of them (27.4%) had bachelor’s

degrees. Only 8.2% of the directors had doctorates; 1.4% did not respond to this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

question.
. I
Missing I [13] 5 5 /o I I
TTJ‘F‘ 1:»..x. Z‘LL “9‘1! [1‘II13I] 81))?17-
33 to 39 I
I
40 to 44 275%
45 m 49 - " "-‘ -' - r". . 625.6?! [26] 35.6%
L I
50 to 56 ‘ ‘3‘“ u‘ 10] 13- I7°/°
‘h l I
z . /
o 5 1O 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percent

Figure 5: Distribution of county extension directors by age.

[46] 63.0%

[20] 27.4%

Percent

[6] 8.2%

 

Bachelors Masters Doctors Mssing
Degree

Figure 6: Highest university degree earned by directors.

62

Years of experience refers to the actual number of years that the respondent
had functioned as an extension director. The respondents’ years of experience
ranged from O to 23 (see Appendix A). For analysis purposes, the directors were
categorized into the following experience groups: (a) 0 to 5 years, (b) 6 to 11 years,
(c) 12 to 17 years, and (d) 18 to 23 years (see Figure 7). The mean years of
experience as county extension directors was 8.2, with a standard deviation of 1.4.
The data indicated that most directors (38.4%) had been in their position from 0 to
5 years. The longest service as a county extension director was 23 years. Four
percent of the directors did not indicate their years of experience. Thus, the findings
indicated that most county extension directors in Michigan had experience in that

position.

 

 
 
 
  
 

 

[7] 9.5%
18 - 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

:14] 19.1%
12-'17 i

 

 

 

 

 

Years of Experience

4’12!” 33.0%
.5... .. - -=:'- :- .. "- '3::ewxa».éw“ [2 ] 38.4%
o - 5

i i i I 71 L 1
‘ / / ,/ / / / / /
0 5 10 1 5 20 25 30 35 40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent

Figure 7: Years of experience of county extension directors.

63
E'I’EI"IIIB IQI'
Beseancbfluestioni

What are the self-perceived leadership styles and leadership situations
(situational control) of county extension directors in Michigan?

To gather the data with which to answer this question, the following scales
and subscales were used: the Least Preferred Co-worker Scale (LPC), the Leader-
Member Relations Scale (LMR), the Position Power Scale (PP), and the Task
Structure Rating Scale (TS), Parts 1 and 2. The TS Part 2 (Training and
Experience) subscale was used to adjust the TS Part 1 score, in order to compute
situational control.

Leadershjpjjyles. Respondents’ total scores on the LPC ranged from 18 to
118, with a mean of 58.4 and a standard deviation of 18.6. The median was 59.0
(see Appendix A). Based on Fiedler and Chemers’s (1984) classification, three self-
perceived leadership styles (task motivated, relationshipmotivated, and socio-

independent) were identified from responses to the LPC (see Table 4).

Table 4: Analysis of leadership styles using LPC scores without adjusting for
situational control (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership Style Score Range Frequency Percent
Task motivated 64 or below 47 64.4
Socio-independent 65.72 9 12.3
Relationship motivated 73 or higher 17 23.3
Total . 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

64

Of the three self-perceived leadership styles, task-motivated low-LPC
directors (score of 64 or below) formed the largest group (64.4% or 47 directors).
Relationship-motivated, high-LPC directors (score of 73 or higher) comprised 23.3%
(17 directors) of the group, whereas the socio-independent or middle-of-the-road
style (score of 64-73) was the least practiced (12.3% or 9 directors).

A general observation, without taking situational control into account, is that
more than half of the county extension directors in this study were task-motivated
leaders, whereas less than one-fourth were relationship-motivated leaders. On the
other hand, less than one-tenth (9%) of the directors practiced the socio-
independent leadership style. According to Fiedler and Garcia (1987), task-
motivated and relationship-motivated leadership styles can be effective, depending
on how well these styles match the leadership situation. Hence, the LMR, TS, and
PP scales were used to determine the leadership situation of the directors in this
study.

WW. Leader-member relations refers to group
members’ support forthe leader. Leaders feel much more comfortable and relaxed
when they know that they can depend on their staff members. The leader-member
relations component was measured using the LMR Scale. As shown in Appendix
A, the respondents’ scores on the LMR ranged from 17 to 40. Based on a
standardized classification guide provided by Fiedler and Chemers (1984), a score
of 30 or above indicates good leader-member relations, a score of 20 to 29 indicates

moderate relations, and a score of below 20 indicates poor leader-member relations.

65

As indicated in Table 5, three-fourths (75.3%) of the county extension directors had
good relations with members, whereas 20.5% of them had moderate relations with

members. Less than 5% had poor leader-member relations.

Table 5: Respondents’ scores on the LMR Scale (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

Quality of Member Relations Score Range Frequency Percent
Good 30 or higher 55 75.3
Moderate 2529 15 ‘ 20.5
Poor . 20 or lower 3 4.1
Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

W. Task structure refers to the degree to which a task is clearly
spelled out in terms of goals, methods, and standards of performance. Specifically,
it indicates the extent to which a goal is clearly stated or known. It also indicates
whether there is more than one way to accomplish a task, whether there is more
than one possible correct answer, and how easy it is to determine whether the job
has been done right.

Task structure was measured using the Task Structure Rating Scale (TS),
Parts 1 and 2. As indicated in Appendix A, respondents’ scores on Part 1 ranged
from 4 to 19. According to Fiedler and Chemers (1984), a score of 14 or above
indicates a leader is high in task structure, a score of 7 to 13 indicates medium task

structure, and a score of 6 or below is considered low task structure.

66

Fiedler and Chemers (1984) indicated the need to adjust the task structure
score in Part 1 when it is found to be high, in order to account for the effect of
training and experience. They defined training as the formal (courses on leadership)
and informal (seminars on leadership) education that a person acquires and
experience as the number of years in a leadership position. The authors developed
a subscale of Task Structure, Part 2 (training and experience), for the adjustment of
high task structure in Part 1. The Part 2 (training and experience) scale consists of
two questions designed to ascertain how much training and experience respondents
have had.

As shown in Table 6, 32.9% of the county extension directors had a great
deal of training, and more than half (53.4%) had a moderate amount of training.
Another 13.7% indicated having very little training. With regard to experience,
41.1% of the respondents indicated that they had a great deal of experience,
whereas more than half (53.4%) indicated they had a moderate amount of
experience (see Table 7). Only 5.5% had very little experience. The conclusion is
that the county extension directors in this study had a significant amount of both

training and experience.

Table 6: Amount of training of county extension directors (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Training Frequency Percent
A great deal 24 32.9
A moderate amount 39 53.4
Very little . 10 13.7
Total 4 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

67

Table 7: Amount of experience of county extension directors (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experience Frequency Percent
A great deal ' 30 41.1
A.moderate amount 39 53.4
Very little 4 5.5
Total 73 100.0

 

Each respondent’s scores on the two items in Part 2 of the TS Scale were
added together and then subtracted from the total score on Part 1 of the TS Scale
to adjust for training and experience (see Appendix A). The adjustment, according
to Fiedler and Chemers (1984), is necessitated by the fact that training and
experience influence a person’s leadership style. Training helps leaders know how
to handle various situations with less ambiguity, and experience makes the total
leadership situation more predictable and less uncertain. Scores of less than 6 on
Part 1 were not adjusted. After the adjustment, it was found that 64.4% of the

respondents had moderate task structure, whereas 19.2% had low task structure

and 16.4% had high task structure (see Table 8).

Table 8: Adjusted scores on the TS Scale, Parts 1 and 2 (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degree of Task Structure Score Range Frequency Percent
Low 6 or below 14 19.2
Moderate 7-13 47 64.4
High 14 and above 12 16.4

Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

68

W. Position power refers to the power the organization vests in
a leadership position for the purpose of directing staff. Position power was
measured by the Position Power Rating Scale (PP). Scores on the scale ranged
from 4 to 10 (see Appendix A). According to Fiedler and Chemers (1984), a score
of 7 to 10 indicates high position power, a score of 4 to 6 shows moderate position
power, and a score of 3 or below denotes low position power. As seen in Table 9,
90.4% of the respondents had high position power, whereas 9.6% had moderate

position power. None of the county extension directors had low position power.

Table 9: Scores on the PP Scale (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degree of Position Power Score Range Frequency Percent
Low 3 or below 0 0.0
Moderate 4-6 7 9.6
High 7 and above 66 90.4

Total 73 100.0
WW1. The leadership situation or

situational control of the county extension directors was measured by combining the
respondents’ scores on the LMR Scale, the TS Rating Scale, and the PP Rating
Scale and comparing them with the respondents’ scores on the Leadership

Situation Control Scale. As established by Fiedler and Chemers (1984), scores of

69
10 to 30 indicate low control, scores in the. range of 31 to 50 indicate moderate
control, and high control is indicated by scores of 51 to 70.

Respondents' situational control scores ranged from 31 (moderate control)
to 64 (high control) (see Appendix A). This means that county extension directors
generally had a great deal of control of the situation, which is supported by good
leader-member relations, high task structure, and high position power in the
organization. I

' Io- .IoIc I‘ ‘.0‘I~Io I‘ ' <‘I- 0| 0 Il-. I ‘l-_I.O To
determine the leadership style/situational control match, respondents’ scores on the
Leader-Member Relations Scale, the Task Structure Rating Scale (adjusted for
training and experience), and the Position Power Rating Scale were summed to give
a leadership position control (LPC) score and then classified as high, moderate, or
low control. As shown in Table 10, based on LPC scores alone, more than half
(64.4%) of the county extension directors were task motivated, whereas 23.3% were
relationship. motivated. The remaining 12.3% were socio-independent. Of the 47
directors who had a task-motivated leadership style (low LPC), 28 had moderate
situational control and 19 had high situational control. Of the 17 directors who had
a relationship-motivated leadership style (high LPC), 7 had moderate situational
control and 10 had high situational control. Of the nine directors who had a socio-
independent leadership style (middle LPC), four had low situational control and five

had high situational control.

