A PMS-é - GOAL THEORY GF LEADERSHiP: Fifi EMPiREAL m‘e'ESTSGAfiON aisseftaficn for the Bayes cf Ph. D. WCHSME‘é SMTE UE‘éi‘vERSIT’f RAN‘flAZxL ST-TVE SEWER 1973 'lllltilllllllll' This is to certify that the." > _ -_-‘.", - ‘-~.. . theSIS entltled ' ' A Path Goal Theory of Leadership: An Empirical Investigation Randall S. Schuler presented by has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .___PJl._D_._degree in Jerusalem: .- ‘. L. r: 4- _~-'« 3 305:7?” 1 ‘ Z.‘ ‘ kid-ff“ f. ' \' ." ."¥I;N," dd. "2‘ . { I. B R A R Y Min ligzm 5&2??- University .9 ~ - L . ~ _ n r; - ? ..v ..- ..‘ .' f . v ‘ ~- _ v 0' l u I- - 1". , 's “‘5 ,A.‘ \ I ABSTRACT A PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION BY Randall Steve Schuler The Path-Goal model of leadership is a recent sit- uational approach to the study of leadership. Its theoreti- cal framework includes specification of the interaction of leader behavior with task structure and the resulting levels of satisfaction and performance. Because of the lack of support for the Path-Goal model in the leadership research and the inadequacy of the testing of the model, the Path-Goal model was tested here with instruments specifically designed to measure task dimensions and leadership behavior. These instruments were factor analyzed, resulting in two task dimensions and two leadership behaviors. Task Repetitiveness refers to the frequency with which work cycles are completed. Task independence des- cribes the degree of discretion which the subordinate has in determining how and when to meet his task requirements and the subordinates' capability to perform their tasks without depending upon their supervisors. Randall Steve Schuler Leadership behavior was separated into Leader Con- sideration (LC) and Leader Initiating Structure (LIS). Leader consideration describes behavior of a supervisor which is supportive and providing positive feedback to the subordinate on his task accomplishments. Leader initiating structure provides guidance through direction and negative feedback about poor performance and directs the acts of the subordinates to goal achievement. Satisfaction with work and performance were the two dependent variables used. Satisfaction was measured by the Job Description Inventory. Performance was measured by the rankings of Corporate Evaluators. The Path-Goal model has been tested without taking explicit account of the level of subordinate motivation (House, 1971; Dessler, 1973). Because motivation is an important variable to consider as an independent variable, it was explicitly incorporated into this research. The level of subordinate motivation indicated the subordinate's willingness to engage in his task activities. The level of each subordinate's motivation was determined by combin- ing effort-performance and performance-outcome expectancies with intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes in a formula suggested by House (1971). Analysis of variance was used to determine if per- formance and satisfaction with work were related to the interaction of motivation, LC, LIS and task repetitiveness Randall Steve Schuler or task independence. It was hypothesized that: (I) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task repetitiveness would be associated with more satisfaction than low motivation-low LC- low LIS-high task repetitiveness; (2) High motivation-high LC- high LIS-high task repetitiveness would be associated with higher performance than low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task repetitiveness; (3) High motivation-high LC-high LIS- high task independence would be associated with more sat- isfaction than low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task inde- pendence; (4) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task independence would be associated with higher performance than low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task independence. The results of Hypothesis (1) indicated that only LC-task repetitiveness and motivation-LC interacted signif— icantly and they did so in the pattern predicted by the Path-Goal model. High motivation, high LC and low task repetitiveness were significantly more satisfying than low motivation, low LC and high task independence. High subordi- nate competence and/or simple tasks were suggested as being reasons for LIS not interacting with motivation-LC—task repetitiveness or task independence as hypothesized. From Hypothesis (2) it was indicated that motivation- LIS and motivation-LIS-task repetitiveness interacted significantly. There was also a distinction between less motivated and highly motivated subordinates. The latter performed better with direction, guidance, and control, while Randall Steve Schuler the former performed better without direction, guidance and control. Contrary to the Path-Goal model, low LC was sig- nificantly associated with high performance. However, as predicted by the model, high LIS was associated with high performance. The results from Hypothesis (3) indicated significant interactions for only motivation-LC and LC-task independence and these were in the predicted pattern. Again, high moti- vation, high LC and high task independence were associated with high satisfaction with work as predicted. . Hypothesis (4) had the only significant four-way interaction. However, there were two modifications. Low LC was associated with high performance and subordinates with low motivation performed well but under different condi- tions from subordinates with high motivation. As in Hypothesis (2), low motivation subordinates performed well without direction, guidance and control and high motivation subordinates performed well with direction, guidance and control. In general, the variables of motivation, LC, LIS and task repetitiveness or task independence had different pat- terns of interactions depending upon the dependent variable. The variables, furthermore, did not interact in the hypoth- esized patterns as suggested by the Path—Goal model. A PATH-GOAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION BY Randall Steve Schuler A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management 1973 ACKNOWLEDGMENT S aster / L. 69 I am grateful for the financial support provided by the Management Department of Michigan State University for this dissertation. In addition, the support by the faculty and staff is kindly appreciated. In particular, I wish to express my deepest thanks to Professor Henry Tosi, committee chairman, for his support and direction. His willingness and dedication to make this dissertation a solid piece of research and a real learning experience for me will not be forgotten. Professor Michael Moore provided invaluable encouragement and the initial impetus for this research. Professor W. Clay Hamner was instrumental in preventing me from straying from the impor- tant details of any good dissertation. To these latter two individuals go my appreciation and indebtedness. A special note of gratitude and appreciation goes to Professor Robert J. House, without whose theory and benevolent assistance this dissertation would have been impossible. Additionally, I want to thank the cooperating organ- ization and Dr. Logan F. Blank for making the data for this dissertation possible. The time and assistance of Dr. Blank and his staff are well recognized by me. ii To my brother, R. Edward, could go several pages of admiration and accolades for the socio-emotional and instrumental support and assistance he has given me so freely. Many thanks, Ed. Lastly to my parents, who have always provided the support and independence I needed to pursue my most intense desires and needs. