..évk . xx h... WWW“? Q h... I. r. \‘\’J _r. 312...... «m. .11“, 1...” fig... .5 “mm. .. .. ”(W- .\.A knu . . m f l .IUWH. Into.) A. .I . ‘ .... . .32. «NH . RI... . v . . . .. .1 L.“ . 1W“ . «an. L ... .eramm Maw: ‘ ‘ “h. -rrrnm‘ . .. I. m. z 5.4“! ‘ K. 1 r$l , 3v. . J“ ‘J 0'.- A , '. 'd {1: y. ‘ c A n . . I a... “335% fl- .(Ah‘v. fl 1"".‘NJ . .'Ql’i:|'!‘ ' I. A lbs. :1 LI; . .. c . - Sf...\ 1...»-..Lf .l.l.o4Y. . o if. 1 . llllvt‘vl'it‘! y. "L‘l‘fl O‘. krwwv...“ Jr. 345”” {truflh‘fi} #611,?! ,g h......H....+.k..‘. in.» .menufluwfi. mem it:.L... N; . . 1.1..- “i 95 a; a 31293 01682 2607 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled women @na’ NC’I’I 5 Idea/ 1655/8/‘5/71/3j/7/5 Pf€[(r'{nc€5 lunL/wr] ¥[76 [Mark/D/ace,‘ 777! /’7//L(r'/7cg 0f (Unn(C/Z6/V7(55 fleeJ5?dé;)/l2;7,c,fl7 A3C Anc/ Educyttw‘la/ eve/ presene Y /NAUDOM Ago. to .on—a . hoao.t "mu. um .onga . .ono.t ooo. to Aunna . «co—.1 who. IA .Nnnn v onno.l ooo. um .«nau . ~oo~.t ooo. IA .ou~n . noo~.l ooo. um .o—- . omen. ooo. In .oaafi . moo". . an .onaa . oooo.~ ooo. IA «anon v «unv. AAlflmflfl oso. ta Ammo" . «ooo.- goo. ta .onou . «ooo.- ooo. um .onon . osoo.l ova. um Apnoa . mono. ooo. In .omo~ . ~o-.l ooN. um Ammo" . nono.t ooo. um .vvo~ . node. boo. to Aooon . onoo. ooo. no .onog . «~uo. . no .onoa . oooo.a mud OBUNIBOU mmnHmlOU KDBUDABm AU‘ AA‘E Hmm UIHQIOU >fldUDom AAlflmdh Nut 67 Next, an ANOVA procedure was used to test the effect of group (categorical variable) upon the two dependent variables, Consideration and Initiating Structure leadership style preferences. Results shown in Table 9 reveal that group was not a significant contributing factor for the Consideration leadership style preference but was for Initiating Structure. Using a separate ANOVA, group was also significantly related to connectedness needs (Sig F _< .001); therefore, because it was related to both the independent (Connectedness needs) and dependent variables (Initiating Structure), group was identified as a potentially confounding variable. Therefore, four variables, number of years employed (work experience), educational level and group, and socioeconomic status needed to be controlled for in any subsequent regression analysis using Initiating Structure as the dependent variable. Table 9 Efect of ngoup on Consideration (LBm) and Initiating Structure Leadership Sgle Preferences (LBm) .. _ Criterion F score Variable Consideration as criterion variable Group 1.58 Initiating Structure as criterion variable Group 26.72*** Connectedness Needs Group 8.34*** *p _<.OS ** p 5.01 *** p 5.001 Hypotheses Testing Test of hypothesis 1. The null hypothesis was that male workers would have lower or the same scores than males on preferences for relationally oriented leadership styles as measured by the Consideration subscale of the LBDQ, The alternative hypothesis was that female workers would have significantly higher scores than males on preferences for relationally oriented leadership styles as measured by the Consideration subscale of the LBDQ, As can be seen in Table 10, significant (p 5.01) mean differences between male and female employees with regard to their preferences on the Consideration style of leadership variable were found. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there would be no differences between groups was rejected. These results mean that female workers preferred relationally oriented leaders significantly more than male workers. Table 10 Comparison on the Consideration subscale (LBDQ) between Male and Female Employees Consideration Number of Mean ' S) I value subscale (LBDQ) Cases Female 610 45.55 5.50 3 . 3 6 *** Male 516 44.43 5.67 *p 5.05 ** p 5.01 *** p 5.001 Test of hypothesis 2. The null hypothesis was that male workers would have lower or similar scores than females on preferences for nonrelationally- oriented leadership styles as measured by the Initiating Structure subscale of the LBDQ, The alternative hypothesis was that male workers will have 69 significantly higher scores than females on preferences for nonrelationally- oriented leadership styles as measured by the Initiating Structure subscale of the LBDQ, As can be seen in Table 11, a significant mean difference between male and female workers' preferences for the Initiating Structure style of leadership was not found after adjusting for potential covariates of age, educational level, and group. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there would be no differences between groups was accepted. These results mean that male workers did not prefer task structured leaders significantly more than female workers. Table 11 Compem'son on the mitiatmg Structure subscale (1.8m: between Male and Female Employees Initiating Structure Number of Mean SD t value subscalejIBDQ) Cases Female 609 44.36 6.26 .82 Male 515 44.04 ‘ 6.59 *p _<.05 ** p _<.01 *** p 5.001 Test of hypothesis 3. The null hypothesis was that female workers would have lower or similar scores than male workers on connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale. The alternative hypothesis was that female workers would have significantly higher scores than male workers on connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale. As can be seen in Table 12, significant mean differences between male and female employees' connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness 70 Scale were found (p _<.001). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there would be no differences between groups was rejected. These results mean that female workers expressed significantly stronger needs for connection than male workers. Table 12 Comparison on the Connectedness Scale between Male and Female Employees Connectedness Scale Number of Mean SD t value Cases Female 609 146.66 20.23 .6.67*** Male 512 138.41 21.12 *p 5.05 ** p _<.01 *** p 5.001 Test of hypothesis 4. The null hypothesis was that the level of connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale would be unrelated to the relation between gender and the ideal leadership style preference of Consideration and Initiating Structure as measured by the LBDQ, Specifically, when connectedness needs are controlled, the gender of the worker will be unrelated to either the Consideration or Initiating Structure leadership style preferences. The alternative hypothesis was that the level of connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale would significantly mediate the relation between gender and the ideal leadership style preference of Consideration and Initiating Structure as measured by the LBDQ, Specifically, when connectedness needs were controlled for, the gender of the worker would be unrelated to either the Consideration or Initiating Structure leadership style preferences. 71 However, the results of the t-test analysis indicated no gender differences with regard to Initiating Structure ideal leadership style which precluded exploring the mediating influence of connectedness needs on the dependent variable. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there would be no differences between groups was accepted. ‘ Test of hypothesis 5. The null hypothesis was that the level of connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale would be unrelated to the relation between gender and the ideal leadership style preference of Consideration as measured by the LBDQ. More specifically, when connectedness needs were controlled, gender of the worker would be unrelated to either the Consideration leadership style preferences. The alternative hypothesis was that the level of connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale would significantly mediate the relation between gender and the ideal leadershipstyle preference of Consideration as measured by the LBDQ. Specifically, when connectedness needs were accounted for, gender of the worker would be unrelated to either the Consideration leadership style preferences. First, as previously discussed in Chapter 4, two variables, age and educational level, which had been shown to be significantly related to the Consideration leadership style preference in the correlation matrix were inserted into the equation before the other variables of interest were inserted. This ensured that the contribution of the variables of interest (gender and connectedness needs) would be above and beyond that of previously studied variables. As seen in Table 13, in the first block, age and educational level accounted for only 296 of the variance. This effect was significant, F(2, 1043) = 11.16p_< .001. In the second block (Table 14), after the effect of age and educational 72 level had been controlled, workers’ gender predicted an additional 196. This increment was very small but significant, F(3,1046)=9.66,p_<001. In the third step (Table 15), after the effects of age, educational level, and gender had been controlled for, connectedness needs predicted an additional 996 of the variance in preferences fora Consideration leadership style. This effect was significant, F(4,1042)=35.23,p_<001. When workers’ connectedness needs were controlled for, workers’ gender no longer significantly accounted for a portion of the variance; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. These results indicate that the female workers preferred more relationally oriented leaders more than the male workers in part because of their stronger needs for connection. Finally, all tests previously described were repeated controlling for the effect of group and similar results were obtained. This additional check was completed to ensure that the results achieved were not due to any organizational effects. Table 1 3 Hiemrcm'cal Linear Regression: Block 1 using Age and Educational Level as fledictors of Consideration Leadership Style Predictor Set for Block I B t t value R2 ghapge Predictor variables Age -.05 -3.13 -3.030* * .01 Educational Level -.42 -3.38 -3.357* * * F=11.15635* * * *p 5.05 ** p 5.01 *** p 5001 Summary Statistic: R2=296 Table 14 Hierarchical m'near Regression: Block 2 using Age. Educgtionel Level and fipder as Predictors of Consideration Leadership Style Predictor Sets for B t value R2 Block 2 change Demographics Age -.04 -2.63** Educational Level -.41 -3.29*** Theoretical Variable Gender -.84 -2.38* * .01“ Summary *p 5.05 ** p _<.01 *** p 5.001 Statistic: R2=3 96 75 Table 1 5 Hierarchical uhear Regression: Block 3 using Age, Educational Level, Gender, and Connectedness Needs as Predictors of Consideration Leadership Stvle Predictor Sets for B t value R2 change Block 3 Antecedeht Variables Age -.04 -2.64** Educational Level -.34 -2.85** jljheorgetical Variables Gender -.16 -,47 Connected- ness Needs .08 10.45*** .10*** Summary Statistic: R2=1296 *p 5.05 ** p _<.01 *** p 5.001 76 Review of Hypotheses Based on the results of this study, the validity of the hypotheses will be summarized. Hypothesis 1. It was hypothesized that female workers would have significantly higher scores than male workers on ideal preferences. for the relationally oriented leadership style as measured by the Consideration subscale of the LBDQ, This hypothesis was supported with significant findings from the t-test. Hypothesis 2. It was hypothesized that male workers would have significantly higher scores than females on ideal preferences for the structured, task oriented leadership styles as measured by the Initiating Structure subscale of the LBDQ, This hypothesis was not supported; the t-test was insignificant. Hypothesis 3. It was hypothesized that female workers would have significantly higher scores on connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale than male workers. This hypothesis was supported with significant findings from the t-test. Hypothesis 4. It was hypothesized that the level of connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale would significantly mediate the relation between gender and the task structured ideal leadership style preferences (Initiating Structure) as measured by the LBDQ, The results of the t-test analysis indicated no gender differences with regard to Initiating Structure ideal leadership style which precluded the examination of the mediating influence of connectedness needs on this variable. Hypothesis 5. It was hypothesized that the level of connectedness needs as measured by the Connectedness Scale would significantly mediate the relation between gender and the relationally oriented ideal leadership style 77 preference of (Consideration) as measured by the LBDQ, When the effects of demographic variables and gender were statistically controlled, connectedness needs predicted an additional 1096 of the variance in workers’ preferences for a relational (Consideration) leadership style. Therefore, this hypothesis was supported with significant findings from the hierarchical regression analysis. Post Hoc Analyses Constructing the strongest model for predicting preferences for Consideration leadership style. In my exploratory post hoc analyses, I constructed the best possible model for predicting men and women's preferences for a relational (Consideration) leadership style within the workplace. Using regression analyses, the following variables were entered into the regression equation to determine their significance as predictors: group, gender, age, educational level, socioeconomic status (measured by combined income), work experience, current job experience, and connectedness needs. All of these variables had previously been shown (in earlier ANOVAs or in the correlational matrix) to significantly influence preferences for a relationally oriented leader or theoretically introduced as possible predictors (e.g., work experience). This method allowed me to more fully understand the individual contributions of each variable in accounting for the variance which was reflected in the coefficient of determination, R2. As seen in Table 16, age, educational level, current job experience, and connectedness needs were significant contributors and retained for the final model which accounted for 1296 of the variance. Noteworthy are the negative beta coefficients for age and educational level suggesting that as age of participants increased, their ideal preferences for a relationally