 

 

 

 

7O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98. 2 3.2 3 0.2: an .. .. .98
6.... 5.5
”.8 t 5.5 E 5.: A -- .. 862.525.58.58”.
6.: 5.28.5:
«.3 m 5: m 2: 4 -- .. 285585-258
8n... 23.
.18 3 3m 2 a: 8 .. .. 8.2.85.5.me

38.5.”. 33:52 «amazon. 83:52 285d 82.5.2 285d .3832
.9800 no... 6:50 9980.2 .2280 26.. 9.5 929263
.28
.6580 38:53.9 8.82% 5.5.583

 

.8» u .6 90.09% 5.2258 >258 B 292.8 3:23:ng 22:53....“ 2:288. new 33% 95238.. 6.. 538.

71
Of the 73 directors in the study, the 39 individuals who had moderate
situational control were distributed among the three self-perceived leadership styles
as follows: task-motivated, 71.8%; socio-independent, 10.3%, and relationship-
motivated, 17.9% (see Table 10). On the other hand, of the 34 directors who had
high situational control, the distribution was as follows: task-motivated, 55.9%,
socio-independent, 14.7%, and relationship-motivated, 29.4%. None of the three

categories included a director with low situational control.

W

What types of behaviors do county extension directors exhibit in stressful

situations, and what effects could these types of behaviors have on their

heahh?

The Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale was used to gather the data for this
question. The scale consisted of 20 stressful-type situations with seven options, to
which the respondent indicates how he or she would react to such a situation. The
respondents’ scores on this scale ranged from 59 to 127 (see Appendix A). The
mean score was 87.7, and the standard deviation was 12.0. According to Robinson
(1980), a score of 110 to 140 identifies Aggressive Type 1 behavior, 80 to 109
Aggressive Type 2 behavior, 60 to 79 Aggressive/Adaptive behavior, 30 to 59
Adaptive Type 2 behavior, and a score of 20 to 29 Adaptive Type 1 behavior.

The findings in Table 11 indicate that 74% of the respondents were in the

Aggressive Type 2 behavior category. Another 20.5% were in the Aggressive/

Adaptive behavior category. The Aggressive Type 1 and Adaptive Type 2 behavior

72

categories each had just 2.7% (2) of the respondents. None of the county extension

directors was in the Adaptive Type 1 behavior category.

Table 11: Scores on the Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavior Type Score Range Frequency Percent
Aggressive Type 1 110-140 2 2.7
Aggressive Type 2 80-109 54 74.0
Aggressive/Adaptive 60-79 15 20.5
Adaptive Type 2 30-59 2 2.7
Adaptive Type 1 20-29 0 0.0

Total 73 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

In relating the scores on the Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale to
respondents' health, Robinson (1980) provided the following interpretations:
Aggressive Type 1 (110-140)

Those in this category, and especially if they are over 40 and smoke, are
likely to have a high risk of developing cardiac illness.

Aggressive Type 2 (80—109)

A score in this range means the individual is in the direction of cardiac prone,
but the risk is not as high as for the Aggressive Type 1.

Aggressive/Adaptive (60-79)
The individual who falls in this category is a mixture of aggressive and

adaptive patterns. This is a healthier pattern than either Aggressive Type 1
or Aggressive Type 2.

73
Adaptive Type 2 (30—59)

This means the behavior is on the less-cardiac-prone end of the spectrum.
The individual is generally relaxed and copes adequately with stress.

Adaptive Type 1 (20—29)

This means the individual tends to the extreme of noncardiac traits. The
behavior expresses few of the reactions associated with cardiac disease.

According to Robinson (1980), those who exhibit Aggressive Type 2 behavior
are ”in the direction of cardiac prone.“ This means that the 54 (74%) county
extension directors who were in this behavior category exhibit signs of stressful
situations having an effect on their health (see Table 11). Further, the two (2.7)
county extension directors who fell in the Aggressive Type 1 category need to be

concerned because job-related stress might affect their health.

W

Is there a relationship between the number of employees under the

supervision of county extension directors and stressful situations, or between

the number of employees and directors’ leadership styles?

To answer this question, the researcher obtained the number of employees
supervised by the directors who participated in the survey from the 1995 M_S_U
W. As indicated in Appendix A, the number of employees per
county ranged from 0 to 10. For analysis purposes, three categories were formed:
0 to 1 employee, 2 to 3 employees, and 4 or more employees.

K: -, 0I I o 0'1. “I I ll" 0 ‘I10 0 “ -.Io ‘ l. °1_-.0I . Analysis

of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine whether a relationship existed

between the number of employees under the supervision of county extension

74

directors and those directors’ stressful situations. No significant relationship (at the
.05 level) was found between the number of employees under the supervision of
county extension directors and stressful situations (see Table 12). This means that
the stressful situations that were used in this study could not be used to determine
whether a county extension director who had just one employee experienced less

job-related stress than a director who supervised more employees.

Table 12: ANOVA between stressful situations and number of employees under
the supervision of county extension directors.

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation Mean Square £1! E Sig. of E
Between groups .195 2 .660 .520
Within groups .295 70

Total 72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.- - 0| I0 .'\I“I I “0‘ o ‘IIO o .. .Io - -o- ' ‘0 21‘ I0
style. A similar analysis was conducted to determine whether there was any
relationship between self-perceived leadership style and number of employees
supervised by county extension directors. The ANOVA results indicated that there
was no significant relationship between leadership style and number of employees
under thesupervision of county extension directors (see Table 13). This means that
the self-perceived leadership styles that county extension directors practiced were

not related to the number of employees those directors supervised.

75

Table 13: ANOVA between self-perceived leadership styles and number of
employees under the supervision of county extension directors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation Mean Square 51! E Sig. of E
Between groups .250 2 .342 .712
Wrthin groups .731 70

Total 72
WW

Is there a relationship between selected demographic characteristics (age,
educational degree. years of experience) of county extension directors and
the directors’ self-perceived leadership styles and stressful situations?

:‘-OI I0 0‘\I“I ‘3I01‘0 O‘IIO'. c.0I Iv. q'l’l . -_I0 ‘-
mmgmmpjtyles. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to
determine whether there was a relationship between selected demographic
characteristics (age, educational degree, and years of experience) of county
extension directors and their self-perceived leadership styles. Results of the
analysis indicated that there was a negligible to low association (-.06 to .17) between
those demographic characteristics and self-perceived leadership style (see Table
14). Age and years of experience on thejob as county extension director had a low
association with leadership style (.11 and .17, respectively). Educational degree
was negatively correlated with leadership style (-.06). This means that the

educational degree of the director did not influence his or her leadership style. Thus,

although relationships were found between age, educational degree, and years of

76
experience as county extension director and the directors’ self-perceived leadership

styles, those relationships were of no practical importance.

Table 14: Correlation coefficients between selected demographic characteristics
and self-perceived leadership style.

 

 

 

 

Demographic Variable Correlation Coefficient
Age .11
Educational degree -.06
Years of experience as director .17

 

 

 

 

.:.0I Io O‘IIHI “01‘0..‘II0'10I I.. .01" -.I0 ‘

situations. Pearson correlation coefficients also were computed to determine
whether there was a relationship between selected demographic characteristics of
the respondents and stressful situations. The correlation coefficients ranged from
.06 to .22 (see Table 15). The coefficients can be described as low to negligible;
none was significant at the .05 level. Age and educational degree had low positive
associations (.12 and .22, respectively) with stressful situations. Years of
experience as a director had a negligible association (.06) with stressful situations.
Thus, some relationship existed between the demographic characteristics selected
for study and stressful situations, but these relationships were so low as to be

insignificant.

77

Table 15: Correlation coefficients between selected demographic characteristics
and stressful situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fl Demographic Variable Correlation Coefficient
Age .12
Educational degree .22

I Years of experience as director .06

W

Is there a difference between the self-perceived leadership styles of male and
female county extension directors?

The cross-tab statistical method was used to analyze the differences in self-
perceived leadership styles of male and female county extension directors (see
Table 16). No significant difference was found between females and males in terms
of their leadership styles. Sixty-four percent of the task-motivated directors were
males, and 63.6% of them were females. Of the directors having a relationship-
motivated leadership style, 23.5% were males and 22.7% were females. Of those
with a socio-independent leadership style (which was not emphasized in this study
because it has no clear-cut characteristics), 11.6% were males and 13.6% were
females. These results mean that female and male county extension directors did
not differ from each other in terms of their leadership styles. This finding is
consistent with that of Morrison et al. (1987), who found that the leadership styles

of males and females were virtually identical.

78

Table 16: Comparison of perceived leadership styles of male and female county
extension directors (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Males Females
Leadership Style Total
No. % No. %
Task-rnotivated 33 64.7 14 63.6 47
Socio-independent 6 1 1.8 3 13.6 9
Relationship-motivated 12 23.5 5 22.8 17
Total 51 100.0 22 100.0 73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researcbfiuesflonj

Are certain cooperative extension directors likely to move to a higher level of
Aggressive 1 and 2 behaviors as a result ofjob-related stress, and can any
ofthe selected demographic characteristics be used to predict which directors
are most likely to experience an increase in stress as a result of their
position?

The logistic regression equation that was formulated to respond to this

question was as follows:

 

B

P

l: Prob (stress)
10 7 p

= Bo + 81X] + ....+ B
Prob (no stress)

Equafion[1]

BX

[ Prob (stress) ] = e130+ Bl X1 + + 31Xn = 630 (381 X1”, e P P Equation [2]

Prob (no stress)

B and X can be interpreted as the change in log of the odds associated with a one-
unit change in the independent variable.

In equation 2, 81 is the factor by which the odds change as a result of the ith

independent variable increasing one unit. For example, if 81 is a positive figure, it

79

means that the odds are increased; a negative Bl means that the factor is less than
1, indicating that the odds are decreased. On the other hand, where B1 is 1, the
factor equals 1, which means the odds are unchanged.

In computing the logistic regression equation, the dependent variable
(stressful situations) had only two options: to predict (0) the number of leaders who
are not likely to remain in the Aggressive Type 1 and 2 behaviors and (1) those who
are likely to remain in the Aggressive/Adaptive and Adaptive Type 2 and 1
behaviors. Selected demographic characteristics (age, years of service, highest
university degree, and region of work) were used as independent variables. The
Enter method does not eliminate any variables from the equation. Rather, it
considers the effects of all of the independent variables on the dependent variable.
The Enter method was chosen over the forward stepwise procedure to make the
prediction because it allowed the researcher to see and analyze the effects of all of
the independent variables.