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . Approaches to Leadership Trait Theories . . . . Behavioral Theories . O O O O O O O O The University of Michigan Research The Ohio State University Studies . Situational Approaches Fiedler's Contingency Theory . . . . The Path-Goal Model of Leadership Effectiveness . . Research Objectives . . II. HYPOTHESES AND MEASURES . The Hypotheses . . . . . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . Hypothesis 4 . . . . . The Measures . . . . . . Leadership Behavior . Motivation . . . . . . Intrinsic Outcomes . Expectancy . . . . . Valency of Extrinsic O O O O O O O 0 Outcomes (E n) Determination of Motivation Scores . . Task Structure . . . . Satisfaction With Work Performance Criterion Methodology . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . iv Page vii ix 34 34 34 36 37 38 39 4O 45 46 48 53 54 56 59 60 61 63 Chapter III. IV. RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction With Work . . . . . . . . High Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . Low Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . . High Task Independence . . . . . . . Low Task Independence . . . . . . . . High Subordinate Motivation . . . . . Low Subordinate Motivation . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High Subordinate Motivation and High Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . . . High Subordinate Motivation and Low Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . . . Low Subordinate Motivation and Low Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . Low Subordinate Motivation and High Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . High Subordinate Motivation and High Task Independence . . . . . . . . . High Subordinate Motivation and Low Task Independence . . . . . . . . . Low Subordinate Motivation and Low Task Independence . . . . . . . . . Low Subordinate Motivation and High Task Independence . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . Consistency of the Results With the Path- Goal Model Predictions . . . . . . . Satisfaction With Work . . . . . . . Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . . . Task Independence . . . . . . . . . Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . . . Task Independence . . . . . . . . . Limitation of Research . . . . . . . Ability Was Not Measured . . . . . Individual Personality Differences V Page 65 65 65 72 77 83 87 89 89 89 90 91 91 92 93 94 95 95 96 97 98 98 99 101 102 102 103 105 105 105 106 108 108 110 114 114 114 Chapter Causal Inferences From Data Objective Measures of Task Characteristics . . . . . Evaluation of Performance . Revised Propositions . . . . . Satisfaction With Work . . . Performance . . . . . Highly Motivated Subfddinates Less Motivated Subordinates Practical Implications . . . . Satisfaction With Work . . . Performance . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Future Research Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O I O O O l A. B. Description of Leadership Behavior FaCtorS O O I O O O O O O O 0 Description of Intrinsic Outcomes Factor Analysis . . . . . . . Description of Task Structure Factor Analysis . . . . . . . Instructions Given to the Corporate Evaluators . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire . . . . . . . . Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of Motivation, LIS, Task Repetitiveness for Performance . . . . . . . Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of Motivation, LC, LIS, Task Independence for Performance . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Managerial Needs and Effectiveness Study Page 114 115 116 117 117 118 118 118 118 119 122 124 126 128 129 136 142 146 148 159 162 171 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Leadership Behavior Factors . . . . . . . . . Intrinsic Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task Structure Factors . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction with Work/Task Repetitiveness . Cell Means/Satisfaction with Work . . . . . . Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of LC and Task Repetitiveness for Satisfaction with Work 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I I O 0 Summary Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of LC and Task Repetitiveness for Satisfaction with Work . . . . . . . . . . Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of LC and Motivation for Satisfaction with Work . . . Summary Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of LC and Motivation for Satisfaction with work O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O Performance/Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . . Cell Means/Performance . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of Motivation, LIS, Task Repetitiveness for Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction with Work/Task Independence . . Cell Means/Satisfaction with Work . . . . . . Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of LC and Task Independence for Satisfaction with work O O I C O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 Summary of the Scheffé Tests for the Inter- action of LC and Task Independence . . . . vii Page 42 49 58 66 67 68 69 71 71 73 74 76 78 79 80 80 Table Page 17. Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of Motivation and LC for Satisfaction With work Q C O C C C C C O O C O O O O O O O 81 18. Summary of Scheffé Tests for the Inter- action of Motivation and LC for Satisfaction with Work . . . . . . . . . . . 82 19. Performance/Task Independence . . . . . . . . . 84 20. Cell Means/Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 21. Summary Scheffé Tests for the Interaction of Motivation, LC, LIS, Task Independence for Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 22. Summary Table for Level of Satisfaction With Work 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O 90 23. Summary Table for Level of Performance/ Task Repetitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 24. Summary Table for Level of Performance/ Task Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 A—l Means, Standard Deviations and Item Descriptions for Leadership Behavior . . . . 131 A-2 Factor Loadings for Leadership Behavior Items . 134 A-3 Factor Intercorrelations and Loading Matrix for Leadership Behavior Items . . . . . . . . 135 B-l Means, Standard Deviations and Item Descriptions for Intrinsic Outcomes . . . . . 138 B-2 Factor Loadings for the Intrinsic Outcomes . . 140 B-3 Factor Intercorrelations and Loading Matrix for Intrinsic Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . 141 C-1 Means, Standard Deviations and Item Descriptions for Task Dimensions . . . . . . 144 C-2 Factor Loading for Task Dimensions . . . . . . 145 C-3 Factor Intercorrelations and Loading Matrix for Task Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The Eight Octants of Leadership Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There has always been an interest among organization behavioralists concerning the psychological phenomenon called leadership. Leadership is a process in which a person exerts social influence or power over other persons. Therefore, a leader is one who exercises this power and influences other people's behavior. Contributing to the interest in the study of leadership is that it is often considered an important determinant of satisfaction and performance (Likert, 1961; Fiedler, 1969; House, 1971). There is, however, some dispute concerning the implied causality between leadership and satisfaction and performance (Lowin and Craig, 1968; Farris and Lim, 1969). Lowin and Craig, using the leadership behaviors of closeness, consideration and initiation, found support for the hypoth~ esis that subordinate performance shapes leadership behavior. Farris and Lim (1969) using Bowers and Seashore's (1964) leadership categories--1eadership supportiveness, interac- tion facilitation, goal emphasis and work facilitation-- concluded that these leader behaviors