oriented leader decreased. Finally, participants' needs for connections accounted for 78 most of the variance. These results suggest that younger, less educated, employees who are more relationally oriented and have had more years of experience on the job seem to prefer a more relational leader. Table 16 NS soc -_t-._ ses: Mo-e : 'd't- W rs' neferet s o o sidera'ot Leadership Smle Predictors B t value R2 Age*** -.05 -3.37 .01 Educational Level" -.37 -3.08 .01 Years in Current Job* .28 2.29 .004 Connectedness Needs .08 10.74 .10 (CS)*** Summary Statistic: RZ= 1 2 96 *p _<.05 ** p 5.01 *** p 5.001 Constructing the strongest model for predicting preferences for Initiating Structure leadership style. In my exploratory post hoc analyses, I constructed the best possible model for predicting men and women's preferences for a structured leadership style within the workplace. Using regression analyses, the following variables were successively and simultaneously entered into the regression equation: group, age, educational level, work experience, socioeconomic status (measured by combined income), 79 and connectedness needs. All of these variables had been theoretically introduced in the literature as possible predictors or previously been shown (in earlier ANOVAs or the correlational matrix) to significantly influence preferences for a structured, task-oriented leader. Again, this method allowed me to more fully understand the individual contributions of each variable in accounting for the variance which is reflected in the coefficient of determination, R2. As seen in Table 17, all variables except socioeconomic status were significant contributors and retained for the final model which accounted for 1196 of the variance. It appears that older, less educated and less experienced workers with higher connectedness needs prefer a task-oriented, structured leadership style. Additionally, workers who worked for the sales and retail organization were more likely to prefer a structured leadership style. Table 17 Post Hoc Analyses: Model Building for Workers' Preferences for Initiating Structure Leadership Style . Predictor Sets 8 t value R2 Group*** -1.06 -4.76 .03 Age* , .03 1.93 .01 Educational Level" -.44 -2.89 .02 Work Experience ** -.42 -3.23 .01 (Total Years employed) Connectedness Needs .06 6.15 .04 (CS)*** Summary Statistic: R2=11 96 *p 5.05 ** p 5.01 *** p 5001 Exploring Differences Between Racial/ Ethnic Groups. In previous analyses, it had been determined that there were no significant differences between racial/ethnic groups with regard to ideal preferences for a relational or task-structured leader. As revealed in Figure 1, African- American male workers expressed slightly lower preferences for a relationally-oriented leader (Considerate) than Caucasian male workers. As depicted in Figure 2, African-American females and males expressed lower preferences for a structured, task-oriented (Initiating Structure) leadership style than Caucasian male and female workers, although the differences were not significant. 81 46.0 45.5' 45.0' n: 440‘ Ill 0 "a“ RACE 8 43.5- g - AFRICAN-AMERICAN U E 43.0 _ .CAUCASIAN FEMALE ' .’MALE Figurel Differences in Consideration Leadership Style Between African-American and Caucasian Workers 44.0' 43.8 I 43.6 ‘ 43 .4 . RACE - AFRICAN-AMERICAN - CAUCASIAN Mean STRUCTUR FEMALE MALE Figure 2 Differences in Structured Leadership Style Between African-American and Caucasian Workers Additional exploratory analyses revealed interesting and statistically significant results with regard to differential needs for connectedness between African-American and Caucasian workers. Overall, African— American workers expressed lower connectedness needs; upon further inspection, the data, which are illustrated below in Figure 3, revealed that this 83 effect was consistent with both female and males but only statistically significant between African-American women and Caucasian women. 150 140 '4 O l~ E RACE 8 5 - AFRICAN-AMERICAN U 2 130 . - CAUCASIAN GENDER Figure 3 Differences in Connectedness Needs Between African-American and Caucasian Workers In the final chapter, the implications of these findings will be discussed. Chapter 5 DISCUSSION In this final chapter, the purpose of this study will be summarized and the main results reviewed. Factors that help explain the influence of gender and connectedness needs upon workers' (followers or employees) preferences for leadership styles will be emphasized. Limitations of this study will then be discussed. Next, implications for leaders and organizations will be addressed. Finally, suggestions for future research in theory testing and applications of this investigation will" be proposed. Summary of the Furpose of the Study Although researchers have extensively investigated leader characteristics (e.g., Arnett, et al., 1980; Banfield, 1976) and leadership styles (Kushell & Newton, 1986), few have explored employees’ ideal leadership style preferences; fewer still have investigated these preferences as a function of gender and personality variables (e. g., Ejiogu, 1985). Given this lack of knowledge, the primary purposes of this study were to: I) examine the role of workers' gender in predicting workers’ ideal leadership style preferences; 2) empirically test the self-in-relational tenet that gender differences exist in male and female employees’ needs for connection; and 3) assess the mediating influence of connectedness needs between workers' gender and ideal leadership style preferences. In essence, the goals were to answer the questions: do male and female employees differ in preferences for Considerate (relational) or Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leaders and do 84 85 connectedness needs help explain why male and female workers differ in their preferences for leadership styles? Review of Findings The results of this research are briefly summarized below. 1. Compared to male workers, female workers expressed significantly higher ideal preferences for a Considerate (relationally oriented) leadership style. 2. Male and female workers did not differ significantly in their ideal preferences for Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leaders. 3. Compared to male workers, female workers expressed significantly higher needs for connectedness. . 4. Variations between male and female workers in their needs for connectedness partially accounted for differences in preferences for a. Considerate (relationally oriented) leadership style. In the following section, explications of the results of each hypothesis will be presented. Hypothesis 1. It was hypothesized that female workers would report significantly higher ideal preferences for Considerate (relationally oriented) leaders than male workers. The results of this study supported this hypothesis. As anticipated, the differences found between the men and women in the sample groups were consistent with a body of research that revealed women value relationships with co-workers, interactions with people, (Bartol, 1976; Elizur, 1994; Pryor, 1983), work surroundings, and altruism (Vondracek et al., 1990) more than their male counterparts. Although the actual mean difference between men and women's scores was smaller than I had anticipated, levels of significance were meaningful given the large number of participants in the sample and the consistency in 86 which differences were found in each of the three organizations as well as the diversity sample. Hypothesis 2. It was hypothesized that male workers would report significantly higher ideal preferences for Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leaders than female workers. The results of this study failed to support this hypothesis. These results were unexpected in light of Ejiogu's (1985) findings that male teachers had stronger preferences for Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leaders and this study's findings that female employees more strongly preferred Considerate (relationally oriented) leaders than male employees. My underlying assumption, which had not been empirically supported in the literature, was that employees who preferred a relationally oriented supervisor would not concurrently express a preference for a more task-structured leader. However, these results suggested that the preferences for Initiating Structure leadership styles are not on the same continuum as preferences for Considerate leaders and, therefore, are not inversely related. Clearly, most workers in the four sample groups preferred leaders who were relationally oriented and task-oriented. These results are consistent with Halpin's (1957) original findings that these two styles of leadership are independent, not polarized, concepts. Hypothesis 3. It was hypothesized that female workers would report significantly higher needs for connectedness than male workers. The results of this study supported this hypothesis. Until very recently, male-female differences in needs for connection have not been empirically tested and consequently" have not been fully embraced by mainstream psychology. This study is by far the largest study to date that has tested the relationship between gender and connectedness needs. 87 The significant differences found in levels of need for connection between male and female workers supported one of the basic tenets of the self-in- relation theory, i.e., due to more relationally oriented developmental pathways (Welch, 1997), females will value relationships and connections with other more than men (Jordan, et al., 1991; Jordan & Surrey, 1986; Miller, 1984, 1986, 1987). Hypothesis 4. It was hypothesized that the level of connectedness needs would significantly mediate the relationship between workers' gender and workers' ideal preferences for structured leadership style. The testing of this hypothesis was obviated by the absence of gender differences in preferences for an Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leader. Hypothesis 5. It was hypothesized that the level of connectedness needs would significantly mediate the relation between workers' gender and workers' ideal preferences for the Considerate (relationally oriented) leadership style. This hypothesis was supported by the results of this study. This latter result has the most potential implications. Given these data, we can move beyond the simple identification of gender differences in leadership preferences by theoretically establishing a reason for the differences, i.e., variations in workers' needs for connection. In the regression analyses, the significant influence of gender became insignificant when the connectedness needs were accounted for in the model. Interpretation of Findings Ideal preferences for Considerate leadership style. First, with regard to gender differences in preferences for a Considerate (relational) leader, female workers in this study's sample (n=610) ideally preferred Considerate leaders Significantly more than their male counterparts (n=516). Gender differences in ideal preferences for a Considerate leader were found 88 not only in the overall sample, but were also found in each of the four sample groups. As seen in Figure 4, although the actual mean scores slightly varied across sample groups, females in each group reported stronger ideal preferences for relationally oriented leaders when compared to the male participants from the same sample. These results supported the hypothesis that gender differences in ideal leadership style preferences would be found and also supportedpast research findings that, overall, women tend to value the relational aspects of their work environment more than men (Bartol, 1976; Elizur, 1994; Pryor, 1983). Of potential importance is the fact that men and women differed by only 1.12 points in their mean score preferences for a Considerate (relationally oriented) leader. Even though this difference~ was statistically significant, a difference of this size is not necessarily meaningful. The overall mean score for male employees in this study was. higher than previously found by the scale developers (Halpin, 1957) which may suggest that men have become more interested in Considerate leaders or have become more willing to express these preferences. 47 46‘ 45‘ 43' 42' Mean CONSIDER 41‘ RETAIL . CITY DIVERSITY MENTAL UTILITY SAMPLE HEALTH Figure 4 GENDER - FEMALE 3 MALE Gender Differences in Ideal Preferences for Considerate Leadership Style 90 Ideal preferences for Initiating Structure leadership style. As seen in Figure 5, significant differences between male and female workers’ ideal preferences for Initiating Structure leaders were not found. However, employees' educational levels were significantly related to the degree of structure preferred in their ideal leader's style: more specifically, employees with higher educational levels preferred less structured leaders whereas employees of lower educational levels preferred higher degrees of structure. As anticipated, employees within their respective categories were similar with regard to their educational levels and consequently expressed remarkably similar preferences for Initiating Structured leadership styles. For example in each sample group, professional service providers and administrative/ managerial employees were the most highly educated and thus the least likely to prefer structured, task-oriented leadership styles. It is important to note, however, that‘ while educational and leadership style preferences are two highly correlated variables, a cause and effect relationship has not yet been determined. At best, this information may be useful for leaders seeking to understand patterns of variance in employees' leadership style preferences. 