The Wald statistic with a chi-square distribution was used to test the null
hypothesis that the coefficient would equal zero. Even though it has some
weaknesses, this statistic was considered to be an adequate tool for testing the
logistic regression prediction for this study. The Wald statistic was obtained by
dividing the coefficient estimate by its standard error and squaring the result (i.e.,
Wald = [BISE]2). According to Glass and Hopkins (1995), the approximate level of

significance on the Wald statistic was set at .05.

80

Table 17 shows the strength of the model after the variables were analyzed.
As seen in the table, 55 (94.34%) respondents who were likely to remain in
Aggressive Type 1 and 2 behaviors were correctly predicted. Similarly, seven
(53.33%) respondents who were likely to move into the Aggressive Type 1 and 2
behaviors were correctly predicted. Eleven respondents were incorrectly classified.
Overall, 85.29% of the respondents were correctly classified, which indicates the

. strength of the model.

Table 17: Classification of respondents for stressful-situation prediction (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

Observed Predicted Percent
Unlikely Likely Correct
Unlikely 55 3 94.34
Likely 7 8 53.33
Overall 85.29

 

 

 

 

 

 

To determine the variables that were good predictors of stressful situations
in the logistic regression model, the Enter method was used to examine the selected
demographic variables (see Table 18).

W. The beta weights in the logistic
regression model represent the change in log of the odds of an event that is
associated with a one-unit change in an independent variable. As seen in Table 18,

only one variable, educational degree (.003), was significant. Educational degree

81

had a negative beta weight of -2.169 and a Wald statistic of 8.971. This can be
interpreted to mean that the lower the educational level of the respondent, the
greater the odds for the person to move into a higher level of aggressive behaviors
(Aggressive 1 and 2) as a result of stressful situations. The remaining variables

were not significant predictors in the logistic regression model.

Table 18: Variables in the logistic regression model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable E SE Wald d1 Sig. 8 Exp. (B)
Age .021 .076 .084 1 .772 .000 1 .022
Educational degree -2.169 .724 8.971 1 .003" -.312 .1 14
Experience -.052 .057 .821 1 .365 .000 .950
Region of work .054 .210 .066 1 .797 .000 1.056
Constant 1.613 4.138 .152 1 .696

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From this analysis, it was found that educational level (.003) was significant
and contributed 35% of the model in predicting an increase in stress as a result of
the director’s position. It was a powerful predictor. The other demographic
characteristics selected for this model were not good predictors of stressful
situations among county extension directors. This means that other demographic

variables should be used in the model.

W

Can any of the selected demographic characteristics be used to predict the
leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan?

82

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine whether any of
the selected demographic characteristics could be used to predict the self-perceived
leadership styles (as determined by LPC scores) of the respondents. To compose
the regression equation, the following demographic characteristics were used: age,
educational degree, and years of experience. The Enter procedure was used to
regress the selected demographic variables with leadership styles.

Beta weights or coefficients were included in the analysis because they
indicate the amount of change associated with the intercept for each unit of the
variable being measured (see Table 19). The data indicated that years of
experience (8 = .19,1= .17) contributed more to the prediction of LPC scores than
did the other demographic characteristics. Educational degree had a negative
relationship (-.04) and age (.07) contributed less in the prediction of LPC scores than

did years of experience.

Table 19: Multiple regression of LPC scores with selected demographic charac-
teristics of county extension directors (N = 73).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Characteristic l3 t-Value
Age .07 .62
Educational degree -.04 .70
Years of experience .19 .17

 

Overall multiple 8 = .24; 32 = .06.

83

The findings also showed that the overall 82 for the three demographic
variables was .06, with a multiple 8 of .24, which means that the variables under
consideration explained only 6% of the variance in the LPC scores and thus were
considered to be of no practical significance in predicting the directors’ leadership
styles. This result was similar to that of Suraphol (1984), who found that
demographic variables contributed only 7.15% to the prediction of LPC scores for

Mississippi county extension leaders.

The findings presented in this chapter are discussed further in Chapter V.
Conclusions are drawn from the major findings, and recommendations are set forth

for practice and further research.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS

introduction
This chapter contains a summary of the study, major findings, and
conclusions drawn from those findings. The chapter concludes with

recommendations for using the findings, as well as for further research.

Summanr

The CES provides an important service to farmers and other clientele
throughout the nation. However, despite its significant role, as a publicly supported
educational agency the CES has continued to struggle in defining appropriate target
audiences, delivering quality programs in the most efficient manner, projecting a
positive organizational image, and maintaining an adequate support base. Those
responsible for promoting CES goals and objectives through effective programming
are the directors at the county level. Many states throughout the nation have
restructured their CES, giving more powerto extension directors at the county level.
And although productivity and organizational image are vital to the survival of the
CES, effective leadership is critical in achieving the organization’s overall goals and

objectives.

84

85

For the past five years, the CES has been going through some hard times.
Whereas budget constraints and a changing clientele often have been cited as a
source of the problem, extension leadership, which plays a critical role in fostering
the goals and objectives of the organization, has not been investigated until now.
To make the service more decentralized and effective, in 1992 the Michigan State
University CES underwent a restructuring. During that restructuring, county
extension directors were given more power in decision making, greater participation
in staff recruitment, more control over staff, and responsibility for total extension
programming at the county level. At the same time, it was mandated that county
extension directors practice task-motivated and relationship-motivated leadership
styles.

Before the present research, no study had been done in Michigan to
determine the self-perceived leadership styles of county extension directors and
whether or not those styles were effective. This was the first study to investigate the
self-perceived leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan. Such
research was needed because Michigan State University extension administrators
have mandated that county extension directors practice an effective leadership style
to help provide outstanding service to their clientele.

The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to identify the self-
perceived leadership styles of county extension directors in Michigan and to examine
those styles in relation to their leadership situations (situational control). A further

purpose was to determine whether a relationship existed between selected

86
demographic characteristics of the directors and their self-perceived leadership
styles and stressful situations. in addition, an attempt was made to predict whether
certain directors are likely to move to higher levels of aggressive behavior as a result
ofjob-related stress, which would negatively affect their health. Seventy-three of the

79 county extension directors in Michigan participated in the study.

5 [E' I'

In the following discussion of the major findings, each research question is
restated, followed by the findings pertaining to that question.

W: What are the self-perceived leadership styles and

leadership situations (situational control) of county extension directors in

Michigan?

1. Three self-perceived leadership styles of county extension directors
in Michigan were identified fromthe LPC Scale: task-motivated, relationship-
motivated, and socio-independent. More than half (64.4%) of the directors were
task-motivated (low LPC), 23.3% were relationship-motivated (high LPC), and 12.3%
practiced the socio-independent (middle LPC) leadership style.

2. Respondents’ scores on the Task Structure, Leader-Member
Relations, and Position Power scales were combined to determine their leadership
style/situational control match. Of the 73 directors in the study, the 39 directors who
had moderate situational control were distributed as follows: task-motivated, 71.8%;
soda-independent, 10.3%; and relationship-motivated, 17.9%. The 34 directors who

had high situational control were distributed as follows: task-motivated, 55.9%;

soda-independent, 14.7%; and relationship-motivated, 29.4%.

87

3. Ten (40.4) of the task-motivated directors who had high situational
control and seven (41 .1%) ofthe relationship-motivated directors who had moderate
situational control were considered to be effective leaders because of the leadership
style/situational control match. Overall, 26 (35.6%) of the directors could be
considered as practicing effective leadership styles. On the other hand, 28 (59.5%)
of the task-motivated directors who had moderate situational control and 10 (58.8%)
of the relationship-motivated directors who had high situational control may be
considered ineffective due to lack of a leadership style/situational control match
(total = 38 or 52.1%). The remaining nine directors (12.3%) were classified as socio-
independent; they could not be described as either effective or ineffective.

W: What types of behaviors do county extension directors

exhibit in stressful situations, and what effects could these types of behaviors

have on their health?

1. Almost three-fourths (74%) of the directors were in the Aggressive
Type 2 behavior category. This means that these individuals need to pay some
attention to reducing stress because it might cause them some health problems.
Twenty percent of the directors were in the Aggressive/Adaptive behavior category.
This means that stress was not a problem for them, and their health is not
threatened based on their scores on this scale.

2. None of the directors was in the Adaptive Type 1 behavior category.
This means that the directors in this study were not predisposed to extreme cardiac

problems associated with stress.

88

W: Is there a relationship between the number of

employees under the supervision of county extension directors and stressful

situations, or between the number of employees and directors’ leadership
styles?

1. No significant relationship was found between the number of
employees under county extension directors’ supervision and those directors’
stressful situations.

2. Likewise, no significant relationship was found between the number
of employees under county extension directors' supervision and those directors’ self-
perceived leadership styles.

W: is there a relationship between selected demographic

characteristics (age, educational degree, years of experience) of county

extension directors and the directors’ self-perceived leadership styles and
stressful situations?

1. Age, educational degree, and years of experience as a director had a
negligible to low association with the directors’ self-perceived leadership styles.

2. Likewise, age, educational degree, and years of experience as a

director had a low to negligible association with the respondents' stressful situations.

WM: Is there a difference between the self-perceived
leadership styles of male and female county extension directors?

No significant difference was found between the self-perceived leadership
styles of male and female extension directors. Almost identical percentages of
males and females were found in the task-motivated, relationship—motivated, and
soda-independent leadership style categories (64.7%!63.6%, 23.5%/22.8%, and

1 1 .8%/13.6%, respectively).

89

W: Are certain cooperative extension directors likely to

move to a higher level of Aggressive 1 and 2 behaviors as a result of job—

related stress, and can any of the selected demographic characteristics be
used to predict which directors are most likely to experience an increase in
stress as a result of their position?

1. The findings indicated that seven county extension directors were likely
to move into the Aggressive Type 1 and 2 behaviors, whereas 55 of the directors
were likely to remain in those categories of behaviors.

2. Only educational level was found to be a significant predictor of an
increase in stress. This means that the lower the director’s level of education, the
higher are the odds that such a respondent will move to a higher level of Aggressive
Type 1 and 2 behavior.