increased after the subordinate had high performance. The amount of member influence in the decision—making process, the degree of group cohesion and satisfaction also were higher if past perfor— mance of the subordinate was high. Therefore, they con- cluded, it is necessary to study leadership behavior as a dependent as well as an independent variable. Thus, the relationship between leadership behavior and satisfaction and performance is unresolved. However, in this research leadership will be considered an important variable influenc— ing subordinate performance and satisfaction. Approaches to Leadership There are a number of theories about leadership. These theories include the trait theories, the behavioral theories and the situational theories. The trait theories focus on attempts to identify individual traits or character— istics on the assumption that certain identifiable traits exist for successful leaders. Furthermore, these traits can be used to differentiate potentially successful lead— ers from unsuccessful leaders. Behavioral theories attempt to understand the leader— ship phenomenon in terms of activities and styl . Situa— tional theories consider what the good leader does and how he does it, but consider additionally the environmental con— ditions in which their activities occur. In situational theories, there is usually an attempt to define the environ— ment circumstances that are important in affecting leader effectiveness. Trait Theories Much of the early leadership literature was based on the assumption that there were identifiable traits or attri- butes which leaders possessed. This literature of the 1940's and 1950's focused on individual traits which were associated with leadership, e.g. intelligence, emotion, physical size, personality (Jenkins, 1947; Stogdill, 1948; Gibb, 1954). Stogdill (1948) concluded from his review of the lit— erature that successful leadership is associated with verbal facility, judgment and scholarship of the leader. Ghiselli (1963) concluded from his research that there is an optimal level of intelligence. Above or below that level, individ— uals will be less successful leaders. Ghiselli also found personality characteristics to be related to successful leadership: initiative, self—assurance and individuality. Leaders, according to Ghiselli, have to be individuals who are able to command or gain attention and cooperation of others in order to perform activities to accomplish organi- zational goals. Trait theories have been criticized from several perspectives. Though several traits have been identified and associated with good leaders and lacking in poor lead— ers, it is difficult to develop a theoretical framework of leadership using these traits. Korman (1971) argues that there is no conceptual framework which accounts for circumstances in which a variable or trait interacts with other traits, the conditions under which the variable will take on greater importance, and the situation or the task structure of the subordinate. Behavioral Theories The behavioral approaches of leadership focus on descriptions of the activities or behavior in which a leader engages. There are two main groups of studies from which most current leadership behavioral theories have been derived. These are the University of Michigan and the Ohio State University studies. The University of Michigan Research The initial thrust of the University of Michigan research, begun in 1947, was to investigate the determinants of satisfaction and performance. "The analysis plan was to determine what supervisory practices were associated with high and low levels of satisfaction and with high and low levels of performance" (Kahn, 1964). The initial research was conducted in an insurance company, a railroad and a tractor manufacturing firm. In the insurance company, Katz, Maccoby and Morse (1950) found that high producing supervisors spent more time in actual supervising activities, supervised less closely and were more employee centered in their attitudes. Satisfaction, in this experiment, was related to the task not the supervisory behavior. No relationship between satisfaction and production was found. The people doing the highly repetitive work were less satisfied than people doing high level technical work. It was in this study that the leader behavior concepts of employee centered and production centered originated, which were to be a central theme in the Michigan studies. The employee centered leader is described as one who takes a personal interest in subordinates, who gets along well with them, who lets them know how well they are doing and who is easy to talk with. The production centered leader, on the other hand, stresses the determination of the supervisor to press for high production, to be critical when mistakes are made, to be reluctant to delegate any respon- sibility and to prevent any participation in the decision- making process. These leader behaviors were regarded as two end points on a single continuum. The results of the tractor company study were not consistent with the early research. Whereas in the first studies, employee centered behavior was related to higher performance, in the tractor firm, the most successful super- visors were those who combined qualities of both employee centered and production centered behaviors. That is, the most successful supervisors were high on both leadership factors. Morse and Reimer (1956) report additional research in an insurance company to determine the effects of leader behavior on group productivity. They implemented a partici— pative and a hierarchically controlled leadership program in two different units. Participative programs were similar to employee centered behavior. Hierarchically controlled programs were characterized by production centered behavior. Production was found to be slightly higher in the hierarchi- cally controlled section of the company. However, in that same section, employee loyalty and attendance were reduced. Likert (1960), synthesizing the research of the Michigan group, stated that the high producing managers are different in leadership methods from low producing managers. His description of the characteristics of leaders in high producing organizations describes supervisory behavior which is supportive, friendly and helpful behavior. This also assists the subordinates in the completion of their tasks. This is employee centered behavior. Bowers and Seashore (1964) used four dimensions of leadership in a later study. They were: (a) support, (b) goal emphasis, (c) work facilitation, (d) interaction facilitation. The type of leadership behavior most effec— tive is a function of both managers and subordinates. They concluded that in order to predict the effectiveness of subordinate behavior, it is necessary to know not only the leader variables, but also the subordinate's level of education, the level of his aspirations, his needs for affiliation, his expertise and his level of influence acceptance. "Leadership, as conceived and operationalized here is not adequate alone to predict effectiveness" (Bowers and Seashore, p. 453). Likert (1960) and Kahn (1960) suggested the impor~ tance of the task dimension but did not specifically include it in any of their research. Sales (1966) also suggested the importance of the effect of task Operations or the degree of task repetitiveness and the interaction with .leadership behavior. He hypothesized that in order for a democratic leadership style to be more effective than an autocratic supervisor, the task must be low in repetitive— ness. In summary, the University of Michigan research directed attention to leadership determinants of employee satisfaction and productivity. From these studies develOped the notion of employee centered and production centered leader behaviors. These were important concepts