91 48 46' 42' a 40- E-o u a GENDER S 38' 5 - FEMALE 0 5: 36 A _ - - I MALE RETAIL cm DIVERSITY MENTAL UTILITY SAMPLE HEALTH Figure 5 Gender Differences in Ideal Preferences for Structured Leadershi St le w 92 Ideal preferences for Considerate and Initiating Structure leadership styles. Overall, most workers ideally preferred leaders who employed high-Considerate gig high-Initiating Structure leadership style behaviors, suggesting that employees' ideal preferences for a structured and relational leader are not mutually exclusive, polarized concepts. Reflection on this unexpected result uncovered my underlying assumption that a task- structured leader would be considered highly authoritarian and therefore not be highly desired by those employees seeking a Considerate leader. These results are similar to earlier findings, from studies using male subjects, that a high-Consideration and high-Structure leadership style resulted in (a) high worker. satisfaction, (b) high worker productivity, and (c) positive ratings (Halpin, 1955, 1957, 1959). Conversely, these findings fail to support Schriesheim (1982) who after analyzing data from several smaller studies concluded that “the superiority of the high-Consideration highs Initiating Structure leadership style is indeed an Amaican myth” (1982, p. 226). Gender differences and connectedness needs. Alice Bagly (1995) states that “Reflecting a shift from description to explanation, the question of whether sex differences exist has evolved into the more demanding question of why the sexes sometimes differ considerably and at other times differ moderately or minimally or do not differ at all” (1995, p. 148). This study moves beyond answering the simple question, “Do women and men prefer different leadership styles within their work environments?” by using the self-in-relation theory to ask the more demanding question, “Why?” To begin, it was hypothesized that women would prefer Considerate (relationally oriented) leaders more than men. As previously explained, this hypothesis was supported by the results from this study. Next, it was 93 hypothesized that one reason why women preferred more relationally oriented leaders was due to their stronger connectedness needs. Before testing this hypothesis, it was necessary to statistically test for gender differences in connectedness needs. As hypothesized, women's connectedness needs were significantly higher than men's. With such differences found, it was possible to then examine if women's higher connectedness needs would help explain women's stronger preferences for a Considerate leader. As hypothesized, the level of connectedness needs significantly mediated the relation between workers' gender and employees' ideal preferences for the relationally oriented leadership style. In other words, variations between male and female workers in their needs for connection partially accounted for differences in preferences for a relationally oriented leadership style. This was the most significant finding in that it helps explain why, when compared with male employees', female workers more strongly prefer Considerate leaders within the workplace. Thus, by explicating ways in which early relational experiences help create differences in male and female's connectedness needs, the self-in-relation theory (Jordan, Kaplan, Baker-Miller, 8: Surrey, 1991; Jordan & Surrey, 1986; Miller, 1984, 1986, 1987) illuminates one reason why women prefer relationally-oriented leaders more than males. It is important to note, however, that the differences in connectedness needs found in this study may partially reflect gender differences in participants' willingness to disclose relational values rather than actual differences. For example, the use of “relational” language in the Connectedness Scale, which may be more familiar to and socially sanctioned for females than males, may be producing a gender bias in self-reported needs. Because women may be socialized to use a more relational vocabulary 94 than men, female workers may have responded more positively to items on this scale. Male workers may have been more responsive to selecting items describing relational behaviors rather than items describing relational needs. Race/ Ethnicity, preferences for leadership styles and connectedness .needs. In post hoc analyses, the differences between African-American and Caucasian. workers’ leadership style preferences and needs for connectedness were explored. As previously described in Chapter 4, preferences for Considerate (relationally oriented) and Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leadership styles were not significantly different between African-American and Caucasian participants. However, additional analyses revealed interesting results regarding differential needs for connectedness between African-American and Caucasian workers. Overall, African-American workers. (n=144) expressed. lower connectedness needs but only between African-American and Caucasian women were these differences statistically significant. These results differ from Welch’s (1997) earlier findings that African-Americans (n-17) expressed higher needs on the Connectedness Scale when compared to Caucasians. Because Welch's sample consisted of undergraduate students and not adult workers, the inconsistencies in results may be attributable to differences in sample sizes as well as differences in participants' age, educational level, and years of work experience. While it is premature to draw any conclusions at this point, it is possible that results represent meaningful ethnic differences. For example, many of the items on the Connectedness Scale ask respondents to rate their needs for interdependence with other workers in addition to family members; while within the African-American culture, there tends to be a strong emphasis 95 placed on family relationships and interdependence, there may be less importance placed on “needing” connections within a work setting due to a long history of institutional racism. At the very least, further investigation is warranted to see if these results can be replicated and if so, to determine underlying reasons for expressed differences in connectedness needs. Demographic variables, leadership preferences and connectedness needs. Below is a summary of the influence of demographic factors upon leadership style preferences and connectedness needs (because the variable "gender" was used as a predictor variable in this study, it is not included in the following section): 1) Preferences for Relational Leaders: Age and educational level of the participants had a significant influence on the degree to which Considerate (relationally oriented) leaders were preferred. Older and more highly educated workers reported lower preferences for relational leaders; neither work experience or ethnicity was a significant factor. 2) Preferences for Structured Leaders: Age, educational level, work experience, and connectedness needs of the participants had a significant influence on the degree to which Initiating Structure (structured, task- oriented) leaders were preferred. Older, less educated employees who reported fewer years of experience and expressed higher needs for connectedness were more likely to prefer an Initiating Structure leader. Ethnicity of the participants was not a factor. 3) Connectedness Needs: Age, work experience, and connectedness needs of the participants had a significant influence on the degree to which connectedness needs were reported. Older, more experienced workers expressed lower connectedness needs. Ethnicity was a factor in the expression of needs for connectedness. African-American employees (n= 144) expressed 96 significantly lower relational needs than European-American (n= 883), Native-American (n=50) and Hispanic employees (n=19). (There were only 5 Asian participants and therefore they were not included in the tests). However, because these variables were explored in post hoc exploratory analyses and because the ethnic groups were not equally represented, caution should be taken in interpreting these findings. Limitations Due to the design and methodology of this study, certain limitations exist. Design limitations. First, because it was a field correlational study, the environment was not experimentally manipulated; consequently, cause and effect conclusions cannot be made. Self-report assessment bias. The second limitation was the exclusive use of self-report. measures in measuring connectedness needs and ideal leadership preferences. Incorporating a broader range of assessment techniques such as observations made by fellow workers, work supervisors, or significant others and employing a wider range of measures would minimize the bias which can often occur when self-report measures are exclusively used. As previously mentioned, differences found in this study may actually reflect a gender difference in women's willingness to disclose relational values rather than actual differences in connectedness needs. Relational vocabulary bias. Another limitation was the use of “relational” language in the Connectedness Scale which may be more familiar to, and socially sanctioned for, females than males, thus potentially producing a gender bias in self-reported needs. As previously explained, whereas women may be socialized to use a more relational vocabulary than men and thus respond more positively to items on this scale, may be more responsive to selecting items describing relational behaviors rather than relational needs. 97 Response bias. A critical point is that the selection bias reduces the extent to which generalizations can be made. Typically, a certain number of potential participants will decline to participate in a study and the 2696 overall response rate indicates that this was true in the current study. Although the response rate was much higher than anticipated in two of the four sample groups (7596 for CMH; 4096 for City Utilities), it was lower than expected in the retail organization (2296) and the diversity sample (2596). Ideally, to reduce response bias, reminders should have been sent to nonresponding workers to solicit their participation. However, policies within the organizations prohibited me from receiving employee addresses; therefore, general reminders were sent to all employees through e—mail and newsletters two weeks after surveys were initially distributed- Attempts to minimize the response bias were also made by informing the participants that their responses would be completely anonymous,_,that completion of the surveys would require only 20 minutes of their time, and by offering a $300.00 drawing as an incentive. .- One possible reason for nonparticipation may have been that the cover letter indicated that questions about “your own style of relating to others" would be asked, which may have discouraged some potential participants from completing the form. Many of the employees may have felt that these questions were too personal to respond to within a work setting; on two of the completed forms, for example, participants reported feeling invaded by the "personal questions." Some nonrespondents may have been less interested in assisting their organization to obtain this type of information and thus may have possessed lower needs for connection than those who participated. In support of this hypothesis, employees from the community mental health sample which had 98 the highest response rate reported lower connectedness needs when compared to the other sample groups. However, it is also possible that this group's higher response rate was related to their higher educational levels and greater familiarity and interest in the research process. Generalization limitations. It is also important to note that the identification of gender differences in needs for connection and preferences for a relational leader cannot be extrapolated to conclusions about all male and female workers. All individuals in an organization may be influenced to varying degrees by their biological predispositions, social environments and numerous other interacting psychological factors. Additionally, psychological research has sufficiently demonstrated that differences among individuals within a group are typically greater and more important than the degree of differences between groups. Although exploration of differences between males and females can advance our understanding of the worker-leader relationship, extension of these findings to all male and female employees is inappropriate. In sum, although the external validity was strengthened by sampling actual supervised employees, generalizations to American non- management workers should be cautiously made due to the design of the study, relational vocabulary bias, and response bias. Implications To review, the primary purposes of this study were to: 1) examine the role of workers' gender in predicting workers' ideal leadership style preferences; 2) empirically test the self-in-relational tenet that gender differences exist in male and female employees’ needs for connection; and 3) assess the mediating influence of connectedness needs between workers' gender and ideal leadership style preferences. 