Beseamnfluestionl: Can any of the selected demographic characteristics

be used to predict the leadership styles of county extension directors in

Michigan? -

The demographic characteristics considered in this analysis (age, educational
degree, and years of experience) explained only 6% of the variance in the LPC

scores. Thus, they were considered to be of no practical significance in predicting

the respondents’ leadership styles.

Comm
Based on the study findings, the researcher drew the following conclusions.
1. A majority of the Michigan county extension directors were males
(70%), whereas 30% of them were females. The number of females becoming
directors has increased in the 10 years since Harrison (1984) conducted his

research. ,He found that about 90% of directors were males, and 10% were females.

90

The mean age of the directors in this study was 45 years. Most of them (63%) had
master's degrees, which was similar to what Harrison reported. A majority. of the
directors had 0 to 5 years of experience as a director. These results are also similar
to those reported by Suraphol (1984) in his study of county extension leaders in
Mississippi. _

2. 1 County extension directors practiced three self-perceived leadership
styles: task-motivated, relationship-motivated, and socio-independent. The task-
motivated leadership style was the one practiced by most of the county extension
directors in Michigan. This was followed by the relationship-motivated leadership
style; the least practiced style was the soda-independent one. Both the task-
motivated and relationship-motivated leadership styles can be effective, depending
on the circumstances of how well a person’s leadership style matches his or her
leadership situation (situational control). Based on the leadership style/situational
control match, 36 directors in this study were judged to be effective. This finding _is
similar to the 33.3% of county extension leaders judged to be effective in the
Suraphol (1984) study.

3. The number of employees under a county extension director’s
supervision was not related to the director’s leadership style or to his or her stressful
snuafions.

4. Almost three-fourths of the respondents were in the Aggressive Type
2 behavior category. This means that stress is an aspect of their job situations, and

they should be concerned because it might become a health issue. These results

91

are similar to what Robinson (1980) found among persons associated with the
agricultural profession in Illinois. Cooper and Marshall (1978) provided a list of
factors that might cause stress in organizations; these include organizational
restructuring and climate, working conditions, work overload, role ambiguity,
relationship with superior, relationship with subordinates; career. development, and
extraorganizational sources. Some of these factors have affected the Michigan CES
recently. These factors include:

a. CES organizational restructuring, which might lead to job loss. Such
changes create a climate of job uncertainty among employees and, as a result,
might create tension, which ultimately will affect employees’ performance.

5. insufficient funding, which makes it difficult to carry out several
programs effectively.

0. ' Shortage of staff members, which leads to work not being
accomplished satisfactorily or task overload. This factor might have contributed to
directors’ being under job-related stress.

d. Need for further training and career development. In an open-ended
question, directors indicated that they needed more training in modern computer
technologies such as the Internet and other communication software. Lack of this
knowledge might also be contributing to their job-related stress.

5. The relationships between selected demographic characteristics and

the leadership styles and stressful situations of county extension. directors were so

92

low as to be insignificant in an overall consideration. These findings are similar to
those or Suraphol (1934) in his study of county extension leaders in Mississippi.
6. ' Seven of the directors have the potential of moving up to Aggressive
Type 1 and 2 behavior categories, and the 55 directors already in those categories
are likely to remain there. Hence, stress might be a factor in the health of these

individuals.

Recommendations

The findings from this research and other similar studies have provided a
wealth of information that can be used to improve the leadership performance of
county extension directors in Michigan. The following recommendations for practice
and for further research are made as a result of this study:

1. To improve their leadership performance. county extension directors
in Michigan should individually use the questionnaires in this study to evaluate their
self-perceived leadership styles and situational control.

2. County extension directors should evaluate themselves using the
Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle Scale in orderto determine whether and in what areas
they are experiencing on-the-job stress. This might help them identify and eliminate
the sources of stress, in order to maintain good health.

3. Michigan State University CES staff are encouraged to incorporate the
leadership style/situational control match results from this study into their training
programs. This will help county extension directors recognize their self-perceived

leadership styles and situations. Through this learning experience, the county

93

extension directors could modify their leadership style/situational control match,
which should further improve their leadership performance.

4. It is recommended that task-motivated county extension directors who
have moderate situational control due to poor member relations attempt to improve
relations with their staff so that they can achieve high situational control. One way
this might be achieved is for task-motivated directors to adopt an open-door policy,
which would allow staff members to share their ideas for carrying out extension
programs. Directors should learn to become better listeners. They could manage
by walking around, rather than by sitting at their desks working on tasks. They could
start solving tasks as a team, rather than alone. They could ask the staff for their
suggestions and then implement those ideas.

5. it is recommended that task-motivated leaders who are ineffective due
to the lack of a leadership style/situational control match, which often results from
not having much training and experience, share any problems they encounter with
other experienced professionals, in order to obtain possible solutions. Michigan
State University CES staff could also organize workshops and training programs to
help county extension directors improve their task structure, thereby enabling them
to become more effective.

6. For directors who practice a relationship-motivated leadership style
and have high situational control and perform less effectively, it is recommended that
they modify their task structure and position power. Doing so will enable them to

have moderate control, which will lead to an improvement in their leadership style.

94

Another strategy for achieving this is to allow staff members to participate in planning
and decision making so that there is collective accountability for the success of the
program.

7. The demographic characteristics that were used in this study were not
good predictors of directors’ leadership styles or stressful situations. Thus, it is
recommended that further research on this topic be done with such variables as
graduate major, motivation, relationships between county extension directors and
their superiors, relationships between county extension directors and their clientele
and agents, organizational restructuring and climate, number of complaints received
per day, absenteeism, and job insecurity.

8. Given the fact that educational level was a powerful predictor in the
logistic equation model, it is recommended that Michigan State University employ
county extension directors with higher qualifications, which would reduce the level
of job stress brought about by low education.

9. It is recommended that this study be replicated with the entire land
grant university system, in order to compare and contrast the self-perceived

leadership styles of county extension directors across the nation.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLES

95

Age Distribution of Coung Extension Directors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' .Value ‘ Frequency“ . , , 4 -_,Percent
33 1 1.4
34 1 1.4
37 2 2.7
38 4 5.5
39 2 2.7
40 7 9.6
41 2 2.7
42 7 9.6
43 2 2.7
44 5 6.8
45 3 4.1
46 2 2.7
47 4 5.5
48 6 8.2
49 4 5.5
50 4 5.5
51 3 4.1
52 5 6.8
53 3 4.1
56 2 2.7
Missing 4 5.5
Total 73 100.0

notes

Mean = 45.1 years

Standard deviation = 5.3

Minimum = 33 years

Maximum = 56 years

 

96

Number of years of experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value , Frequency . Percent
0 1 1.4
1 6 8.2
2 1 1.4
3 8 11.0
4 6 8.2
5 2 2.7
6 4 5.5
7 11 15.1
8 2 2.7
9 2 2.7
10 4 5.5
1 1 4 5.5
12 1 1.4
13 3 4.1
14 4 5.5
15 1 1.4
16 2 2.7
17 1 4.1
18 1 1.4
19 2 1.4
20 2 2.7
22 2 2.7
23 1 1.4
Total 73 100.0
two:
Mean = 8.3 years
Standard deviation = 6.2
Minimum = 0 years

Maximum = 23 years

 

97

Least Preferred Co-Wgrker Scale (LPC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18.0 1 1.4
24.0 1 1.4
28.0 1 1.4
320 1 1.4
34.0 1 1.4
5.0 2 2.7
37.0 3 4.1
3.0 2 2.7
3.0 2 2.7
41.0 1 1.4
42.0 1 1.4
44.0 3 4.1
6.0 2 2.7
46.0 1 1.4
48.0 2 2.7
$0 1 1.4
50.0 1 1.4
51.0 1 1.4
52.0 3 4.1
53.0 1 1.4
54.0 1 1.4
56.0 3 4.1
57.0 1 1.4
59.0 1 1.4
63.0 2 2.7
61.0 2 2.7
62.0 1 1.4
63.0 3 4.1
64.0 2 2.7
5.0 1 1.4
66.0 1 1.4
67.0 4 5.5
$0 3 4.1
74.0 2 27
75.0 2 2.7
77.0 1 1.4
79.0 1 1.4
30.0 3 3.5
82.0 1 1.4
83.0 1 1.4
$0 1 1.4
86.0 1 1.4
87.0 1 1.4
91.0 1 1.4
93.0 1 1.4
118.0 1 1.4
Tobi : 73 : 100.0.

biota!

Mean = 58.3

Standud deviation = 2.1

Minimum ‘4 18

Maxlmtm = 118

 

98

Leader Member-Relations Scale (LMR)

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 1.4

20.0 2 2.7
21.0 1 1.4
22.0 1 1.4
23.0 2 2.7
24.0 1 1.4
26.0 4 5.5
27.0 4 5.5
28.0 1 14
29.0 1 1.4
30.0 6 7.2
31.0 1 1.4
32.0 12 16.4
33.0 5 6.8
34.0 6 8.2
35.0 3 4.1
36.0 4 5.5
37.0 5 6.8
38.0 3 4.1
39.0 8 11.0
40.0 2 2.7
Total 73 . 100

flotfi

Mean = 32.0

Standard deviation = 5.4

Minimum = 17

Maximum = 40

99

Task Structure Scale (TS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A " Value ._ «Frequency. +  + - Percent e .

4.0 2 2.7
5.0 3 4.1
6.0 4 5.5
7.0 4 5.5
8.0 4 5.5
9.0 7 9.6
10.0 13 17.8
11.0 9 12.3
12.0 5 6.8
13.0 3 4.1
14.0 10 13.7
15.0 3 4.1
16.0 2 2.7
17.0 2 2.7
18.0 1 1.4
19.0 1 1.4
Total 73 100.0

.80—tee

Mean = 10.7

Standard deviation = 3.4

Minimum =40

Maximum = 19.0

 

100

Task Structure Adjusted with Training and Experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;i';";":':-;;'.-‘579‘55.va|u'e‘ 1 ~ , Frequency ~ ’ a. Percent
1.0 1 ' 1.4
2.0 1 1.4
3.0 5 6.8
4.0 3 4.1
5.0 4 5.5
7.0 9 12.3
8.0 9 12.3
9.0 7 9.6
10.0 7 9.6
11.0 3 4.1
12.0 8 11.0
13.0 4 5.5
14.0 5 6.8
15.0 3 4.1
16.0 2 2.7
17.0 2 2.7
Total 73 100.0

.Notes

Mean = 9.3

Standard deviation = 3.8

Minimum =1.0

Maximum = 17

 

101

Position Power (PP)

 

Value " " Frequency? , '_ Percent

 

4.0 A A 1 A 1.4
5.0 3 41
6.0 3 4.1
7.0 8 11.0
8.0 22 30.1
9'0 15 20.5

10.0 21 28.8

 

 

 

 

Total ’ - 73 100.0

 

Notes

Mean = 8.4
Standard deviation = 1.4
Minimum = 4.0
Maximum = 10

 

Leadership Situational Control

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: Value ~ , Frequency ~ Percent.