in much research, especially during the 1950's. The Ohio State University Studies The Ohio State University (OSU) research on leader— ship began in the late 1940's with an empirically based, factor analytical approach. This was the era when the emphasis was shifting to the importance of situational uniqueness. Subsequently, the pendulum swung toward the middle ground with assumptions that the group situation is highly important. The emphasis during that period was from thinking about leadership in terms of traits that someone has to the conceptualization of leadership as a form of activity that certain individuals engage in (Fleishman, 1971, p. 4). Initially, in the OSU studies, scales were developed to measure leader behavior. The initial study was done by Halpin and Winer (1952) on Air Force crew members. Using 130 items from an original pool of 150, Halpin and Winer (1957) derived two major factors: Leader Initiation of Structure includes behavior in which the supervisor organizes and defines group activi- ties and his relation to the group. Thus, he defines the role he expects each member to assume, assigns tasks, plans ahead, establishes ways of getting things done, and pushes for production. The dimension seems to empha- size overt attempts to achieve organizational goals. Leadership Consideration includes behavior indicating mutual trust, respect, and a certain warmth and rapport between the supervisor and his group. This does not mean that this dimension reflects a superficial "pat-on—the- back", first-name-calling kind of human relations beha- vior.‘ This dimension appears to emphasize a deeper cone cern for group members' needs and includes such behavior as allowing subordinates more participation in decision making and encouraging more two-way communication (Fleish- man and Harris, 1962, pp. 42-43). They found that consideration was negatively related to performance and positively related to satisfaction. Ini- tiating structure had a positive relationship to performance and a low, but positive, relationship with satisfaction. Fleishman and Harris (1962) using the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) obtained results slightly different from Halpin and Winer (1957). They found initiating structure and consideration related to turnover and grievances. Initiating structure was generally posi— tively related to grievances and turnover at an increasing rate. However, below a certain level of initiating struc— ture there was a zero relationship between it and turnover and grievances. Consideration was negatively related to turnover and grievances. The most turnovers and grievances occurred under low consideration regardless of initiating structure. Furthermore, regardless of initiating structure, high consideration had the lowest grievance and turnover rates. Halpin and Winer suggested that leader considera— tion was the more critical leadership variable in their research. )< A great many studies have been done using the ini— tiating structure and consideration dimensions of leadership as independent variables with satisfaction and performance as the dependent variables. The following studies are cited to show the varying relationships between initiating struc« ture and performance and satisfaction, and between consider— ation and satisfaction and performance. Generally, consideration was positively related to satisfaction as found in the research of Halpin and Winer (1957), Nealey and Blood (1968), Lowin (1969) and Fleishman and Harris (1962). But the research on the relationship between consideration and performance has been much differ— ent. Besco and Lawshe (1959) reported a positive relation- ship, but Fleishman, Harris and Burtt (1955) and Halpin and 10 Winer (1957) reported a negative relationship between con— sideration and performance. Nealey and Blood (1968) found no relationship between consideration and performance. Similarly, initiating structure has had no consis- tent relationship with satisfaction. For instance, Halpin (1957) and Yukl (1969a) reported a positive relationship between satisfaction and initiating structure, but Nealey and Blood (1968) found a negative relationship for second level supervisors and a positive relationship for first line supervisors. Fleishman and Harris (1962) and Skinner (1969) found a curvilinear relationship between initiating structure and satisfaction. No relationships were found by Baumgartel (1956), Halpin and Winer (1957) and Lowin (1969). The relationship between initiating structure and performance has also been inconsistent in the reported research. Fleishman et a1. (1955), Nealey and Blood (1968), Halpin and Winer (1957) and Besco and Lawshe (1959) reported a positive relationship, while Lowin and Kavanagh (1969) found no relationship between initiating structure and performance. Some possible explanations of the inconsistent findings using initiating structure and consideration with satisfaction and performance are: 1, The lack of factor (initiating structure and consideration) independence (Korman, 1966; Weissenberg and Kavanagh, 1972; Kavanagh, 1972). For example, Lowin et a1. 11 (1969) reported a correlation between consideration and initiating structure of -.20; Halpin and Winer (1952) reported correlations of .23 and .42; and Fleishman and Harris (1962) reported a relationship of —.33. Kavanagh (1972) suggested the lack of factor inde- pendence can be accounted for in part because of the rela- tionship of subordinate competence and the task complexity and perceived legitimacy of initiating structure and con— sideration. He hypothesized that when subordinate compe- tence is high and the task is simple, initiating structure would be seen as unnecessary and negatively correlated with consideration. The same relationship would hold between initiating structure and consideration if the subordinate competence were low and the task complex. The combination of high subordinate competence and task complexity or low subordinate competence and low task complexity would cause initiating structure to be seen as necessary and legiti- mate. Therefore, the relationship between initiating structure and consideration should be independent. In his results, Kavanagh reported correlations between initiating structure and consideration ranging from —.26 to —.69. 2. Korman (1966) also indicated the difficulty in obtaining consistent results when there are high curvilinear correlations between consideration and initiating structure. He suggested that it should be specified when and how con— sideration or initiating structure will be related to the 12 dependent variable. However, he indicated that the situation must also be considered when specifying the effects of con- sideration or initiating structure. (3) Lowin et a1. (1969) suggested that the situa— tional variables and task structure be considered. Perhaps initiating structure will only be positively related to performance if the leader possesses competence to assist the subordinate in completing his task. This competency will be needed, however, only if the task is too complex for the subordinate. Therefore, in addition to the task .structure (complexity in this case), the research should determine the skill levels of the supervisor and the subor— dinate. In conclusion, initiating structure and considera— tion were the most important leadership behavior dimensions found in the OSU research. These are similar to the Michi— gan dimensions of employee centered behavior and production centered behavior differing in that they have been con— sidered as two dimensions, rather than the unidimensional concepts from the Michigan research. Situational Approaches The most recent develOpments in leadership theory have included attempts to systematically include the task dimension as well as the behavioral characteristics of