99 , Implications for theory. Results of this study serve to explain inconsistencies within the leadership body of literature and to expand existing theory. With regard to leadership effectiveness, a few researchers reported that a high-Consideration and high-Structure leadership style resulted in (a) high worker satisfaction, (b), high worker productivity, and (c) positive ratings from workers (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Halpin, 1955, 1957, 1959; Stogdill, 1963; Stogdill & Coons, 1957). However, others reported that exclusively employing a high-Consideration style would be most effective (Schriesheim, 1982; Wilkinson & Wagner, 1993). Schriesheim, for example, demonstrated that leaders rated high in Consideration scores by workers received the highest evaluationuregardless of the amount of Initiating Structure scores - leading to the conclusion that “the superiority of the high- Consideration high-Initiating Structure leadership style is indeed an American myth” (p. 226). In addition to equivocal findings in the leadership effectiveness body of literature, the extant follower-preference literature has been theoretically and methodologically weak. While some researchers (Ejiogu, 1985; Neil & Kirby, 1985) have tested the influence of predictor variables on follower’s ideal preferences (e.g., cognitive styles, age, and work experience), most have explored factors related to their evaluations of current leaders. Consequently, before this study we knew little about what types of leaders workers would prefer if given the opportunity to explicitly state their leadership style preferences. Moreover, we know even less about what personality variables (e.g., connectedness needs) influence these ideal preferences. Results from this current study seem to empirically support and complement Hersey and Blanchard's (1969, 1970, 1982) life cycle of leadership theory that proposes leaders must modify their Consideration and Initiating 100 Structure dimensions (Halpin, 1957) according to workers’ maturity -— a multifaceted construct that includes: (a) motivation to achieve; (b) willingness and ability to assume responsibility; and (c) relevant education and work experience. A key tenet is that the leader's ability to modify his or her style to fit the worker significantly predicts leadership effectiveness. Results from this study provide leaders with more specific information regarding how work experience and educational levels may affect preferences by revealing that employees with more work experience and higher educational levels preferred lower levels of structure from their ideal supervisors; conversely, the employees with the least amount of work experience and education'were also the employees who preferred the highest level of structure from their ideal supervisors. Additionally, results from this study may contribute to an extension of Hersey and Blanchard's theory by not only explicating the significant influence of education and work experience in employees' preferences for leadership styles and delineating specific ways in which Consideration and Initiating Structure dimensions should be modified to account for these variables, but also in identifying additional factors that might be inserted into their overall model, i.e., employees' gender and needs for connectedness. With regard to the self-in-relation theory, the findings that measurable differences do exist between men and women in their needs for connectedness provide empirical support for the self-in-relation theory (Kaplan, 1991; Miller, 1984, 1987, 1991). This theory has not been fully embraced by many mainstream psychologists due to the lack of empirical evidence. Before Welch's (1997) development of the Connectedness Scale, gender differences in connectedness had not been empirically tested. This current study is the first to theoretically test this basic tenet using the Connectedness Scale. Ideally, the 101 strong empirical support provided by the present study may increase the extent to which psychologists incorporate this theory into their understanding of the unique ways in which women's identities are constructed - through relationships with others. Implications for leadership training. Creating humane work environments that provide community, promote psychological and physical health, and impart a sense of personal meaning has become increasingly important to many organizations (Conger, 1994; Keita & Hurrell, 1994; Perloff & Nelson, 1983; Quale, 1983; Senge, 1990). Results from this study suggest that this goal may be partially achieved by developing supervisors who in addition to providing structured, task-oriented leadership can simultaneously support workers through meaningful and empowering relationships. Additionally, organizations may opt to train supervisors to tailor their supervisory styles in response to their employees' varying needs for connectedness and structure, or pair an employee with a supervisor who matches his or her preferred leadership style. For example, individuals who exhibit higher connectedness needs and preferences for a Considerate (relationally oriented) leadership style might be more productive and satisfied if assigned to a supervisor primarily using a relational style of leadership (i.e., building strong relationships with employees, using team projects to complete tasks, etc.) Conversely, employees who express lower connectedness needs, lower preferences for a Considerate (relationally oriented) leader, and higher needs for an Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leader could be paired with highly structured supervisors. Additionally, employees could be assessed and consulted with before assigned to group or team projects. Ideally, these strategies would help co-create more congruent work environments for their employees, thus increasing work satisfaction and productivity. 102 In the last decade many organizations have embraced the team approach whereby employees are encouraged to participate in decision-making and to share leadership responsibilities (Cantor .& Bernay, 1992). While these changes may be working for many organizations, results from this study suggest that a highly egalitarian team approach will not be equally effective for all organizations. Many organizations may have underestimated their employees' needs for a task-oriented, structured leader who is willing to "take charge" and assume an inordinate amount of responsibility. For example, over 8096 of the 1137 participants in this study preferred a supervisor who would make decisions for the group when necessary, act as the spokesperson for the group, and act as the real leader of the group. Certainly this indicates that many employees are disinterested in, unmotivated or unprepared for a predominantly participative, relational approach. Thus, an important step for organizations may be to first assess the needs of their workers before implementing a team approach for all employees. In sum, the results generated from this study provide important considerations for leaders wishing to increase the congruence between employees' preferences for leadership styles and their actual leadership behavior. These considerations include: 1. Female employees generally expressed stronger needs for a Considerate (relationally oriented) leadership style. 2. A combination of relationally oriented behaviors and structured behaviors is highly preferred by most male and female nonprofessional workers. 3. Employees with less education will generally be more likely to prefer a high-Considerate (relationally oriented) and high-Structured leadership style. 103 4. Older employees with less work experience will be more likely to prefer an Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) approach to leadership more than older employees with more work experience. 5. The higher the needs for connection, the more likely it is that the worker will prefer a Considerate (relationally~ oriented)vapproach to leadership. 6. The higher the needs for connection, the more likely it is that the worker will ideally prefer a structured approach to leadership. Implications for leadership recruitment. Promotion to a leadership role and perceived leadership effectiveness have historically been related to "masculine" (Korabik, 1982),- authoritative, and task-oriented leadership skills (Cantor & Bernay, 1992; Eskilson & Wiley, 1976; Powell & Butterfield, 1979; Slater, 1955). These traditional beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an authoritative leadership style may have contributed to the "glass ceiling" that frequently prohibits qualified, relationally-oriented women from attaining many leadership positions. Moreover, these antiquated beliefs may explain why women have reported less motivation to become leaders, have suppressed their capacity for leadership behaviors, or have attempted to act similarly to male counterparts when trying to "make it to the top" (Banfield, 1976; Bartol, 1987; Cantor 8: Bernay, 1992; Megargee, 1969; Schein, 1973). Because the results of this study indicate that employees with different educational levels, years of work experience, and needs for connectedness have varying degrees of preferences for Considerate (relationally oriented) and structured leadership styles, leaders who are able to tailor their leadership styles to fit their employees' needs may be the most effective. Organizations may alter their outdated criteria for identifying effective leaders and select those who can provide varying degrees of structure within varying degrees of meaningful relational leader-employee connections—dependent upon the 104 individual preferences of the employee. In other words, knowing that both male and female employees tend to value a relational an_d task-oriented leader may increase an organization's willingness to bring more relationally oriented potential leaders "up through the ranks," many of whom will probably be women. Implications for counseling psychologists. Counseling psychology researchers have rigorously examined relationships between the therapist and client (Atkinson, Poston, Furlong, 8: Mercado, 1989; Webster 8: Fretz, 1978) and between supervisor and supervisee (Carifio 8: Hess, 1987; Holloway, 1988; Holloway, Freund, Garner, Nelson, 8: Walker, 1989). Even though counseling psychology's roots are deeply imbedded in "vocational psychology," many counseling psychologists seem to have neglected the worker-leader relationship within the work environment. Gerstein and Shullman (1992) write that “It can be argued that counseling psychology as a discipline would be enriched through greater involvement in the workplace. This setting provides an excellent medium for synthesizing our interests in vocational behavior, mental health, and education. Moreover, our science base could be expanded . . .This expansion could enhance the generalizability of our theories, because data would be gathered on multiculturally diverse adults in their natural environment. The realism of our research would be strengthened, and there could be a greater likelihood of changing individual and group behavior. . . We strongly contend that counseling psychologists, as scientists and practitioners, can make a unique contribution to the workplace” (pp. 617-618). This study seeks to build a bridge between organizational and counseling psychology by examining the follower-leader relationship within the work environment and open up doors 105 for counseling psychologists interested in making a difference in the workplace. On a practical level, counseling psychologists could be called upon by organizations to assess connectedness needs and ideal leadership preferences of workers through professional, confidential assessment procedures, interpret the findings for the organization, assist leaders in understanding the importance of congruence between workers' needs and employees' satisfaction, and assist leaders in combining the Considerate (relationally oriented) and Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leadership styles through seminars, workshops or psychoeducational counseling. Future Research With regard to future research, myriad possibilities exist. First, future research on workers' leadership preferences will become more complex and differentiated. With attention given both to the potential commonalities in preferences across gender and to those aspects of ideal leadership preferences that capture gender uniqueness, we will increase our understanding of the reciprocal influence of leader and worker, especially as it applies to gender interactions. Results from this study show that women tend to express higher preferences for Considerate (relationally oriented) leaders. However, we can now go beyond the simple assertion that men and women have different preferences for relationally oriented leaders by concluding that the higher a worker's needs are for connection, regardless of gender, the more he or she will tend to prefer a relational leadership style. However, most of the variance is still unaccounted for in fully understanding workers' preferences for leadership styles. Further research could identify other factors that account for the variance in workers' preferences for leadership styles. 106 Although this study determined that most male and female workers who preferred the Considerate (relationally oriented) style of leadership concurrently preferred the structured leadership style as well, variables mediating gender and preferences for the structured leadership style were not identified. While results from post hoc analyses reveal that employees' educational level and years of work experience are important predictor variables, further research is necessary to replicate these preliminary findings and to identify other factors that influence workers' needs for structured leadership. By capturing more information than can be revealed in a self-report questionnaire, qualitative research methods might be used to comprehensively assess workers' descriptions of their ideal leaders. Finally, replications of this study with different population samples, (e.g., college/university professors or'doctoral students), could provide more, information regarding the degree to which generalizations can be made. Conclusion Leadership is a multifaceted issue that must be understood as a complex system wherein the leader, employer, task and environmental context all mutually influence one another in meaningful ways. Previous research has primarily focused on variables associated with the leader, but only a handful of studies have focused on the "follower." The primary purpose of this research was to more fully explore the intricate wOrker-leader relationship within the work environment by investigating variables more closely related to the worker. The extent to which a leader's goals are achieved partially depends upon the follower's willingness to cooperate with the leader (Hollander, ‘1990, 1992, 1993). This willingness often results from a congruency between a follower's 107 ideal leadership style and the leader's actual style of leadership in the workplace (Dalessio, 1983; Hunt 8: Liebscher, 1973; Kushell 8: Newton, 1986) which has been shown to increase work productivity (Neil & I(irby, 1985), morale (Meade, 1985), and work satisfaction (Dalessio, 1983; Hunt 8: Liebscher, 1973). Thus, understanding that a) women in this study expressed stronger preferences for Considerate (relationally oriented) leaders than their male counterparts, b) employees with higher needs for connectedness were more apt to prefer a relational leadership style, c) employees with lower educational levels and less work experience were more apt to prefer a structured leadership style, and d) most male and female workers preferred leaders who could provide a combination of Considerate (relationally oriented) and Initiating Structure (structured, task-oriented) leadership behaviors may enable leaders to more effectively customize their leadership styles to meet the individual needs of their workers, increase the quality of the follower-leader relationship, and ultimately the quality of men and women's work experience. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Letter to Human Resource Directors Dear Human Resource Director; I am interested in identifying workers’ ideal‘preferences for supervisory styles within your work environment. This is very different than asking workers to rate their current supervisors; this study asks workers to describe their ideal supervisors and in that regard it does not result in data that would be threatening to current supervisors. As you may know, most research within academic settings are done using mainly White participants and generalizations are made across ethnicity and cultures. I am very interested In surveying employees from your company in that there rs a much more diverse sample than the typical Lansing organization. As a result of gathering completely anonymous data through the completion of 20 minutes worth of questionnaires, the following questions could be answered: 1. Do male and female workers in your organization prefer the same types of leadership styles? Do they prefer male or female leaders? 2. Are there other personal factors (such as connection/ work affiliation needs, ethnicity, age, work experience) that predict the type of leadership styles they would most want their immediate supervisor to have? 3 . Do workers within different departments prefer similar or different types of leaders? More specifically, do they prefer supervisors using the team approach or do they prefer that their supervisors use a more independent style? 4. Do workers within your organization have high or low needs for connections with their work peers and/or immediate supervisors, and could knowing the level of connection/affiliation needs assist you in predicting the types of supervisors they most prefer and which employees might work best in teams? Let me assure you that there would be NO FINANCIAL charge beyond the time and trouble of mailing the surveys to your employees as long as the number of participants does not exceed 400. I would be paying for the return postage (employees will send the anonymous surveys to me) unless an alternative is worked out (e.g., interoffice mailings to employees and a drop box for employees to place surveys in). I am able to provide you with a great deal of information about leadership style preferences of your employees which ideally will assist you in increasing work productivity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment; the benefit to me of course is using the anonymous data in my dissertation research. I would also be willing to present pro bono a 4-8 hour long workshop for supervisors within your organization, acquainting them with the results and provide training in understanding how to tailor their leadership styles to individual employees. Along with professional information about me, I have enclosed the first few pages of my dissertation to give you a better understanding of my research. Accompanying this letter, you will also find my resume to give you a more detailed description of my professional background as well as some of my past research interests. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter in more detail. Sincerely, Karyn J. Boatwright 108 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Participant's Letter and Consent Form Dear Participant; 1 am a doctoral candidate interested in finding out how you think an “ideal" immediate supervisor should supervise in your work environment. (You will not be asked to evaluate your current supervisor). Additionally, I would like to ask questions about your own style of relating to others in general. To show my appreciation for your participation, I will be conducting a $300.00 lottery drawing for those who complete the survey. All of your responses will be anonymous, even from me as the researcher. You will be asked to return this survey without your name on it. Your participation is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate or to end your participation at any time. You have the right to refuse to answer any question; however, the information provided by each answer is extremely helpful in gaining a better understanding of your needs. The general findings of this research will be made available to your business or organizational leaders and to professionals in psychology. You may receive a summary of the results by calling me directly or by requesting a copy of the results on the postcard you use for the lottery drawing. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Please feel free to call me at (517) 694-1672. It would be most helpful if you could return your completed survey in the enclosed addressed, stamped envelope by February 28 (day of lottery drawing). I appreciate your time and cooperation in helping me with this research project. Sincerely, Karyn J. Boatwright, M. A. Michigan State University Doctoral candidate 4365 Willoughby Holt, W 48842 The return of the completed survey reflects your informed and voluntary consent to participate in this study. 109 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Personalized Letter to Employees in Organizations from Human Resource Directors Dear Team Member, We have a tremendous opportunity" Karyn Boatwright, MA. is a Doctoral Student in Counseling Psychology (the same kind of psychologist that I am) at Michigan State. She is doing an excellent study on leadership that focuses on what kind of leader behaviors are truly effective. This will give us some great information that will help me and others in our organization to train your leaders to meet YOUR needs more effectively, rather than base the training we do on someone else's theory of what you need. I would personally appreciate it if you would take the 20 minutes that it will take to fill out the enclosed forms and send them back to Karyn. I have worked with her on making sure that the information we get (for FREE”, NO HIGH CONSULTANT 'S FEES HERE) will really be helpful for all groups in our organization. Let's make sure that her final results represent all of us so that your leaders can effectively lead you in the ways that YOU value. Let's really beat the expectations and all fill out these forms. It WILL make a difference. Thanks so much for your help. 110 APPENDIX D APPENDD( D Demographic Questionnaire Directions: Please use a pencil and completely blacken the circle that best describes your response in each area.‘ H O Age (Age Grid inserted) How many years have you been in your current position? How many years have you been employed by your company or agency? Gender: (0) Female (1) Male Marital Status: (0) Single (1) Married or living with Partner Race/ Ethnicity (1) African-American " (2) Caucasian (3) Native American (4) Asian (5) Hispanic (6) Other What is the highest educational level you have completed? (1) Some high school (2) High school diploma (3) Some college (4) Associate's degree (5) Bachelor's degree (6) Master’s degree (7) Doctoral degree . What is your combined household yearly income? (including you and your spouse or partner) (1) $7,500 or below (2) Between $7,500 -$l4,999 lll 112 (3) Between 515,000-524,,999 (4) Between 525,000-539,999 (5) Between 540,000-559,999 (6) Between 560,000-589,000 (7) 590,000 and above 9. Which category best describes your job title? 10. 11. 12. 13. (1) Administrative support/ Clerical (secretary, computer assistant, bookkeeper, receptionist, clerk) (2) Sales/ Business Goods 8: Services (financial services, manufacturing sales rep, technician) (3) Handler/Laborer (stock handler, construction laborer, freight handler, packager, other) (4) Administration/Manager (5) Professional Service Provider (counselor, nurse, social worker, mental health worker, teacher) (6) Mechanic, Repairer (machinists, machine repairer) (7) Sales/retail (cashier, commodity salesperson) (8) Machine Operator/Assembler/ Inspector (9) Other How would you describe the nature of your job? (1) non-supervisory position(you have an immediate supervisor but are not responsible for supervising other employees) (2) first level supervisory position(you supervise employees and also have an immediate supervisor) (3) middle manager (you supervise supervisors and also have an immediate supervisor) (4) upper level supervisory position (you supervise other supervisors but do not have an immediate supervisor) (5) other (you do not have an immediate supervisor and/ or do not supervise others) Are you a (0) Salaried employee? (1) Hourly employee? If you could choose between a male or female supervisor, would you choose a (1) female supervisor (2) male supervisor (3) no preference Approximately, how many hours of work-related contact do you have with your immediate supervisor per week (verbal communication, staff meetings, informal discussions, e-mail, phone contact, etc.)? (1) less than 1 hour (2) between 1-4 hours (3) between 5-8 hours (4) more than 8 hours APPENDIX E APPENDIX E Ideal Leader Behavior Questionnaire Developed by Staff members of The Ohio State Leadership Studies Directions: a. READ each item carefully. b. THINK about how frequently the leader SHOULD engage in the behavior described by the item c. DECIDE whether your ideal leader SHOULD always, often, occasionally, seldom or never act as described by the item. d. Pencil in one of the five numbers following the item to show the answer you have selected. A=Always B=Often C=Often D=Seldom E: Never What the IDEAL leader SHOULD do: 1. Do personal favors for group members Make his or her attitudes clear to the group Do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group Try out his or her new ideas with the group Act as the real leader of the group Rule with an iron hand 2. 3 4 5 6. Be easy to understand 7 8. Find time to listen to group members 9 Criticize poor work 10. Give advance notice of changes 113 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 114 Speak in a manner not to be questioned Keep to him or herself Look out for the personal welfare of individual group members Assign group members to particular tasks Be the spokesperson of the group Schedule the work to be done Maintain definite standards of performance Refuse to explain his or her actions Keep the group informed Act without consulting the group Back up the members in their actions Emphasize the meeting of deadlines Treat all group members as his or her equals Encourage the use of uniform procedures Get what he or she asks for from his or her superiors Be willing to make changes Make sure that his or her part in the organization is understood by group members Be friendly and approachable Ask that group members follow standard rules and regulations Not fail to take necessary action Make group members feel at ease when talking with them Let group members know what is expected of them Speak as the representative of the group Put suggestions made by the group into operation See to it that group members are working up to capacity- Let other people take away his or her leadership in the group 37. 38. 39. 115 Get his or her superiors to act for the welfare of the group members Get group approval in important matters before going ahead See to it that the work of group members is coordinated Keep the group working together as a team APPENDIX F APPENDIX F Connectedness Scale Directions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by selecting the appropriate choice on your answer sheet. A B . C D E Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1. I enjoy working as a member of a team. 2. My family continues to play a role in shaping who I am. 3. I get satisfaction from feeling that I belong. 4. Being part of a team makes me feel good about myself. 5. Trying to help friends through hard times is important to me. 6. Being away from people I love tends to make me sad. 7. I can get more done with the help of other people than I can by myself. 8. It would be a terrible pain to lose the people closest to me. When someone in my family is having a rough time, I tend to feel stressed myself. 10. My greatest satisfactions come from my relationships with other people. 11. Close relationships are what give my life meaning. 12. If a friend is waiting to hear some important news, I tend to feel the suspense myself. 13. Often, it is not worth the trouble of trying to work with people in a team. 116 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. - 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 117 To know the real me, it helps to know my family. If I had no close relationships, I would feel incomplete. The way I am in close relationships is the most important part of who I am. I feel proud if I see that I have helped someone. I needto know that I have the support of my family. If I do something well, it brings pride to my family. A good friend will accept a person for who they really are. If someone in my family were to fail, I would share in their shame. My friends share their feelings with me. I stick with my friends, even if it means accepting some sacrifices or putting up with some unpleasantness. If a friend was grieving because his/her relative had just died, I would feel like I was~grieving, too. The way I am seen by other people makes a difference in how I see myself. When I am having a conflict or problem with my family, I tend to feel upset. The joys of my friends/family are my joys. A gesture of affection from someone I care about can make my day. Spending time with a friend tends to make me happy. If I need to talk over a problem, I would expect the people to whom I feel closest to listen and be supportive. If I believe I have failed a friend, I feel distressed. I let my family know how I feel. Belonging to a group is a basic human need. I get satisfaction from knowing that I am part of a team. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42 43. 