31.0 1 1.4
32.0 1 1.4
35.0 3 4.1
36.0 1 1.4
37.0 1 1.4
38.0 1 1.4
39.0 1 1.4
40.0 2 2.7
41.0 2 2.7
42.0 2 2.7
43.0 1 1.4
44.0 1 1.4
46.0 2 2.7
47.0 5 6.8
48.0 4 5.5
49.0 6 8.2
50.0 5 6.8
51.0 3 4.1
52.0 4 5.5
53.0 2 2.7
54.0 3 4.1
55.0 4 5.5
56.0 2 2.7
58.0 3 4.1
59.0 3 4.1
60.0 4 5.5
61.0 2 2.7
62.0 2 2.7
63.0 1 1.4
64.0 1 1.4
Total 73 100.0

Notes

Mean = 49.8

Standard deviation = 8.0

Minimum = 31.0

Maximum = 64.0

 

103

Aggressive/Adaptive Lifestyle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f ‘ ' Value Frequency . Percent

59.0 2 2.7
67.0 2 2.7
69.0 1 1.4
71.0 1 1.4
72.0 1 1.4
74.0 3 4.1
75.0 3 4.1
76.0 1 1.4
78.0 1 1.4
79.0 2 2.7
80.0 1 1.4
81.0 2 2.7
82.0 2 2.7
83.0 3 4.1
84.0 4 5.5
85.0 2 2.7
86.0 1 1.4
87.0 2 2.7
88.0 2 2.7
89.0 4 5.5
90.0 6 8.2
91.0 2 2.7
93.0 2 2.7
94.0 2 2.7
95.0 2 2.7
96.0 4 5.5
97.0 1 1.4
98.0 2 2.7
99.0 2 2.7
100.0 1 1.4
101.0 1 1.4
102.0 3 4.1
104.0 2 2.7
109.0 1 1.4
116.0 1 1.4
126.0 1 1.4
Total 73 100.0

Notes

Mean = 87.7

Standard deviation = 12.0

Minimum = 59.0

Maximum = 126

 

104

Number of Cogntv Extension Employees gr Couny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Frequency Percent
0 10 13.7
1 8 1 1.0
2 25 34.2
3 8 1 1.0
4 5 6.8
5 4 5.5
6 2 2.7
7 4 5.5
8 5 6.8
9 1 1 .4
10 1 1 .4
Total 73 100.0
Mean. 3.0
Standard Deviation. 2.5
Minimum. 0.0
Maximum. 10.0

 

APPENDIX B

LETTER OF APPROVAL FROM UCRIHS

AND QUESTIONNAIRES

 

flfllfiflfll
FM 517/432-1171

Influuliluhl-V
muslin-inuuy
Ill-IIAII

lave-almlncun
aluminum-hm-

 

105

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIV

ERSITY

July 25, 1995

70: Peter N. AChUOfl)Ci
410 Agriculture Hall

RE: IRBI:

95-357

TITLE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-PERCEIVED

LEADERSHIP STYLES AND STRESSFUL SITUATIONS AMONG
COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS IN MICHIGAN

REVISION REQUESTED: N/A

CATEG

ORY:

-C
APPROVAL DATE: 07/26/95

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)

review of this project is complete. I am pleased to adVise that the

rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any revisions listed

above.

RININAL:

REVISIONS:

be of any future hel

UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project be nd one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek u ate certification. There is a
maximum of four such expedit renewals ssible. Investigators
wishing to continue a roject beyond the time need to submit it
again or complete rev ew.

 

UCRIHS must review an changes in rocedures involving human
subjects, rior to in tiation of t e change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at an‘ o her time during the year
send your written request to the CRIRS Chair. requesting revised
approval and referencin the project's IRS I and title. Include
in our request a descr ption of the change and any revised

ins ruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

Should either of the followin arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti UCRIRS romptly: (1) problems
(unexpected side effects comp aints, e c.) involving uman
subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

lease do not hesitate to contact us

If we can 3
at (517)355-2180 or tax (51714 i- 171.

ncerel

  
 
   

. \il‘

vid E. Wright, Ph.D.
CRIHS Chair

Dlflxkaa/lcp
cc: Carroll fl. Hamhoff

106

The Relationship Between Perceived Leadership Styles and Stressful Situations
Among County Extension Directors in Michigan

Survey Questionnaire

 

Return completed forms to

410 Agricultural Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

No

1. Directions for LPC Scales

107

PART A

Think of a person with whom you can work least well. This person may be someone you work
with now or someone you knew in the past. Helshe does not have to be the person you like least
well, but should be the person with whom you had most difficulty in getting a job done. On the
scales below, describe this person by marking ‘X' in the space which best represent your feeling.
Please work rapidly. Your first answer is likely to be the best. Don't omit any items, and mark

 

each item only once please.

THE PERSON I CAN WORK LEAST WELL WITH IS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a) Pleasant: ' : : :
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
b) Friendly . . . . . .__..______
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
c) Rejecting: : : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
d) Tense: : : : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
e) Distant : : : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
f) Cold: : : : : ' : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
g) Supportive : : : : : : : :
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
h) Boring : : : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
i) Quarrelsome : : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
j) Gloomy: : : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
k) Open: : : : : ' : :
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
l) Backbiting : : : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
m)Untrustw0lthy : : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
n) Considerate: : : : : : : :
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
o) Nasty: : : : : : : ' '
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
p) Agreeable: : : : : : :
7 6 5 4 3 2
q) lnsincere: : : : : : :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
r) Kind: . . . .....______
8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Unpleasant

Unfriendly

: Accepting

Relaxed
Close
Warm
Hostile
interesting
Harmonious

Cheerful

: Guarded

Loyal
Harmonious
lnconsiderate

Nice

Disagreeable
Sincere

Unkind

108

Directions: Circle the number in the column which best describes your feelings.
Please be sure to respond to every item.

 

 

lN EXTENSION
0
d)
i» a 8
> 2 8’ 0 >. O
'2': o o .2 g E» 9
o 2 g E g e 3’
b a Q) o ._ t, .9
4—_Z_:__Q_.SD_J:.
7"—
a) The people I supervise have trouble
getting along with each other. 1 2 3 4 5
D) My subordinates are reliable and
trustworthy. 5 4 3 2 1
c) There seems to be a friendly
atmosphere among the people i
supervise. 5 4 3 2 1
d) My subordinates always cooperate
with me in getting the job done. 5 4 3 2 1
6) There is friction between my
subordinates and myself. 1 2 3 4 5
f) My subordinates give me a good
deal of help and support in getting
the job done. 5 4 3 2 1
g) The people I supervise work
well together in getting the job done. 5 4 3 2 1
h) l have good relations with the
people I supervise. 5 4 3 2 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART C
3. [ASK STRUC I UR: RA! ING SCALE - PART 1

109

Directions: Circle the number in the column which best describes the county Extension program
under the supervision of the director. For each question, think of the county
Extension Program in general.

C cemi the un ExtensionP ram

Usually Sometimes Seldom
True True True

3) There is a blueprint, picture, model or
detailed description available of what
the results of an acceptable program
should be. 2 1 0

b) There is a person available to advise
and give a description of what the
results of an acceptable county
extension program should be or
someone to describe how the job
should be done. 2 1 0

c) There is a step-by-step procedure,
or a standard operating procedure which
indicates in detail the process which is to
be followed in the total county Extension
program. 2 1 0

d) There is a specific way to subdivide
the total county Extension program
into separate parts or steps. 2 1 0

e) There are some ways which are clearly
recognized as better than others for
concluding the county extension
program. 2 1 O

f) It is obvious when an Extension
event is finished, the correct solution
to the problem has been found? 2 1 0

Q) There is a book, manual, or job description
which indicates the best solution or best
outcome for the various parts of the total
Extension program. 2 1 0

h) There is a general agreed understanding
about the standards the county Extension
program has to meet to be considered
acceptable. 2 1 0

110

i) The evaluation of the county
Extension program is generally made
on some quantitative basis. 2 1 0

j) Can the you and your
staff find out how well the county Extension
Program has been accomplished in enough
time to improve future performance. 2 1 0

4. TASK STRUCTURE RATING SCALE - PART 2
Training and Experience Adjustment
Note: Do not adjust jobs with task structure scores of 6 or below.

(a) Compared to others in this or similar positions, how much training have you had?

 

__3___ .__2___ 1 __L_
No training Very little A moderate A great deal
at all training amount training of training

(b) Compared to others in this or similar positions, how much experience have you had?

 

 

 

3 2 1 O
No experience Very little A moderate amount A great deal at all
experience of experience of experience

Do not do any addition or subtraction please.

 

Subtotal from Part 1

 

 

 

 

Subtotal from training and experience adjustment -

 

 

 

 

Total Task Structure Score

 

 

 

PART D

5. EOSIIION POWER RATING SCALE
DIRECTIONS: Circle the number which best represents your response to each question.

AS A COUNTY DIRECTOR:

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a) Can you directly or by recommendation administer rewards and punishments to staff?
2 1 0
Can act directly or Can recommend No
can recommend with but with mixed results
high effectiveness
5) Can you directly or by recommendation affect the promotion, demotion, hiring or firing of
staff? .
2 1 0
Can act directly or Can recommend No
can recommend with but with mixed
high effectiveness results
3. Does helshe have the knowledge necessary to assign tasks to staff and instruct them to
tasks completion?
2 1 0
Yes Sometimes or in No
some aspects
4. Is it your job to evaluate the performance of staff?
2 1 0
Yes Sometimes or in No
some aspects
5. Have you been given some official title of authority by the organization (e.g. director,
coordinator)?
2 1
Yes No
PART E
6. AGGRESSIVE/ADAPTIVE LIFESTYLE SCALE
Directions: The words below represent a scale extending from one extreme to the other, and

the numbers represent different positions on the scale.