the leader and subordinates. These theories attempt to des— cribe situational conditions in which different leader 13 styles are likely to produce high levels of performance and satisfaction. Fiedler's contingency model (1964) and House's Path-Goal model of leadership (1971) represent efforts in this direction. Fiedler's Contingency Theogy Fiedler's theory of leadership states that group performance is a function of leadership style, measured by the leader's esteem for his least preferred coworker (LPC), and the favorableness of the situation. The favorableness of the situation is a function of three variables: (1) leader—position power, (2) task structure, (3) leader— member relations. Leader-position power is the amount of power which the leader has solely as a function of his for— mal position, not any personal attributes. The task struc- ture attempts to take into account the degree of ambiguity and the degree of repetitiveness which exists in the task. Leader-member relations are an indication of the group hare mony or friendship which exists. From dichotomizing these three variables, Fiedler arrives at eight octants of situa— tional favorability from extremely favorable to extremely unfavorable. (See Figure 1.) These octants represent different combinations of leader—member relations, task structure and leader position power. For example, Octants I through IV have good leader—member relations. In addition, Octants I and II have high task structure and Octant I has strong leader-position power. Each octant represents a 114 1.00 j High LPC: relationship- . .80 -4 oriented .60 g Rho Leader LPC & group .40 performance .20 0.00 . -.20 d - o 4 O —4 -.60 l -.80 fl Low LPC: t . _ ' ,. . ask oriented ~1.00 4T r Y f pr 1% f ; Favorable I II III IV V VI VII VIII for Leader H,fic m o 3 m '1 H: a m m < N o H m - u _ U Leader-member H Relations @500 MODERATELY POOR m Task Structure HIGH LOW HIGH LOW Leader Pcs;t;on ~--- Pover STRONG WEAK STRONG WEAK STRONG WEAK STRONG WEAK Figure l.-—The eight octants of leadership effectiveness. 15 unique combination of three variables. Therefore, Octant I is described as having good leader-member relations, high task structure and strong leader-position power. The leadership measure, called the LPC, is scored measuring several bi-polar adjectives describing character— istics of a person with whom the leader has been least able to work well. A high LPC is a high relations oriented, low task oriented person. He is described as having strong needs or desires for being permissive and passive. A low LPC score measures a low relations, high task oriented per- son. A low LPC score is considered by Fiedler as indicating high needs for control of others' activities. The LPC is supposedly assessing underlying needs, BEE behavior. These concepts are somewhat similar to behavioral concepts of consideration and initiating structure from the Ohio State Studies and employee centered and pro- duction centered leadership from the Michigan Studies. These concepts, unlike LPC, refer to leader behavior, not needs, and are on two separate continua, not Opposite ends of one continuum; therefore, the leader can be high on both dimen— sions of behavior. From examination of Figure l, the most effective combination of these leadership styles and the situations described are low LPC and either highly favorable (strong leader—position powery high task structure, good leader- member relations) or highly unfavorable environments (weak 16 leader-position power, low task structure, poor leader- member relations). The most effective combination for a situation of moderate favorability is a leader with a high LPC . Fiedler's theory has been criticized from several perspectives, ranging from lack of practical application to rejection of the concept that LPC scores indicate two ends of the same continuum. Some of these criticisms are noted below. 1. Some of the eight octants may not be as relevant to many large organizations. For example, how likely is it that a completely unfavorable situation will exist in a large organization? (See Figure l, Octant VIII.) There are, of course, organizations which do characterize several of the octants specified. 2. Fiedler lacks the theoretical basis to suggest why the low LPC leader works well in a highly unfavorable situation and also in a highly favorable situation (Korman, 1971). There is no theoretical framework in the leadership literature to suggest why a low LPC leader can do as well when leader—member relationships are good, task structure is high and leader position power is strong as when they are poor, low and weak (Korman). 3. Fiedler's present interpretation of LPC is that a fairly stable personality characteristic is being mea— sured. Yet, Mitchell, Biglan, Oncken and Fiedler (1970) 17 found the LPC test-retest reliability to range from .31 to .70 and Graen, Orris and Alvares (1971) administering a LPC list of adjectives to group leader and correlated their scores of task orientation and interpersonal orienta- tion with the responses from their group members describing their leaders on a similar LPC form, found correlations between leader's LPC scores and the mean members' perception of the leader's behavior ranged from —.01 to .20. 4. LPC measures leader orientation on a single con- tinuum and the leader can only be at one point on the con— tinuum at one time. It is difficult to conceive that one factor, on which an individual may be high or low, is so critical in determining the effectiveness of leadership style since there is much evidence that leadership is multi- dimensional. However, Fiedler has offered an approach which has directed attention to key variables in researching leadership. Because of the inconsistent results, the single continuum and the fact the theory has not held up in some research, Graen, et al. (1971a; 1971b) suggest that before this theory is more widely applied, it must be refined. The Path-Goal Model of Leadership Effectiveness The Path-Goal model of leadership is an approach to resolving some of the inconsistent research findings in which initiating structure and consideration have been examined. 18 Evans (1970), drawing heavily from instrumentality ideas applied to motivation (Peak, 1955; Georgopoulous, Mahoney and Jones, 1957), provided the initial formulation of the Path-Goal model of leadership."Motivation for an individ- ual to engage in a specific behavior is a function of the instrumentality of his behavior and the importance of the outcomes. Outcomes are the rewards derived from the job itself, or the job environment, such as pay and promotions. Instrumentality is the probability that a given action will be followed by a given outcome. The behavior of the leader can influence both the instrumentality and the outcomes.‘ He can provide outcomes by being a source of supportiveness, or by providing or rein— forcing positively or negatively certain outcomes, such as pay and promotions. The leader, by reinforcing in a manner contingent upon the subordinate's behavior, can increase the sub- ordinate's instrumentality by clearly linking specific behavior and performance with beneficial outcomes. For instance, when the subordinate does his task well, the leader can praise his achievement. House (1971) drawing upon the work of Evans (1970), added to the development and explanation of the Path—Goal model, adding the task dimension, thus making it a situa- tional model. In light of the fact that this research is an attempt to examine some of the hypothesized 19 relationships of this specific leadership model, it is examined here in more detail. His approach is based on consideration of motivation, leader behavior and task structure. Motivation.