45. 47. 49. 50. 118 If something sad were to happen, I would expect my friends to be there for me. The successes of my friends/ family are my successes. The people who are close to me will accept me no matter what. I tend to be happy when a friend gets good news. If I see that a friend is down, I usually do something to try to cheer him/her up. 1 Ten people working together as a group can accomplish more than ten individuals working alone. My relationships help define who I am. When others tell me of being very happy or very sad, I feel these emotions along with them. I like to show my friends that I understand their feelings. In a close friendship, you should be able to talk about anything. It energizes me to reach out and help someone else. I would rather work with a group on a project than by myself. If someone in my family accomplished something, I would feel proud. I would be willing to sacrifice in order to help a friend in need. The people who care about me will be happy for me when something good happens. I My sense of myself comes partly from my relationships with others. APPENDIX G APPENDIX G Connected Self subscale: Relationship Self Inventory (RSI) Instructions: Read each statement below and decide how much it describes you. Using the following rating scale, select the most appropriate response and blacken the corresponding circle ‘on the answer sheet. Not like me at all Very much like me 1 2 3 4 S 1. Activities of care that I perform seem to expand both me and others. 2. Caring about other people is important to me. 3. Doing things for others makes me happy. 4. If someone does something for me, I reciprocate by doing something for them. 5. I like to acquire many acquaintances and friends. 6. Relationships are a central part of my identity. 7. Those about who I care deeply are part of who I am. 8. It is necessary for me to take responsibility for the effect my actions have on others. 9. Being unselfish with others is a way I make myself happy. 10. I like to see myself as interconnected with a network of friends. 11. I believe that one of the most important things that parents can teach their children is how to cooperate and live in harmony with others. 12. I am guided by the principle of treating others as I want to be treated. 119 APPENDIX I-I APPENDIX H Affiliation subscale: The Adjective Checklist (ACL) Directions: Below is a list of adjectives. Please read them and completely blacken in the (l) circle only if you consider it to be self-descriptive. Do not worry about duplications, contradictions, and so forth. Work quickly and do not spend too much time on any one adjective. Try to be frank, and completely blacken the circle for those adjectives which describe you as you really are, not as you would like to be. 1. active, 2. adaptable, 3. appreciative, 4. attractive, 5. cheerful, 6. confident, 7. considerate, 8. contented, 9. cooperative, 10. curious, 11. daring, 12. energetic, 13. good-natured, 14. initiative, 15. kind, 16. loyal, 120 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 121 mannerly, mature, mischievous, optimistic, peaceable, pleasant, poised, praising, relaxed, self-controlled sociable, talkative, thoughtful, trusting, understanding versatile, warm, wholesome APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Affiliation subscale: Manifest Needs Questionnaire Directions: Below are 10 statements that describe various things people do or try to do on their jobs. Which of these statements most accurately describes your own behavior when you are at work. Blacken in the number that best describes your own actions. 1. When I have a choice, I try to work in a group instead of by myself. I pay a good deal of attention to the feelings of others at work. I prefer to do my own work and let other do theirs. I express my disagreements with others openly. 2“»va I find myself talking to those around me about nonbusiness related matters. APPENDIX J APPENDIX J Complete Questionnaire Directions: Please use a pencil and completely blacken the circle that best describes your response in each area. 1. Age (Age Grid inserted) 2. How many years have you been in your current position? 3. How many years have you been employed by your company or agency? 4. Gender: (0) Female (1) Male 5. Marital Status: (0) Single (1) Married or living with Partner 6. Race/ Ethnicity (l) African-American (2) Caucasian (3) Native American (4) Asian (5) Hispanic (6) Other 7. What is the highest educational level you have completed? (1) Some high school (2) High school diploma (3) Some college (4) Associate's degree (5) Bachelor's degree (6) Master's degree (7) Doctoral degree 8. What is your combined household yearly income? (including you and your spouse or partner) (1) 57,500 or below ( 2) Between 57,500 -514,999 (3) Between 515,000-524,399 (4) Between 525,000-539,999 (5) Between 540,000-559,999 123 12A (6) Between 560,000-589,000 (7) 590,000 and above 9. Which category best describes your job title? 10. 11. 12. 13. (1) Administrative support/Clerical (secretary, computer assistant, bookkeeper, receptionist, clerk) (2) Sales/Business Goods 8: Services (financial services, manufacturing sales rep, technician) (3) Handler/laborer (stock handler, construction laborer, freight handler, packager, other) . (4) Administration/Manager (5) Professional Service Provider (counselor, nurse, social worker, mental health worker, teacher) (6) Mechanic, Repairer (machinists, machine repairer) (7) Sales/ retail (cashier, commodity salesperson) (8) Machine Operator/Assembler/ Inspector (9) Other How would you describe the nature of your job? (1) non-supervisory position(you have an immediate supervisor but are not responsible for supervising other employees) (2) first level supervisory position(you supervise employees and also have an immediate supervisor) (3) middle manager (you supervise supervisors and also have an immediate supervisor) (4) upper level supervisory position (you supervise other supervisors but do not have an immediate supervisor) (5) other (you do not have an immediate supervisor and/ or do not supervise others) Are you a (0) Salaried employee? (1) Hourly employee? If you could choose between a male or female supervisor, would you choose a (1) female supervisor (2) male supervisor (3) no preference Approximately, how many hours of work-related contact do you have with your immediate supervisor per week (verbal communication, staff meetings, informal discussions, e-mail, phone contact, etc.)? (1) less than 1 hour (2) between 1-4 hours (3) between 5-8 hours (4) more than 8 hours 125 The next set of questions will be about who you are in the workplace. Directions: Below are 10 statements that describe various things people do or try to do on their jobs. Which of these statements most accurately describes your own behavior when you are at work. Blacken in the number that best describes you r ow n actions. 5 Always 3: sometimes 4: almost always 1= 2= Never almost never 14. When I have a choice, I try to work in a group instead of by myself. 15. I pay a good deal of attention to the feelings of others at work. 16. I prefer to do my own work and let other do theirs. 17. I express my disagreements with others openly. 18. I find myself talking to those around me about nonbusiness related matters. 19. I seek an active role in the leadership of a group. 20. I avoid trying to influence those around me to see things my way. 21. I find myself organizing and directing the activities of others. 22. I strive to gain more control over the events around me at work. 23. I strive to be “in command" when I am working in a group. Directions: The following questions are items that may be used to describe the behavior of your “ideal” supervisor, as you think he or she should act. This is not a test of ability. It simply asks you to describe what an ideal supervisor ought to do in supervising his or her group. (Note: The term “group” refers to a team, department, division, or other unit of organization which is supervised by your team leader/supervisor.) 126 a. Please read each item carefully. b. Think about how frequently the “ideal” supervisor/ team leader SHOULD engage in the behavior described by the item. c. Decide whether he or she should mg, m occasionally, 93331 or am act as described by the item. d. Completely blacken in the number that shows the answer you have selected. 1= Never 2 = Seldom i 3 = Occasionally f 4 = Often J 5 = Always In your opinion, your IDEAL supervisor SHOULD: 24. Do personal favors for group members 1 2 3 4 5 25. Make his or her attitudes clear to the group 1 2 3 4 5 26. Do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group 1 2 3 4 5 27. Try out his or her new ideas with the group 1 2 3 4 S 28. Act as the real leader of the group 1 2 3 4 5 29. Be easy to understand 1 2 3 4 S 30. Rule with an iron hand 1 2 3 4 5 31. Find time to listen to group members 1 2 3 4 5 32. Criticize poor work 1 2 3 4 5 33. Give advance notice of changes 1 2 3 4 5 34. Speak in a manner not to be questioned 1 2 3 4 S 35. Keep to him or herself I 2 3 4 5 36. Look out for the personal welfare of individual . group members 1 2 3 4 5 37. Assign group members to particular tasks 1 2 3 4 5 38. Be the spokesperson of the group 1 2 3 4 5 39. 41. 42. 43. 45. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 127 Schedule the work to be done Maintain definite standards of performance Refuse to explain his or her actions Keep the group informed Act without consulting the group Back up the members in their actions Emphasize the meeting of deadlines Treat all group members as his or her equals Encourage the use of uniform procedures Get what he or she asks for from his or her superiors Be willing to make changes Make sure that his or her part in the organization is understood by group members Be friendly and approachable Ask that group members follow standard rules and regulations Not fail to take necessary action Make group members feel at ease when talking with them Let group members know what is expected of them Speak as the representative of the group Put suggestions made by the group into operation See to it that group members are working up to capacity Let other people take away his or her leadership in the group Get his or her superiors to act for the welfare of the group members 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 128 61. Get group approval in important matters before going ahead 1 2 3 4 5 62. See to it that the work of group members is coordinated 1 2 3 4 S 63. Keep the group working together as a team 1 2 3 4 5 The following sets of questions are more about who you are as a person at work and at home, with friends, family members, etc. Directions: Below is a list of adjectives. Please read them and completely blacken in the (1) circle only if you consider it to be self—descriptive. Do not worry about duplications, contradictions, and so forth. Work quickly and do not spend too much time on any one adjective. Try to be frank, and completely blacken the circle for those adjectives which describe you as you really are, not as you would like to be. 64. active, (1) 6S. adaptable, (l) 66. appreciative, (1) 67. attractive, (1) 68. cheerful, (1) 69. confident, (1) 70. considerate, (1) 71. contented, (1) 72. cooperative, (1 ) 73. curious, (1) 74. daring, (1) 75. energetic, (1) 76. good-natured, (l) 77. initiative, (1) 78. kind, (1 ) 129 79. loyal, (1) 80. mannerly, (1) 81. mature, (1) 82. mischievous, (l) 83. optimistic, (1) 84. peaceable, (1) 85. pleasant, (I) 86. poised, (1) 87. praising, (1) 88. relaxed, (1) 89. self-controlled (1) 90. sociable, (1) 91. talkative, (1) 92. thoughtful, (l) 93. trusting, (1) 94. understanding (1) 95. versatile, (1) 96. warm, (1) 97. wholesome (1) Directions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by selecting the appropriate choice on your answer sheet. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 98. I enjoy working as a member of a team. 1 2 3 4 5 99. My family continues to play a role in shaping who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 III). 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 130 I get satisfaction from feeling that I belong. 1 2 3 4 5 Being part of a team makes me feel good about myself. 1 2 3 4 5 Trying to help friends through hard times is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 Being away from people I love tends to make me sad. 1 2 3 4 S I can get more done with the help of other people than I can by myself. 1 2 3 4 S It would be a terrible pain to lose the people closest to me. 1 2 3 4 5 When someone in my family is having a rough time, I tend to feel stressed myself. , . 1 2 3 4 5 My greatest satisfactions come from my relationships with other people. . 1 2 3 4 5 Close relationships are what give my life meaning. 1 2 3 4 5 If a friend is waiting to hear some important news, I tend to feel the suspense myself. 1 2 3 4 5 Often, it is not worth the trouble of trying to work with people in a team. 1 2 3 4 5 To know the real me, it helps to know my family. 1 2 3 4 5 If I had no close relationships, I would feel incomplete. 1 2 3 4 5 The way I am in close relationships is the most important partofwholam. 12345 I feel proud if I see that I have helped someone. 1 2 3 4 5 I need to know that I have the support of my family. 1 2 3 4 5 If I do something well, it brings pride to my family. ' 1 2 3 4 5 A good friend will accept a person for who they really are. 1 2 3 4 5 131 118. If someone in my family were to fail, I would share in their shame. I 2 3 4 5 119. My friends share their feelings with me. 1 2 3 4 5 120. I stick with my friends, even if it means accepting some sacrifices or putting up with some unpleasantness. 1 2 3 4 5 121. If a friend was grieving because his/her relative had just died, I would feel like I was grieving, too. 1 2 3 4 5 122. The way I am seen by other people makes a difference in how I see myself. 1 2 3 4 5 123. When I am having a conflict or problem with my family, I tend to feel upset. I 2 3 4 5 124. The joys of my friends/family are my joys. 1 2 3 4 5 125. A gesture of affection from someone I care about can make my day. l 2 3 4 5 126. Spending time with a friend tends to make me happy. 