Example: Friendly 1 2 3 4- .- 5 6 7 Unfriendly

112

Behavior Behavior

If you circle:

it means you are 'extremely” friendly

it means you are 'quite' friendly

it means you are “slightly” friendly

it means you are “neither ' friendly or unfriendly
it means you are 'slightiy" unfriendly

it means you are "quite' unfriendly

it means you are 'extremely” friendly

NPPPPN"

Now, Circle an appropriate number in the following scales which best describes your Behavior.
Please don‘t omit any item.

 

a) Don’t mind leaving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Must get things finished
things temporary once started
unfinished
b) Calm and unhurried 1 2 6 Never late for
for appointments appointments
c) Not competitive 1 2 6 Highly competitive
d) Listen well, let others 1 2 6 Anticipate others in
finish speaking conversation (and,
interrupt, finish sentences
or others)

e) Never in a huny 1 2 6 Always in a huny

e) Able to wait calmly 1 2 6 Uneasy when waiting

f) Easy going 1 2 6 Always full speed ahead

9) Take one thing at 1 2 6 Try to do more than one

a time thing at a time, think
about what to do next.

h) Slow and deliberate 1 2 6 Vigorous and forceful in
speech (use a lot of
gesture)

l) Concerned with 1 2 6 Want recognition

satisfying self not others by others for a job well done

j) Slow doing things 1 2 6 7 Fast doing things (walking,

eating, etc.)

k) Easygoing 1 2 6 7 Hard driving

l) Express feelings in

m) Have a large number
of interests

11) Satisfied with job
0) Never set own
deadfines

p) Feel limited responsi-
bility

q) Never judge things in
in
terms of numbers

r) Casual about work

5) Not very precise

3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4

113

5

6

7 Hold feelings openly

7 Few interests
outside work

7 Ambitious, wants quick
advancement on job

7 Often set own deadlines

7 Always feel responsible

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Often judge performance

34.5 6
34.5 6
PARTF

7. Demographic and personal information

a) What is your gender? (circle one number)

1. Male
2. Female

0) What is your age ?

terms of numbers how many, how
much)

7 Take work very seriously
(work week ends, bring
work home)

7 Very precise (careful about
detail)

 

c) Indicate the highest university Degree that you now hold (Circle one number)

eswwe

d) What is your area of specialization?

Bachelor's
Master‘s
Specialist
Doctor’s
Other-specify

 

 

114

e) Number of years of experience in your present job title

 

f) In which region do you work? (Circle one number)

East Central
Nonh
Southeast
Southwest
Upper Peninsula
West Central

99:599.”?

9) Have you had any international experience since becoming director (circle one number)

1 . Yes
2. No
h) If yes, what type of international experience?

Hosted intemationai visitors
attended workshops/seminars with intemationai participants.
Traveled overseas
Lived and worked overseas
All of the above
Non of the above

P’Sfifit’l"?

0 Did you have any intemationai experience before becoming director? (Circle one number)

1. No
2. Yes
j) Has your intemationai experience had any impact on the way you lead? (Circle one number
please)
1. Yes
2. No
R) Do you smoke? (Circle one number)
1. Yes
2. No

I). Please use the space below to share any other thoughts you may have that could enhance
your leadership as a county extension director.

APPENDIX C

COVER LETTERS TO COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTORS

E

Wle
Imam

410 Aonculture Hall
Merriam State University
East Lansing. Michigan
48824-1039
5173556580

FAX 5173534981

712me
Daemon's”.
Mum

"SI/Slim
WM

 

August 3, 1995

Dear Retired Director,

i am a Ph.D. candidate in AEE and Dr. Wamhoff is my program
advisor. I am conducting a study titled “The relationship between
self-perceived leadership styles and stressful situations among
county extension directors in Michigan. Dr. Wamhoff who has
known and worked with you for several years hand pick you to
participate in the pretest and validity of this questionnaire.

Could you please take a few minutes and fill out the survey. Any
question or sentence that is not clear, please kindly make any
comments. Your comments will help me in putting together the

final questionnaire which will be sent to the county extension
directors.

Thanks for participating in the pre-test of this study.

Sincerely, Sincerely,

Carroll H. Wamhoff. Peter Achuonjei
Department Chair/Program director

Peter Nang Achuonjei.

E

WNW

410mm
momentum
48824-1.

5173555500
FAX: 517353-4SI

lulu-prflm
Memo—w
Emanuel

act/saw

116

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

August 24, 1995

COUNTY EXTENSION DIRECTOR

As part of my doctorate program, I am conducting a current study of the
relationship between self-perceived leadership styles and stressful
situations among County Extension Directors in Michigan. The need for
effective decision making by those in touch with county-level concerns has
been and remains critical for the success of the programs.

You have been selected to examine the items presented and to indicate
whether or not these items represent the way in which you as director deal
with different manageriai scenaricts. ‘t'dui completion of this questicmaire
although voluntary is very critical for the realization of this study.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an
identification number for mailing purposes only. This is so that we may
check your name off of the mailing list when your questionnaire is returned.
Your name will ggver be placed on the questionnaire.

The successful completion of this study depends on your reply. A pre-
addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

Thank you for your immediate action and cooperation. Please return your
completed questionnaire by September 10, 1995.

Sincerely, Sincerely

Carroll H. Wamhoff
Department Chairperson and
Program Coordinator.

Peter Nang Achuonjei
Graduate Student.

E

W at W
I Extension Education
410 Agriculture Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansrng. Mlchloan
48824-1039

5173556580

FAX 517-353-4981

firmwares»
WGWM
Mum

talcum

117

September 12, 1995
Dear Director,

This is to remind you about the leadership survey questionnaire
which I sent to you in August, 1995.

l have not yet received your completed survey questionnaire.

If you have already returned this information to me, thanks for your
cooperation. If you have not yet completed this questionnaire,
please do so now. Your input is highly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Peter Nang Achuonjei

E

WIIMW

410 Agriculture Hall
Michlom State Urwalslty
East mane. W
48824-1039
517355656)

me 5173534981

rams-sum
Mama-n:
mum

£151“sz

118

November 5, 1995

Dear Director,

On August 24, I sent you a survey questionnaire to complete. A
reminder note was sent to you on September 12, and until now,
you have not returned the questionnaire.

If you have already returned this information to me, thanks for your
cooperation. If you have yet to complete this information, I have
enclosed another survey questionnaire and a self-stamped
returned envelope in case you cannot find the one that was sent to
you earlier.

Please your participation in this study is very important and I would
like you to complete the survey questionnaire now.

Thanks for participating in this study.

Sincerely,

Peter Nang Achuonjei.

 

APPENDIX D

STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCHER’S MOTIVATION TO CONDUCT THE
STUDY AND LEADERSHIP LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION
FOR THE RESEARCHER

 

'119
Leadership is one of the world’s oldest occupations. Leaders as prophets
and kings served as symbols, representatives, and models for their people
in the Old and New Testament, and in the Icelandic sagas. (Bass, 1990)
The researcher is the son of a traditional ruler (chief) in Kusu-Wum, a village
in the North-West Province of Cameroon. He grew up to observe his father lead the
people of Kusu-Wum into prosperity. When his father inherited the village of about

8,000 inhabitants from his late uncle, he reorganized and administered it like a

business enterprise, as shown below:

I Prefect I can
E'El
{Council I

ull-m
I

VILLAGERS J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traditional Administrative Organization of
Kusu-Wum Village in Cameroon

The village was subdivided into eight administrative units (townships). Each
township was administered by a leader quarter-head (QH) appointed by the chief.
The role of the quarter-head was to assist the chief in the administration of the

village. Of the eight quarter-heads, there was a principal quarter-head whom the

120

chief had to consult before the others regarding issues arising from and affecting the
village.

The traditional council was made up of the eight quarter-heads, as well as
selected prominent villagers. After deliberations on the disputed matter, the
traditional council then made its recommendation to the chief, who made the final
decision. In most cases, the matter ended with the parties accepting the chief's
decision, but they also had the choice to pursue the matter further in the court in the
event that they were not satisfied by the chief’s decision. Once the matter was in
court, it was under the jurisdiction of the prefect. The prefect is a government
representative at the divisional level who can issue jail sentences to those found to
be guilty of a crime.

In resolving disputes, the chief adopted several strategies, which ranged from
compassion and compromise to autocratic, depending on the situation. He showed
compassion to those who were sick and could not participate in communal work, for
example, but levied fines on those who were able but did not participate. Although
agricultural land was and is still common property in Wum, the chief was the landlord
who made tough decisions when it came to deciding which piece of land was to be
farmed and which one to be fallowed.

There were times when the chief was clearly under stress and could not settle
a dispute among his peeple as soon as he would have liked. Nevertheless, under
his effective leadership, Kusu-Wum village became one of the most prosperous and

food-self-sufficient villages in Cameroon.

121

At his death, he held the researcher’s hand and said, ”My son, I want you to
love people, work with people, and become a leader." In order to fulfill his father’s
wish, the researcher has, throughout his educational career, tried to emulate his
father. As a result, the researcher has held several leadership positions throughout
his educational career. He has been president of student associations and recently
was elected as a graduate student representative on the Board of Directors OF the
Association of International Agriculture and Extension, which meets once a year. As
a leader, he has received several recognitions.

Without belaboring the point, leadership skills are very important for today's
graduates. Society often calls on a college graduate, irrespective of his or her
educational career, to provide leadership. Such leadership roles may involve
leading a discussion, organizing a meeting, or receiving a leadership appointment
in government or an organization. Based on these facts and also to fulfill his father’s
wish, the researcher decided to pursue his research on self-perceived leadership
styles with the hope of someday being able to provide leadership for extension
programs in Cameroon. Because the extension system in Michigan has undergone
and is still undergoing some changes, the researcher decided to conduct his study
on the self-perceived leadership styles of county extension directors to determine
their effectiveness and the relationship of selected demographic characteristics of

these directors to their stressful situations on the job.