--Motivation indicates the level of energy and willingness of the subordinate to engage in the performance of task activities. The higher the level of motivation, the greater the energy and willingness of the subordinate to engage in performing his task activities. The essential variables in determining a subordinate's level of motivation are his expectancies of his energy or effort resulting in performance and his expectancies of his per- formance being rewarded with valued outcomes. Outcomes are of two types, intrinsic and extrinsic. Extrinsic outcomes refer to outcomes such as pay and promo— tion which are administered or given by another individual (Lawler, 1970). Intrinsic outcomes, on the other hand, are self-administered such as the feeling of accomplishment from a job well done (Lawler, 1970). There are two types of intrinsic outcomes: those from the process of doing a task such as the feeling of excitement from a challenging task and outcomes from the accomplishment of the task as a feeling of accomplishment from a job well done (House, 1971). Expectancy 1 (E1) is the perceived probability esti— mate that effort will result in a particular level of performance. Expectancy 2 (E2) refers to an individual's 20 perceived probability of his performance being rewarded with valued outcomes. The level of subordinate motivation is determined in an additive and multiplicative combination of these expectancies and outcomes. This will be examined further in Chapter II. Leadership Behavior.—-House discusses two types of leadership behavior: leader initiating structure and leader consideration. These are the leader behavior dimensions .derived from the OSU studies. Leader initiating structure describes the behavior of a leader as directing, controlling and guiding the beha— vior of the subordinates. The leader does this through planning and scheduling the work of the subordinate; by giving him negative feedback about his specific poor task performance and encouraging his subordinate to follow rules and procedures. Leader consideration refers to a leader's behavior which is supportive, considerate and concerned with his sub— ordinate. The leader does this by asking about the subordi- nate's welfare, encouraging participation in decision making by the group members, and generally making the path to perfor— mance easier to travel (House, 1971). Task Structure.——The other important dimension of the Path—Goal model of leadership is the task structure. 21 Task structure is divided into two separate dimensions which describe different characteristics of a task, job certainty and task autonomy. Job certainty refers to the degree of repetitiveness and clarity of policies and pro- cedures characteristic of a task. Task autonomy refers to the degree to which the employee is independent of the organization and the supervisor for financial and non— financial resources (House, 1971). Summa y.--The interaction of the task, leadership and motivation dimensions is predicted to be important because of the way the behavior of the leader and the task interact to determine effectiveness and satisfaction through their effect on expectancies and outcomes. On highly certain tasks, initiating structure is seen as redun- dant because the task is already planned and organized. High levels of initiating structure on certain tasks may result in dissatisfaction with work but high performance. House argues that because tasks with high certainty are disjfi satisfying, workers will tend to slack off and reduce their output. High initiating structure under those conditions imposes control and direction over the workers to prevent performance from decreasing. The Path-Goal model suggests that when the task is low'in certainty, initiating structure clarifies the task :requirements and increases satisfaction with work by relat— ing effort and performance to valued rewards. Initiating 22 structure Operates in a similar manner when the task and subordinate are dependent upon the organization. On the other hand, consideration is satisfying on certain tasks. It influences performance levels by increas- ing the expectancies that effort will lead to goal accomp— lishment. The leader can increase these expectancies by giving social approval and recognition when the subordinate attains his task goals. It also increases the expectancy that goal attainment will be rewarded with desired outcomes when the outcomes are linked to goal attainment. According to House, on tasks of low certainty, leader consideration influences neither satisfaction nor performance. This is so because these tasks are intrin— sically satisfying (House, 1971). It may not influence performance since direction and guidance are needed by the subordinate to increase performance and leader consideration does not provide direction and guidance. When the subordinate is less dependent upon the leader and organization and has more discretion over his task, the effects of consideration and initiating structure are hypothesized to operate differently. House (1971) indi- cated that consideration and initiating structure may not perform the similar functions under task autonomy as under task certainty. The social influence process may be less effective if the subordinate has more discretion. The results of initiating structure and consideration, however, 23 are postulated to be similar under both conditions of task independence and task certainty. Empirical Bases of the Path—Goal Model of Leadership.-~ House tested the Path-Goal model of leadership using data collected from two previous studies and new data from one study. He examined eight hypotheses derived from the Path— Goal model propositions. The analysis was somewhat weak in that the theoretical constructs of intrinsic task satisfac- tion and task structure were inferred from the occupational characteristics of the populations studied. It was assumed that higher level jobs or higher occupational levels have higher amounts of job autonomy and smaller amounts of job certainty. He also assumed that higher level jobs or higher occupational levels also have more intrinsic satisfaction. The hypotheses he initially tested were for tasks of a quasi-professional nature with medium amounts of job certainty and medium amounts of job autonomy. (1) Leader initiating structure will be positively related to subordinate satisfaction. The correlations of initiating structure and satisfaction ranged from .21 to .03. (2) Leader initiating structure will be negatively related to subordinate role ambiguity. The correlation between role ambiguity and initiating structure was -041. (3) The variance in role ambiguity will account for the relationship between leader initiating structure and subordinate satisfaction. The results of the cor- relation between initiating structure and satisfaction, with role ambiguity held constant, varied from .09 to —.06 (House, 1971, p. 327). 