1 2 3 4 5 127. If I need to talk over a problem, I would expect the people to whom I feel closest to listen and be supportive. l 2 3 4 5 128. If I believe I have failed a friend, I feel distressed. 1 2 3 4 5 129. I let my family know how I feel. 1 2 3 4 5 130. Belonging to a group is a basic human need. 1 2 3 4 5 131. I get satisfaction from knowing that I am part of a team. 1 2 3 4 5 132. If something sad were to happen, I would expect my friends to be there for me. 1 2 3 4 5 133. The successes of my friends/ family are my successes. 1 2 3 4 S 134. The people who are close to me will accept me no matter what. 1 2 3 4 S 135. I tend to be happy when a friend gets good news. 1 2 3 4 5 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 132 If I see that a friend is down, I usually do something to try to cheer him/her up. . 1 2 3 4 5 Ten people working together as a group can accomplish more than ten individuals working alOne. . l 2 3 4 5 My relationships help define who I am. 1 2 3 4 5 When others tell me of being very happy or very sad, I feel these emotions along with them. 1 2 3 4 5 I like to show my friends that I understand their feelings. I 2 3 4 5 In a close friendship, you should be able to talk about anything. 1 2 3 4 5 It energizes me to reach out and help someone else. 1 2 3 4 5 I would rather work with a group on a project than by myself. 1 2 3 4 5 If someone in my family accomplished something, I would feel proud. 1 2 3 4 5 I would be willing to sacrifice in- order to help a friend in need. 1 2 3 4 5 The people who care about me will be happy for me when something good happens. 1 2 3 4 5 My sense of myself comes partly from my relationships with others. 1 2 3 4 5 Directions: Please read each of the descriptive paragraphs below and completely blacken the circle next to the one that best describes how you feel about close relationships. I33 (I) It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me. (2). I am comfortable without close relationships. It is very important for me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me. , (3) I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant toget as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them. (4) I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others. Directions: Read each statement below and decide how much it describes you. Using the following rating scale, select the most appropriate response and blacken the corresponding circle on the answer sheet. 1 2 3 4 5 Not like me at all Disagree Neutral Agree Very much like me 149. Activities of care that I perform seem to expand both me and others. 1 2 3 4 5 150. Caring about other people is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 151. Doing things for others makes me happy. 1 2 3 4 5 152. If someone does something for me, I reciprocate by doing something for them. 1 2 3 4 5 153. I like to acquire many acquaintances and friends. 1 2 3 4 5 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 1 60. 134 Relationships are a central part of my identity. Those about who I care deeply are part of who I am. It is necessary for me to take responsibility for the effect my actions have on others. Being unselfish with others is a way I make myself happy. I like to see myself as interconnected with a network of friends. I believe that one of the most important things that parents can teach their children is how to cooperate and live in harmony with others. I am guided by the principle of treating others as I want to be treated. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! 12345 2345 j—s 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 After you have completed this questionnaire, please insert it into the enclosed stamped, addressed envelope. It would be most helpful if you could return this to me before February 28 (for the lottery drawing). PLEASE DO NOT FOLD questionnaire. To be included in the lottery drawing, please send your name, address, and phone number on a separate postcard to Karyn Boatwright 4365 Willoughby Holt, MI 48842. By sending a separate postcard, your answers will remain confidential. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES The Adjective Check List Manual. (1983). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Arnett, M. D., Higgins, R. B., 8: Priem, A. P. (1980). Gender and least preferred co-worker score effects in leadership behavior. Gender Roles, 6, 139-151. Atkinson, D. R., Poston, C. W. Furlong, M. J. 8: Mercado, P. (1989). Ethnic group preferences for counselor characteristics. lournal of College Student Development, 31, 68-72. Arieti, 5., 8: Bemporad, J. R. (1980).. The psychological organization of depression. American lournal of Psychiatn, 137,1360—1365. Bales, R. F. (1951). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison- Wesley. Banfield, E. E. (1976). Women in middle management position: Characteristics, training, leadership style, limitations, rewards, problems. mssertation Abstracts International, 4-B, 1952-1953. Barnard, C. l. (1938). The functions of the’executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bartol, K. M. (1976). Relationship of gender and professional training area to job orientation. lourng of Applied Psychology, 61,368—370. Bartol, K. M., 8: Butterfield, D. A. (1976) Gender effects in evaluating leaders. lourpal of Applied Psychology, 61, 446454. Bartol, K. M. (1978). The gender structuring of organizations: A search for possible causes. Academy of Management Review, 3,805-815. Bartol, K. M. (1987). Managerial motivation among MBA students: A longitudinal assessment. loumgl of Occupational Psychology, 99, 1-12. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 32, 130-139. Beck A. T., Epstein, N., Harrison, R., 8: Emery, G. (1983). Development of the Sociotropy-Autpnomy Scale: A measure of personalig factors in psychopathology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 135 136 Beutell, N. J., 8: Brenner, O. C. (1986). Gender differences in work values. lournal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 29—41. Betz, N. E. (1992). Career assessment: A review' of critical issues. In S. D. Brown 8: R. W. Lent (Eds), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed., pp. 665-689). New York: Wiley. Bhushan, I. (1968). Leadership preference as related to age, education, residence, and gender. Indian lournal of Social Work, 29, 193—196. Bhushan, L. (1970). Personality factors and leadership preference. Indian Psychological Review, 6,125- -126. Blatt, S. J., D’Afflitti, J. P., 8: Quinlan, D. M. (1979). Depressive experiences questionnaire. Unpublished manual, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Blatt, S. J., 8: Homann, E. (1992). Parent-child interaction in the etiology of dependent and self-critical depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12,47-91. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. III: Loss, separation, and depression. New York: Basic Books. Brooks, 1., 8: Forrest, L (1994). Feminism and career counseling. In W. B. Walsh 8: S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Career counseling for women (pp. 87—134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brouwer, R. D. (1995). Constellations of life satisfaction in three cohorts of women: The influence of separate and connected self orientations. Unpublished dissertation. Brown, A. (1967). Reactions to leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 3, 62-73. Buros, O. K. (1978). The eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon. Cantor, D. W., 8: Bernay, T. (1992). Women lp mwer: The secrets of leadership. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Carifio, M. S., 8: Hess, A. K. (1987). Who is the ideal supervisor? Professioan Psychology; Research and flacfice, 3, 244—250. Carney, C. G., Savitz, C. J., 8: Weiskott, G. H. (1979). Student evaluations of a university counseling center and their intentions to use its programs. ournal of Counseling bychology, 26,242-249. Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. lournal of Sp_ort Psychology, 6, 27-41. Chelladurai, P., 8: Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian lourpal of Applied Sport Science, 3, 85-92. 137 Chusmir, L. H. (1988). An update on the internal consistency of the Manifest Needs Questionnaire. Psychology: A loumal of Human Behavior, 23, 14-18. Chusmir, L. H., 8: Koberg, C. S. (1989). Perceived work competency and gender role conflict: An empirical study. The [ournal of Psychology, 123,537- 546. Coates, J. F., Jarratt, J. 8: Mahaffie,'J. B. (1990). Future work: Seven critical forces reshaping wogk and the work force ip North America. San Francisco: ' Jossey-Bass. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. New York. Academic Press. Conger, J. A. (1994). Spirit at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dalessio, A. (1983). Subordinates' leadership preferences and leader- subordinate understanding. mssertation Abstracts International, 43, 1611-8. Dawis R. V., 8: Lofquist, L H. (1984). A psychological theogy of work adjusgent, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. de Vaus, D., 8: McAllister, I. (1991). Gender and work orientation: Values and satisfaction in western Europe. Work 8: Occupatiops, 13, 72-93. Drake, R. M. (1944). A studylof leadership. Character and Personality, XII, 285-289. Dreher, G. F. (1980). Individual needs as correlates of satisfaction and involvement with a modified Scanlon plan company. loumal of Vocational Behavior, 17,89-94. Fagly, A. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women and men. American Psychologist, 39,145-161. Ejiogu, A. M. (1985). Patterns of principals' leadership behavior preferred by teachers in secondary school in Lagos. loumal of Teacher Education, 1, 77- 88. Elizur, D. (1984). Facets of work values: A structural analysis of work outcomes. The lournal of Applied Psychology, 39, 379-389. Elizur, D. (1994). Gender and work values: A comparative analysis. 11$ loumal of Social Psychology, 134, 201-212. Eskilson, A., 8: Wiley, M. G. (1976). Gender composition and leadership in small groups. Sociomet_ry, 32, 183-194. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A ghepg pi leadership gffectivepess. New York: McGraw-Hill. 138 Fiedler, F. E. (1972). Personality, motivational systems, and behavior of high and low LPC persons. Human Relations, 23,319—412. Fiedler, F. E., 8: Chemers, M. M. (1974). Leadership and effective management. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Fitzgerald, L F., 8: Osipow, S. H. (1988). We have seen the future, but is it us? The vocational aspirations of graduate students in counseling psychology. flofessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 12, 575-583. Fleishman, E. A. (1960). Leadership opihion guestiohnaire. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Fleishman, E. A., 8: Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Persohnel Psychology, 13,40- 4g Fleishman, E. A., 8: Hunt, J. G. (1973). Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale, 11.: Southern Illinois University Press. Forrest, L, 8: Mikolaitis, N. (1986). The relational component of identity: An expansion of career development theory. Career Development Qparterly, 33, 76-88. Gerstein, L H., 8: Shullman, S. L (1992). Counseling psychology and the workplace: The emergence of organizational psychology. In S. D. Brown 8: R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counsglipg psyghology (2nd ed., pp. 581-625). New York: Wiley. Gilligan, c. (1982). In adifferent voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gough, H. G. (1983). The Adjective Check List. lournal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 905-910. Greene, C. N. (1975). The reciprocal nature of influence between leader and subordinates. loumal of Applied Esychology, Q, 187-193. Grimm, L G., 8: Arnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understgiding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: APA. Guisinger, 8., 8: Blatt, S. J. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolution of a fundamental dialectic. Ameg'can Psychologist, 42, 104-111. Hackett, G., 8: Lent, R. L (1992). Theoretical advances and current inquiry in career psychology. In S. D. Brown 8: R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2d ed., pp. 419-451). New York: Wiley. Halpin, A. W. (1954). The leadership behavior and combat performance of airplane commanders. loumal of Abnormal 8: Social Psychology, 42, 19-22. 139 Halpin, A. W. (1955). The leadership ideology of aircraft commanders. lournal of Applied Psychology, 32, 82-84. Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behaviour description Questionnaige. Center for Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration. Columbus: Ohio State University. Halpin, A. W. (1957). The leadership behavior and effectiveness of aircraft commanders. In R. M. Stogdill8: A. E Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its descriptions and measurgmen; (pp. 52-64). Columbus: Ohio State University. Halpin, A. (1959). jljhe leadership behavior of school superintendents. Chicago: University of Chicago, Midwest Administration Center. Halpin, A. W. 8: Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its descriptions nng measmjemgnt (pp. 39-51). Columbus: Ohio State University. Harrison, A. F., 8: Bramson, R. M. (1977). [N9 administration and integpretagion mannal. Berkeley, CA: Bramson, Parlette, Harrison, 8: Associates. Harvey, B. C., 8: France, M. H. (1987). Needs expression: A basic aspect of career behaviour. Canndinn lonnnnl of Qounsglling, 21,42-48. Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., 8: Wampold, B. F. (1993). Research design in counseling, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Hersey, P., 8: Blanchard, K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Devglopment loumal, 23, 26-34. Hersey, P., 8: Blanchard, K. (1970). A leadership theory for educational administrators. Edncatipn, 29, 1-8. Hersey, P., 8: Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of ogganizational behavior: Utilizing human [esougces (4th ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Holland, J. L (1959). A theory of vocational choice. lournal of Counseling Psychology, 6,35-45. Holland, J. L (1985). Making vocational choices: A theog of vocation personalin'es and wogk gnvironment (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Hollander, E. P. (1964). Lgaglers, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press. Hollander, E. P. (1979). Leadership and social exchange processes. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, 8: R. H. Willis, (Eds). Social exchange: Advances in theogy and gesearch (pp. 103-118). New York: Plenum Press. 140 Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey 8: E. Aronson (Eds) jljhe handhooh oi social psychology (3rd edition. pp. 485-537). New York: Random House. Hollander, E. P. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. Amen‘can Psychologist, 43,179—189. Hollander, F. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. Leadership Qparterly, 3, 43-54. Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership. In M. Chemers 8: R. Ayman, (Eds). Leadgzship gheony and neseargh: Egmmgn‘ves and diggctions. (pp. 29-47). New York: Academic Press. Hollander, E. P., 8: Offerman, L R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 43, 179- 789. Holloway, E. L (1988). Instruction beyond the facilitative conditions: A response to Biggs. Counselo; Eucatipn and Supgrvision, 27, 252-258. Holloway, E. L, Freund, R. D., Gardner, S. L, Nelson, M. L, 8: Walker, B. R. (1989). Relation of power and involvement to theoretical orientation in supervision: An analysis of discourse. lougnal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 88-102. Howard, G. S. (1992). Behold our creation: What counseling psychology has become and might yet become. lournal of Counseling Psychology, 32,419- 442. - . - Hoy, W. K., 8: Miskell, C. G. (1982). Educational administration, theog, researgh and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Random House. Hunt, J. G., 8: Iiebscher, V. K. C. (1973). Leadership preference, leadership behavior, and employee satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Pefiormance, 2, 59-77. Inderlied, S. D., 8: Powell, G. ((1979). Gender-role identity and leadership style: Different labels for the same concept? Gender Roles, 3,613—625. Jackson, D. N. (1967). Eersonality research form manual. Goshen, New York: Research Psychologists Press. Johnson, C. A., 8: Aderman, M. (1979). Leadership style and personal history information. jlhe lonnnal of Psychology, 192,243-251. Jordan, J. (1984). Empathy and self-boundaries. Work in Progress, No.13, Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Papers. 141 Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Baker-Miller, J., Stiver, I. P., 8: Surrey, J. L. (Eds.). (1991). Women's growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press. Jordan, J, 8: Surrey, J. L (1986). The self-in-relation: Empathy and the mother-daughter relationship. In T. Bernay 8: D. W. Cantor (Eds. ), T_h_e psychology of today' s woman: New psychoanalmic vision (pp. 81-104). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Kagan, D. M. (1989). Inquiry mode, occupational stress, and preferred leadership style among American elementary school teachers. loumal of Social bychology, 122, 297-305. Kaplan, A. G., (Eds.). (1991). The “self-in-relation": Implications for depression in women. In J. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. Baker-Miller, 8: I. Stiver (Eds), Wo en's owt i co ection: W t' s ro t e Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press. Keita, G. P., 8: Hurrell, J. J. (Eds.). (1994). lob stgess in a changing workforce. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., 8: Stogdill R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and Initiating Structure literature. ngam'zational khaviog of Human Performance, 12,62- 68. Korabik, K. (1982). Gender-role orientation and leadership style. lntemational loumal oi Woman'g 3mdies, 3, 329-337. Kushell, E, 8: Newton, R. (1986). Gender, leadership style, and subordinate satisfaction: An experiment. gndgr Roles, 14, 203-209. Landy, F. J. (1989). Esychplogy of wozh behaviog. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Iandy, F. J. (1992). Work design and stress. In G. P. Keita 8: S. L Sauter (Eds.), Work and wall-ming: An ageng fo; the 12293 (pp. 119-158). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied reggession: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Likert, R. (1961). Ngw patterns of managemgnt. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lofquist, L H., 8: Dawis, R. V. (1969). Agiuatment to work. East Norwalk, CN: Appleton-Century-Crofts. MacFadden, A. R. (1974). Eagnlg preference of leadership behavior gharacteristics of a potenn'm president of public communig colleges or technical institutes in Tennessee. Unpublished dissertation, University of Tennessee. 142 Manuso, J. S. L (Ed.). (1983). Occupational clinical psychology. New York: Praeger. Markus, H., 8: Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept. In M. Crawford 8: M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological perspectives (pp. 100-127). New York: Springer-Verlag. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of motivation. Psychological Review, 52,370- 396. . Mayo, E. (1945). jljhe human problems of an industrialization society. Boston: Harvard Business School. Meade, R. D. (1985). Experimental studies of authoritarian and democratic leadership in four cultures: American, Indian, Chinese and Chinese- American. International Conferences on Authoritarianism and Dogmatism (Potsdam, New York). High School lournal, (fl, 293-295. Megargee, E. L (1969). Influence of gender roles on the manifestation of leadership. loumal of Applied Esyghology, 33,377-382. Miller, J. B. (1984). The development of women's sense of self. Work in phoness: No. 12. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Papers. Miller, J. B. (1986). What do we mean by relationships? Work in progress: No. 22. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Papers. Miller, J. B. (1987). Towards a new psyghology pi women, (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press. Miller, J. (1991). Women and power. In J. Jordan, A. Kaplan, J. Miller, I. Stiver, 8: J. Surrey (Eds). Women’s growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center (pp. 197-205). New York: Guilford. Murray, H. A. (1938). mlomn'ong m‘ personalig. New York: Oxford University Press. Naisbitt, J., 8: Aburdene, P. (1985). Re-inventing the conporation: Transfoming your job ad your gompany for the new infogmation sociem. New York: Warner Books. Neil, C. C., 8: Snizek, W. E (1988). Gender as a moderator of job satisfaction: A multivariate assessment. Worh 8: Occupations, 13, 201-219. Neil, G. I., 8: Kirby, S. L (1985). Coaching styles and preferred leadership among rowers and paddlers. lounnm of Sport Behavior, 3, 3-16. Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Esyghomenjc theo_r_'y (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill. 143 Nwafor, 8., 8: Eddy, J. (1993). Leadership styles: A study of administrative leadership styles of senior administrators of public universities in Texas. Collage Studgnt lournal, 27, 102-105. Osipow, S. H. (1982). Counseling psychology: Applications in the world of work. jljhe Counseling Psychologist, 1Q,19-25. Quale, D. (1983). American productivity—the devastating effect of alcoholism and drug abuse. American Psychologist, 33,454—458. Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pearson, J. L, Reinhart, M. A., Strommen, E. A., Donelson, E, Barnes, C., Blank, L, Cebollerio, A. M., Cornwell, K., 8: Kamptner, N. L (Under review). Co ected and se ara e selves° velo e t o invento and initial validation. Perloff R., 8: Nelson, S. D. (1983). Economic productivity and the behavioral science. W45 1453. Peterson, R. A. (1988). Marlgeting Besearch (2nd ed.). Plano, TX: Business Publications. Powell, G. N., 8: Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The good manager: Masculine or androgynous? Academy of Managemen; loumal, 22,395—403. Powell, G. N., 8: Butterfield, D. A. (1980). The female leader: Attributional effects of group performance. WEI-897. Powell, G. N., Butterfield,-‘D. A, 8: Mainiero, L A. (1981). Gender-role identity and gender and predictors of leadership style. Psychological Reports, 32, 829-830. Pryor, R. G. (1983). Gender differences in the levels of generality of values/preferences related to work. loumal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 233- 241. Punnett, B. J. (1991). Language, cultural values and preferred leadership style: A comparison of Anglophones and Francophones in Ottawa. Canadian lournal of Bahaviouml gience, 23, 241-244. Rhode, D. (1990). Definitions of difference. In D. L Rhode (Ed.), Theore 'c rs ectives 0 se di fe e ce (pp. 197-212). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Richardson, M. S. (1993). Work in people's lives: A location for counseling psychologists. lounnal of Counselm' g Esychology, 49, 425-433. Rude, 5. S., 8: Burnham, B. L (1995). Connectedness and neediness: Factors of the DEQ and SAS dependency scales. Cognin’vg jljherapy Qg' Research, 12, 323-340. 144 Sanford, F. H. (1950). Authon‘tan‘gism a_n_d leadership. Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Human Relations. Schein, V. E (1973). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. lournal of Applied Esychology, 37, 95. Schriesheim, C. A. (1982). The great high consideration-high Initiating Structure leadership myth: Evidence _on its generalizability. jljhe loumal of §ogial Psychology, 113, 221-228. Senge, P. S. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art 8: practice of the learning ogganiaation. New York: Doubleday. Shavelson, R. J. (1988). t'stic easo r e aviora s iences (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn 8: Bacon. Singer, M. S. (1985). Transformational versus transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company managers. fiyghplogigm figmrts, 37, 143-146. Singer, M. S., 8: Singer, A. E. (1986). Relation between transformational vs. transactional leadership preference and subordinates' personality: An exploratory study. Berceptual and Motor Sk_ills, 32, 775-780. Singer, M. S., 8: Singer, A. E (1990). Situational constraints on transformational versus transactional leadership behavior, subordinates' leadership preference, and satisfaction. loumal of Sogial fiychology, 132, 385-396. Slater, P. E (1955). Role differentiation in small groups. American Spgiplogical Rpm'ew, 29, 300-310. Steers 8: Braunstein (1976). A behaviorally based measure of Manifest Needs in work setting. loumal of Vocational Behavion9, 251-266. Stinson,J. E, 8: Robertson, J. H. (1973). Follower-maturity and preference for leader-behavior style. W247—250. Stiver, I. P. (1991). The meanings of “dependency” in female-male relationship. In. J. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J.B .Miller, I. P. Stiver, 8: J. L Surrey. WW .Mi-16L), New York: The Guilford Press. Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Mgiml for me leader behavior description guestionnaire-Eorm Xll. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Stogdill, R. M., 8: Coons, A. E (1957). lgade; Ehavior: Its description and meaaungment. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Super, D. E. (1957). jljhe psychology of careers. New York: Harper. 145 Super, D. E. (1962). The structure of work values in relations to status, achievement, interests and adjustment. lonmal of Applied Psychology, 43, 231-239. Super, D. E. (1984). Career and life development. In D. Brown 8: L. Brooks (Eds.), Cami; choicg and development, (pp. 197-261). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Surrey, J. (1984). The self-in-relation: A theory of women's development. Worls in Progness, No, 13. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Papers Series. Taylor, F. (1911). jljhg pm‘nciples oi sgigntific management. New York: Harper and Brothers. Tronto,J. C. (1993). Mo bo “es: o'ti ent for et i of gare. New York: Routlege. Tscheulin, D. (1971). Leader behavior measurement in German industry. loumal of Applied fiyghology, 39, 28-31. Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. Amazican bychologisg, 34, 1085-1094. Unger, R. K. (1990). Imperfect reflections or reality: Psychology constructs gender. In R. T. Hare-Mustin 8: J. Marecek (Eds.), Ma differenge: Psyghology ang the consnmction of gender (pp. 102-149). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. US. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. (1992). Women subordinates ouflook to 2293. Washington, DC: Author. Vondracek, F. W., Shimizu, K., Schulenberg, J., 8: Hostetler, M. (1990). A comparison between American and Japanese students' work values. loumal of Vocational Behaviog, 33, 274-286. Wampold, B. E., 8: Freund, R. D. (1987). Use of multiple regression in counseling psychology research: A flexible data-analytic strategy. lournal of Connsglmg byghplogy, 34, 372-382. Webster, D. W., 8: Fretz, B. R. (1978). Asian-American, Black and White college students' preferences for help-giving sources. loumal of Counseling Esyghology, 23, 124-130. Welch, N. C. (1997). jljhg development ang validation of a scale measuring thg construct of connectgness. Unpublished dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Wilkes, S. B. (1992). Eollowgr pneferences in leadership style as a function of pansonaliiy tnaitg. Unpublished dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University. 146 Wilkinson, A. D., 8: Wagner, R. M. (1993). Supervisory leadership styles and state vocational rehabilitation counselor job satisfaction and productivity. Rehabilitation Counaeling Bulletin, 37, 15-24. Williams, A. 0., 8: Woodward, S. (1980). A note on Steers and Braunstein's behaviorally based measure of manifest needs. lournal of Occupational Esychology, 33, 219-221. Yukl, G. A. (1989a). Leade or zations. 2nd ed . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ' Yukl, G. A. (1989b). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. loumal of Management, 13,251-289. HICHIGRN S lllllltlll TQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES WNWIHIHHIIIWHIHIIWIWIHIIWI 301 6822607 I 9