 

”1'22

 

plottrburqh

 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS
(518i 564-2250
PLATTSBURGr-HNEW YORK-1290‘

February 25, l982

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Peter Achuonjei entered State University College at Plattsburgh in
September, l979 with a major in Business. He is expected to graduate in
May l984.

From the day of his arrival throughout his career as a student here,
Peter has been a very impressive person. He is extremely personable, bright
and articulate. He immediately became a respected spokesman for the inter-
national students and in this respect he has given generously of his time
and energy, both informally and as the President of the International
Relations Club, to help communications between American and international
students. Peter is a born leader. He has clear ideas and he is able to
communicate with people at all levels and in all kinds of circumstances in
a way that is very inspiring to them. In addition Peter has very fine
personal qualities that make him outstanding. He is loyal. dedicated and
very hard working. He is always looking for ways to help others and has
a very generous nature. I recommend him most highly as one of our most
outstanding students.

.Sincerely,

I

41mm C‘JAizrr'AndM
JAIMIE TRAUTMAN
Foreign Student Advisor

JT/pm

123

Agricultural & Extension Education

Michigan State University FAX (517) 353-4981
410 Agriculture Hall email LEVINE©msu.edu

East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1039
(517) 355-6580

April 19, 199;:

Mr. Peter Achounjei
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

Campus
Dear Peter:

I just wanted to put in writing how much I have appreciated your involvement and leadership
with the Graduate Student Association during this past year. I know the time that such
involvement demands and the burden that goes along with the title. You have managed it so
very well and helped move the Association and the Department along in some very positive
ways. I only hope that you will continue your active involvement in affairs of the
Department though you will no longer be wearing the hat of GSA President.

Thank you for contribution to AEE.

Si cerely,

c&
h Levine, Ph.D.
Professor

SJLzmep

cc: Dr. Jake Wamhoff

E

W of Agricultnrd
& Extension Education
410 Agriculture Hall
Michigan State UniveiSity
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1039

5173556560
FAX; 5173534981

The Midliqai Slate wile/sin
IDEA is Insriluriaw Diversity
firm in Acton

MSU is an ammacnort
equal-0000mm momma.

  
  

124

 

March 24, 1995

Mr. Peter Nang Achuonjei
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

Dear Peter,

At our faculty meeting, it was decided that I write a letter of appreciation
to you for the effective leadership role that you have played as a
Graduate Student President in our department.

Your active role in redesigning the letter head stationary, the recruitment
package (poster and brochure) have made an impact on the department.
We now have an increased number of applicants to our graduate degree
program due to your thought and initiative. l have also been told that you
contributed tremendously as a graduate student representative in
undergraduate curriculum development in the design of the new courses.
In addition, your being selected as a Thoman Fellow which is a highly
competitive scholarly recognition program has brought honor to our
department.

Peter, your sense of humor, leadership skills, innovativeness and being
able to work with others are your strengths which I have no doubt will
work to your advantage as you continue to develop your career.

On behalf of the department, I therefore thank you for bringing about the
positive changes and wish that you will continue with this same spirit
wherever you go after your graduation from here.

Sinc rely,

, f7,/ / I
flvé (’51’9'I/

arroll H. Wamhoff, P .D.
Department Chairperson.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Anderson, H. H. (1940). An examination of domination and integration in relation

to dominance and ascendancy. WM, AZ, 21-37.

Andrews. J. D. W. (1967). The achievement motive and advancement in two

types of organizations .LQumalbLEersonalitLandSocialfisycbologv 5
163-168.

Baldwin, L. E. (1932). WWW
maleJeadeLship. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University.

Bales, R. F., &Strodbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases' in group problem solving.
JournaLotAbnormaLandfiociaLEsxcbology .45, 485-489.

Bass, B. M. (1949). An analysis of the leaderless group discussion. Journal of
AppliedEsycbology. 33. 527-533.

Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadershrumbolpgunfleadersbmbeham. New York:
Harper & Row.

Bass, B. M., &Stogdill, R. (1990).
manageflaljpnllgaflmswrd ed..) New York: Free Press.

Bentz, V. J. (1964). WMWQQWMW
pLedictionoLexecmjvebebavior. Chicago. Sears Roebuck. Unpublished

report.

Bernard, J. (1928). Political leadership among North American Indians.

AmericanJmnaloLSociology. 34, 296- 315.

Bingham, W. V. (1927). Leadership. In H. C. Metcalf (Ed) Ihepsychological
W. New York: Shaw.

Blake, R., & McCaines, M. (1991). W. Houston,
TX: Gulf Publishing.

125

“126

Blake. R..&Mouton. J. S. (1964). Ibemanagerialgrid. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing.

Bogardus, E. S. (1944). LeademndJeadershjp. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.

Bowers, D. G., &Seashore, S. E. (1967). Peer leadership within work groups.
EersonneLAdministLation. 30(5). 45-50.

Brewer, J. J. (1984). Belatronsbiosbehaeeumamzationauanablesand

Nor-unseat 'In ”1‘9:qu 00.: t0:-

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Broadbent, D. E. (1971). W. New York: Academic Press.

Brown, D. S. (1964). Subordinates’ views of ineffective behavior. Academygf
Managemenuoumal. Z. 288-289.

Bum, J. M. (1978). Leadgfihip. New York: Harper & Row.

Cartwright, D. (1953). W. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Research Center for Group

Dynamics.

Chemers, M. M. &Serypek, G. J. (1972). Experimental test of the contingency

model of leadership effectiveness. WW
Eslchnlogx 2.4L 172- 177

Cooper, L. C., 8. Payne, R. (1978). W. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

Cooperative Extension Service. W
W. East Lansmg Ml: Author.

Cox, D.,&Hoover, J. (1992). Leadersmmlenjhgheatfln. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Davis, A. (1971). Whats. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

DeAlton, P. E. (1972). Leadersbieamonoadelescentboxs. New York:

American Management Association.

127

Dillman. D. A. (1973). Malandtelenbonesumevslbetotamesignmethod.
New York: John Vlfiley & Sons.

Einstein,A., &lnfeld, L. (1938). William. New York: Simon 8
Schuster.

Etzioni, A. (1961). Mooomoroahlzatlons. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). AtbeonLotleadestineflectlleness. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of
leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Esyohologjoal
Bulletin. 15. 128-148.

Fiedler, F. E. (1972). Predicting the effects of leadership training and experience
from the contingency model. JournaloLAoolledEsyoholooy,55,114-119

Fiedler, F. E. (1973). The trouble with leadership training is that it doesn’t train
leaders. Esychologxloday. 6(9), 23, 25-26, 29-32. 92.

Fiedler F. E. (1976, Winter). The leadership game: Matching the man to the
situation QuanizationaLDxnamics. 23. 6-16.

Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership

process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed..) AdmeesjnexnenmentaLsooial
osyohology(Vol.11). New York: Academic.

Fiedler, F. E. (1983). Tailoring the leadership Situation to ft your style Leader-

match training. In Maxwell Air Force Base.CQn§el21§_f_QLaiLiQme
laaoonshlo(pp. 2- -36). Alabama: Air University.

Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. (1984). lmnmxingJeadeLatiinefleetlxenees. New
York: John VWIey 8 Sons.

Fielder, F. E. Chemers, M., &Mahar, J. (1976). lmnmnnoleadersbjn
BMWQM ed--) NewYorkI John
Wiley&Sons.

Fiedler, F. E., & Fiedler, J. (1975). Who speaks for the community? JoumaLot
Appliedfiocialfisxcbologx. 1. 324- 333

 

1‘28

Fiedler F E &Garcia J E (1987) We;

Cognitixeresoureesandmamzationamertormanoe. New York: John
Wiley 8 Sons.

Fiedler. F. E, 8 Leister, A. F. (1977). Leader intelligence and task performance:

A test of multiple screen model. QwenizationaLBehaMioLandfiuman
Benormance. 20.1-14

Filley,A. C., House, R. J., 8Kerr, S. (1971). ManageriaLorocessjoo
emanizationjebaxior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Fine, G. A. (1981). Enendsimnressionsmanagementenioreadolescent
hehayior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gesler, R. M., 8Jones, M. B. (1992). BanemsoLchahoe (Report of the
Cooperative Extension Service Strategic Planning Council). Madison, WI:
Cooperative Extension Service.

Ghiselli, E. E. (1963). Intelligence and managerial success. Esyoholooical
Report. 121. 898.

Gibb, C. A. (1969). W. Baltimore, MD: Penguin

Books.

Gladstein, D. L., 8 Reilly, N. P. (1985). Group decision making under threat:
The tycoon game. AcademthanagementJournal. 28. 613-627.

Glass, v. G., 8 Hopkins, D. K. (1995). StatisticaLmethodaneducation (2nd ed.).
Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon.

Gordon, L. V. (1963). GLOW. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, 8 World.

Graham, F. C. (1982). Job stress in Mississippi cooperative extension service
county personnel as related to age, gender, district tenure, position and
perceived leadership behavior of immediate supervisors. Dissertation
AbsttaotantemationaL 43(7), A2180.

Grant, D. L., 8 Bray, D. W. (1986). Contributions of the interView to assessment
of management potential. JoumaLoLAooliefiflyohologx. 53. 24-34

Green, S. C., Nebeker, D. M., 8Alvares, K. M. (1971). Personality and

situational effects on leader behavior. W,
19.184-194.

 

129

Griffiths, D. E. (1964). BehamoralscienceandeducationaLadministration.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gruenfeld, L. W., Rance, D. E., 8 Weissenberg P. (1969). The behavior of task-
oriented (low LPC) and socially oriented (high LPC) leaders under several

conditions of social support. JoumélotfiociaLEsxchology. 19. 99—107.

Halpin, A. w. (1958). W. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago, Midwest Administrative Center.

Halpin, A. w. (1966). Ibeomandteseatcninadministration. New York:
Macmillan.

Hambrick, D. C., 8 Manson, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as

reflection of its top managers. MW. 9. 193-
206.

Hardy, R. C. (1971). Effects of leadership style on the performance of a small

classroom group: A test of the contingency model. ,louLhaLoLEeLsohality
andfiocmLEsxcbologv. 19. 367-374.

Hardy, R. C., 8 Bohren, J. F. (1975). A test of poor leader-member relations
cells of the contingency model on elementary school children. Child

Delelonment 46. 159-163.