24 House explained these results, saying the tasks were routine and the Path-Goal relationships were probably already clear. Then initiating structure was not as useful in the reduction of role ambiguity. The predicted effect of ini- tiating structure on the subordinate satisfaction, therefore, was not strong. Specific task characteristics and leader consideration were not examined in this first study. In the second study the following hypotheses were tested: (1) Job autonomy will have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between leader initiating structure and subordinate job satisfaction; that is the relationship will be stronger under high job autonomy than under low job autonomy (House, 1971, p. 328). For the low autonomy jobs, the correlations between leader initiating structure and extrinsic satisfaction were significantly different from the moderate autonomy jobs and high autonomy jobs. The correlations between leader ini— tiating structure and extrinsic satisfaction for the moder- ate autonomy ydbswere also significantly different from the high autonomy jobs. (2) Job autonomy will have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between leader initiating structure and subordinate performance; that is, for non—autonomous jobs the relationship will be stronger than for autonomous jobs (House, 1971, p. 328). The correlations between leader initiating structure and performance for the highly non-autonomous jobs were sig- nificantly different from the same correlations for highly and moderately autonomous jobs. However, the same correla— tion between the highly and moderately autonomous jobs were 25 not significant, but were in the predicted direction only. (3) Job autonomy will have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between leader consideration and subordinate satisfaction; that is, the relationship will be weaker for autonomous jobs than for non— autonomous jobs (House, 1971, p. 328). None of the correlations between leader considera— tion and subordinate satisfaction in the low autonomy jobs was significantly higher than those jobs with moderate and high autonomy; however, the average correlations decrease monotonically in the predicted direction. In the third study, there were significant differences in the correla- tions between leader consideration and subordinate satis- faction between the low autonomy and high autonomy jobs but only for intrinsic satisfaction, not extrinsic satis- faction. (4) Job autonomy will have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between leader consideration and subordinate performance (House, 1971, p. 329). Four of the correlations between leader considera- tion and subordinate performance were significantly higher for the low autonomy jobs than for the moderate or high autonomy jobs. In the third study the correlations between leader consideration and subordinate performance were not significantly different. (5) Job [certainty]l will have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between leader consideration lJob scope was used, but House now uses job certainty to describe the same task dimension. 26 and subordinate satisfaction and performance; that is, the wider the variety of tasks performed by sub- ordinates, the weaker the correlations between leader consideration and subordinate satisfaction and per— formance (House, 1971, p. 329). The differences among the groups of job certainty were neither significantly different nor in the predicted direction. In the third study, the average correlations between leader consideration and satisfaction decreased from .38 to .24 to .18 for the jobs of low, moderate and high certainty. Two of the correlations for low job cer— tainty are significantly higher than their respective corre- lations for the groups with moderate or high job certainty. The correlations between leader consideration and performance decreased from .52 for the low job certainty to .09 for high job certainty. Five of the six correlations between leader consideration and performance for low job certainty are significantly higher than the corresponding correlations for the moderate or high job certainty. In the third study, the average correlations between leader consideration and performance decreased as predicted from -.33 for the low certainty jobs to —.04 for high cer— tainty jobs. Two of the correlations between leader con— sideration and performance were significantly different between low job certainty and high job certainty. House concluded that he found some support for his hypotheses; however, he did not test the relationship between initiating structure and satisfaction and performance 27 by measuring certainty; his measures of certainty and auton— omy were inferred from occupational characteristics in the first study. Dessler (1973) also examined some hypotheses sug— gested by House. He used the LBDQ Form XII (Stogdill, 1965), a questionnaire for measuring the expectancies and the Wigdor (1969) scale designed to measure task certainty. The Dessler hypotheses examined satisfaction and expectancies and role ambiguity. The hypotheses were: (1) The correlations between leader initiating structure and subordinate role ambiguity, satisfaction and Path—Goal expectancies will be moderated by the degree of respondent task certainty. The higher the certainty the smaller will be: (a) the negative cor- relation with role ambiguity; (b) the positive correla- tion with satisfaction and expectancies (Dessler and House, 1973, p. 17). The results supported this hypothesis with respect to the smaller positive relations between leader initiating structure and intrinsic job outcomes as task certainty increased. He found that the correlations between leader initiating structure and satisfaction and Expectancy 2 were lower in the medium certainty group than either the high or low certainty groups. A re-grouping of his sample into two groups based on occupational level and educational level did not produce any change in the results. (2) The correlations between leader consideration and subordinate satisfaction and expectancies will be positively moderated by task certainty. The leader consideration-role ambiguity correlation will be nega- tively moderated (Dessler and House, 1973, p. 17). 28 The results supported the positive relationship between leader consideration and Expectancy l and satisfac- tion with work. Expectancy l and satisfaction With work were more highly related to leader consideration as task certainty increased. The re-grouping of the sample by occupational and educational level increased the size of the correlations between leader consideration and Expectancy l and satisfac— tion with work. (3) Leader consideration will have a positive covarying influence on the relationship between leader initiating structure and subordinate satisfac— tion and expectancies and a negative covarying influ- ence with respect to role ambiguity (Dessler and House, 1973, p. 17). Again support for some of the relationships was found. Specifically, leader initiating structure did have a stronger positive relationship to satisfaction under high task uncertainty when the effects of leader consideration were held constant. However, the correlations between leader initiating structure and ambiguity and satisfaction were higher for the medium certainty group than the high certainty group. This was contrary to the hypothesis. The re-grouping, however, reduced the correlations between leader initiating structure and ambiguity and satisfaction for the medium certainty group so they were lower than the same correlations for the high certainty group. Dessler found moderate support for the hypothesis he tested, but only by re-grouping the sample did stronger support for two hypotheses become evident. This suggested 29 that demographic data, not perceptual data, may be a better measure of task certainty. Refinements in Testipg the Path—Goal Model.-—The Path-Goal model of leadership proposed by House does not include any specific consideration of motivation; instead, he uses motivational theory to explain the theoretical relationship. This seems an important variable to consider. Evans (1970) was explicit in stating that the degree of goal attainment is a function of the subordinate‘s level of moti- vation and the actual expectancies of effort resulting in rewards. He emphasized that motivation affects satisfaction as well as performance. House (1971) considered the level of subordinate motivation implicitly, but only as an inter— vening variable between leader behavior and satisfaction and performance. If the motivation can affect the satisfaction and performance, it should be measured and assessed directly in a test of the Path-Goal model of leadership. This is the main purpose of this research project. There are some other refinements of the model that will be examined here. These deal with the task structure dimensions. In House's work, he used job autonomy synon- ymously with task independence. He defined autonomy as the extent to which the subordinate is able to act and perform his task without depending upon his supervisor or others for financial and non-financial resources. 