Harell, T. w., 8Lee, H. E. (1964). Ammsflgaflonmnemmmment
interrelationsamonosmallomunleadershimntena (Technical Report
No.6). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.

Harrison, w. A (1984). AnenalysisouheeoumuxtensiondiremQLs

WW. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University.

Hemphill, J. K., 8Coons, A. E. (1967). Development of the leader behavior
description questionnaire. InJ. K. Hemphill 8A. E. Coons (Eds). Leaflet

behaxioLJsdescnntionendmeasurement Columbus: The Ohio State
University, Bureau of Business Research.

Hersey. P. 8Blanchard K. H. (1977). ManagementotorganizationaLbebaxion.
WEBB. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Hitt, M. A., Middlemist, R. D.,8Mathis, R. L. (1979). Etteetixemanagement St.
Paul, MN: West Publishing.

1‘30

Hodges, R. M., 8Altman, S. (1979). organizationaLbebaiuor. Philadelphia, PA:
W. B. Saunders.

Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadershmimammmealeuidejoeflemne
relationshios. New York: Free Press.

Hunt, J. G., 8 Larson, L. (Eds). (1977). W.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

lvancevich, J. M., Szilagyi, A. D., 8Wallace, M. J. Jr. (1977). Qroamzational
behaxioLandJertonnence. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing

Jackson. M. R- (1984). WWWM
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Janda, K. F. (1960). Towards the explication of the concept of leadership in
terms of the concepts of power. HomanPelations, 13, 345-363.

Kahn, R. L, Wolfe, D. M. Quinn, R. P., Shock, J. D., 8Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
.New York:
John Wiley 8 Sons.

Kay, B. R. (1959). Key factors in effective foreman behavior. Personnel, 35, 25-
31.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). EoundationsotbebaxioraflesearcMan ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart, 8 Winston.

Kiessling, R. J. 8 Kalish, R. A. (1961). Correlates of success in leaderless

group discussion. JournaLQLSooiaLPsyohoLogy. 54. 359- 365.

Kohl, S. C, 8lrle, K. W. (1920). Prophesying army promotion. JournaLof
AppliedPsichologx. 4, 73-87.

Koontz, H., 80’Donnell, C. (1957). Prinoiolesotrnanagementhd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Korrnan, A. K. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational

criteria—A review. EersonneLEsiLohologx. 2, 349-361.

Krishnan, B. (1965). The leadership qualities among college students as
assessed by the "L' scale of the Mysore personality inventory.

PsychologicaLStudies. to 23-36.

131

Lange, C. J., 8 Jacobs, T. O. (1960). Leadersbininamintantnmlatoons;
Stuoyjl. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Human
Resources Research Office.

Lassey, W. R. (1976). Dimensions of leadership an. R. Lassey8 R.
Fernandez (Eds..) LeadeLshioatmsofialfihange. La Jolla, CA: University

Associates.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). EsxcbologicaLstLesaantheconingmocess. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Leman, T. B., 8 Solomon, R. L. (1952). Group characteristics as revealed by
sociometric patterns and personality ratings. Sociometry. 15. 7-90.

Lehman, H. C. (1953). Agundmbielemem. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Likert, R. (1950). Foreword. In D. Katz, N. Maccoby, 8N. Morse (Eds.,)

WWO. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, Survey Research Center.

Likert, R. (1956). Beyeloninonatternsotmanagemenul (General Management

Series No. 182). New York: American Management Association.

Mann, J. J. (1960). The relation between role-playing ability and interpersonal
adjustment. JoiirnaLoLGeneraLEsxcboloov. 62. 177-183.

Massarik, F. (1983). Searching for essence in executive experience. In
S. Srivastva (Ed.).Ihe_exeoutiye_mind. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McGregor, D. (1944). Conditions of effective leadership in the industrial
organization. JoumalotConsultinoflsiLchology. 6. 55-63.

McBeath, A. G., 8Andrews, J. H. (1960). Teacher leader behaVior and teaching
effectiveness. AlbertaJournaLoLEducationalBesearcn. 6. 10-18.

McDermott, H. M. (1981). Cooperativeedueationdirectomleadershinstvles.

on..°'.o|. .uoos... ll. ._

W. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington
University.

McGrath, J. E. (1970). W. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, 8 Winston.

1'32

Meuwese, w. A. T., 8Fiedler, F. E. (1965). LeadestMndorouncLeatixity
Wfiemniml Report). Urbana: University
of Illinois. Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory.

Michaelson, L. K. (1973). Leader orientation, leader behavior, group
effectiveness. and situational favorability: An empirical extension of the

contingency model. Qmanizatronalfiehammndilumanfierformance. 9.
226-245.

Miller, D. C., 8 Dirkson, J. L. (1965). The identification of visible, concealed, and
symbolic leaders in a small Indiana city: A replication of the Bonjean-
Noland study of Burlington, North Carolina. SooiaLPorces, 43, 548-555.

Miller, L. E., 8 Smith, K. L. (1983, September/October). Handling non-response
issues. JoumLoLExlension. 21. 22-23.

 

Miner, J. B. (1968). The early identification of managerial talent. W I
GuidanceJoumaL 46. 586- 592.

Morrison, A., White, R., 8 Van Velsor, E. (1987, August). Executive women:
Substance plus style. EsmhologLIoday. pp. 18—21.

Morse, N. C., 8Reimer, E. (1956). The experimental change ofa major

organizational variable. JoumaLQLAhnoLmaLSmiaLEsyohology. 52. 120-
129.

Nutting, R. L. (1923). Some characteristics of leadership. SohooLSocioLooy, 18,
387-390.

Olson, M. J., 8 Zanna, P. M. (1990). Self-inference processes. The Ontario
Symposium. 6.

Patchen, M. (1974). The forces and basis of influence in organizational

decisions. OrganizationeLBebaiLioLandljumanPertormance. pp 197-
201.

Posthuma, A. B. (1970) Nomatixejataontlteleastprefenedmrkerseate

tLECLandeeoLQunatmospbeLeeuestionnaireJBAl (Technical Report
No. 7080). Seattle: University of Washington.

 

1'33
Rauch. C. F., 8Behling, O. (1981). Functionalism: Basis for an alternative

approach to the study of leadership InJ. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A.

Schriesheim, 8 R. Stewart (Eds..) Leademndmanagetantemaflonal
nersnectiyesonmanagetialbehavloLandleadershjo New York:

Pergamon.

Reddin, W. J. (1970). W. New York: McGraw—Hill.

Rice, R. W. (1978). Psychometric properties of the esteem of least preferred co-
worker (LPC) BimbologioaLBulletin. 85(6), 1199- 1237.

Roadman, H. E. (1964). The industrial use of peer ratings. JournaLoLAoolleo
Psychology. 46. 677-682.

Robinson, J. Jr. (1980). Managing_stress_and_itouLbealtn;_6unLi1aLskills_to_r
NW. Skokie, IL. Century Communications.

Roff, M. (1950). A study of combat leadership in the air force by means of rating
scale: Group differences. JoumaLoLEsyehologx. 50. 229-239.

ROQGFS. C- R- (1951) Clientienleteitbetaox. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Samgeun, K'K- (1999- IbeselfznerceptionotfemaleJeadeLSLQLotessional

0: : HII=I 'I : ‘01‘0 Ii l0.-_l IQI‘ ‘0..-.0ll °_0I .

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Schein, V. (1988). Would women lead differently? In W. E. Rosenbach 8 R. L.
Taylor (Eds) Wand ed.. PP 154 150)

San Francisco: Westview Press.

Schroeder, T. D. (1983). Use of multiple regression in recreation research: A

discussion of several issues. JoumaLoLLeisureendResearch. 15(3), 247-
250.

Selye, H. (1979). The stress concept and some of its implications. In V.

Hamilton 8 D. M. Warburton (Eds), Human_stress_an_d_ooonition. New
York: Wiley.

Shaw, M. E. 8Blum, J. M. (1966). Effects of leadership style upon group

performance as a function of task structure. JoumaLoLEetsonalitLand
Socialflmhologx 3 238-242

Sheldon, W. H. (1927). SOClaI traits and morphologic type W.
29. 261-267.

134

Siegel, J. M. 8Loftus, E. F. (1978). Impact of anxiety and life stress upon
eyewitness testimony. BulletineftbeBsircbonemieSoeiety. 12. 439-480.

Sims, H. P., Jr. (1977). The leader as a master of reinforcement contingencies:
An empirical example and a model. In J. G. Hunt 8 L. Larson (Eds. ),

LeaderstflnJheounmgedge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University

Press.

Skinner. B. F. (1978). Befleetionsenhehairierismendsooety. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Slater, P. E. (1955). Contrasting correlates of group size. Sociometry, 2.0. 300-
310.

Soares, L. M., 8Soares, A. T. (1985). IbeaflemlireperceptlenjnxentenrtAPlll
compositetestmanual. Trimbell, CT: Soares Associates.

Soderman. K-A- (1992) MichiganiarmiammemoincmnstreseJaaeteez
(Final Report). East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Standard 8 Poors. (1967). Wm
New York: Author.

Staw, B. M., Sandelan, L. E., 8Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in

organizational Behavior-A multilevel analysis. Aominisjratiyeficienoe
Quarterly 26(4), 501-524.

Stogdill, J. B. (1981). The principles of leadership. Americanjdircetor. 5(4), 12,
14-15.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handboekefleadershinzjeunieirottheoncand
research. New York: Free Press.

Strube, IVI. J., 8Garcia, J. E. (1981). Analytical investigation of Fiedler’s

contingency model of leadership effectiveness. PsychologicalfiiiMn 90,
307- 321.

Suraphol, C..S (1984). l‘l‘ ‘.°-.0I Io 9‘h“! --.0.' I.- ‘ I . o
no I00! : 01-0 -. ° I -.II'-.0I‘0‘

WWW Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Mississippi State University.

Sward, K. (1933). Temperament of direction of achievement. JournaLoLSoci‘al
Bsxcbelegv. 4. 406-429. - _-

135
Taylor. J C. &Bowers. D G (1972). W
W. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan, Institute of Social Research.

Tead,O. (1935). Ibearteiteadersbin New York: McGraw-Hill.

Woodworth, R. S., 8 Marquis, D. G. (1948). Psychology (5th ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart, 8 Winston.919

"rillllllllllllllllllillli