30 Job certainty was defined by House to be the extent to which the subordinate performs various tasks, sees pro- jects through to completion and determines job objectives and methods. Job certainty appears to have two components. The first is task repetitiveness, or the number of different tasks performed by the subordinate and the number of tasks he finishes. The second component refers to the determina— tion of the job objectives and methods of performing the job or the discretion which the subordinate has to exercise over his task procedures. In this study, two job dimensions called Task Repetitiveness and Task Independence are used. However, unlike House, who used inferences of the work setting as a basis for drawing conclusions about the characteristics of the task, the task characteristics are measured here by an’ instrument developed for that purpose. Task Repetitiveness describes a task by the frequency with which the work cycles are done. High task repetitive- ness describes tasks in which the work cycles are completed very frequently. In high task repetitiveness, the methods and procedures for completing the task are well known and understood. Task repetitiveness is an important dimension to discuss because of its psychological impact and its interaction with leadership behavior. High task repetitive— ness is hypothesized to be associated with job dissatis— faction (House, 1971). House hypothesizes that high 31 initiating structure will cause dissatisfaction because of the redundancy of clarity but it also is likely to be associated with high performance because it will prevent work slowdowns and avoidance. High leader consideration under high task repetitiveness will not necessarily affect performance, but will increase satisfaction with work. This is based on the assumption that a wide variety of tasks is more likely to be satisfying and, therefore, subordinates with varied tasks have less need for social support, that is, consideration from their leaders; whereas for highly routine jobs, leader consideration is a source of support to the employee, thus making the path easier to travel (House, 1971, p. 329). Task Independence is the amount Of discretion the subordinate has over his work. Task independence means the extent to which the subordinate can make decisions about how to use resource, the extent to which he can initiate contact with the supervisor as well as determine how and when to perform his task. High task independence is characterized by high employee discretion. This may be an important task dimension to examine. High initiating structure may be needed in order to reduce task ambiguities or provide assis- tance to his subordinate. This can lead to high performance and satisfaction since the supervisor aids the subordinate in achieving goals. When the employee, at his discretion, can go to his supervisor for more detailed instructions and 32 directions (i.e. obtain structure from his boss) he retains some control over his work. With low task independence, the employee has low discretion and is highly dependent upon the supervisor and the organizations. Guidance and assistance are imposed by the supervisor through high initiating structure. Perfor- mance may be maintained at high levels through this method, but satisfaction will probably be low. High consideration, unlike its effect under task repetitiveness, is seen as a source of satisfaction by the highly dependent employee, but irrelevant to performance. Research Objectives The Path-Goal approach to leadership suggests a way of formulating the problems such that promising results may be obtained in the leadership research. There are some problems with the previous research on the Path-Goal model. House tested this model on an a posteriori basis with data from other research. This research will examine specific constructs of the model and expand it by including a measure of motivation. The hypotheses are derived from the general Path-Goal prOpo- sitions. The essence of these hypotheses is: a. the relationship between initiating structure and satisfaction is more positive for more autono- mous tasks; 33 b. the relationship between initiating structure and performance is more positive for non- autonomous tasks; c. the relationship between consideration and per- formance is more positive for non-autonomous tasks; d. the relationship between consideration and satis- faction will be more positive for non-autonomous tasks; e. the relationship between consideration and satis- faction and performance will be more positive the higher the job certainty. Additionally, this research will examine the hypoth- eses that the relationship between initiating structure and satisfaction will be more positive for jobs with low certainty and the relationship between initiating structure and per- formance will be more positive for jobs with high certainty. Further explanation and rationale for all these rela- tionships will be provided in Chapter II after each specific hypothesis is presented. CHAPTER II HYPOTHESES AND MEASURES Thquypotheses The research studies of House and Dessler provide a promising base for additional empirical development of the Path-Goal model approach to leadership. However, their work was limited. House drew inferences of task certainty and satisfaction with work from job characteristics such as occupational level, e.g. higher level administrators had tasks with low certainty, an inference of satisfaction with work saying that higher level jobs were more satisfying than lower level jobs. Some of the hypothesized relation- ships between the satisfaction and leadership variables were not supported. Dessler did not find broad support for his hypotheses, nor did he investigate the relationship of leadership behavior and performance. The testing of the hypotheses on an a priori basis with measures specifically focusing upon the variables in the model, and the inclusion of motivation, should aid in the refinement of the Path-Goal model and increase the understanding of leadership. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant interaction effect among task repetitiveness, LIS, LC and 34 35 motivation such that: Satisfaction with work will be higher under conditions Of low task repetitiveness, high LIS, high LC and high motivation than under conditions of high task repetitiveness, low LIS, low LC and low moti- vation.l This hypothesis is supported by some empirical lit- erature. LC has been found to be positively related to satisfaction (Halpin and Winer, 1957; Nealey and Blood, 1968; Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Lowin, 1969). LIS and satisfac— tion have also been found to have a positive relationship (Halpin, 1957; Yukl, 1969a; Nealey and Blood, 1968; House, Filley and Kerr, 1971). Nealey and Blood (1968) found that LIS was positively related to satisfaction for first line supervisors. For second line supervisors, they found a neg- ative relationship between LIS and satisfaction. House (1971) explained the positive relationship as a result of the first line supervisor's need for guidance and direction. He surmised that they were relatively inexperienced on the job, therefore, lacked the necessary knowledge to perform their tasks. High LIS assisted the first line supervisors in their tasks and therefore increased satisfaction with work. On the contrary, the second line supervisors were experienced and knew their jobs. The guidance and direction from high LIS was not necessary and, therefore, did not increase satisfaction. lLeader consideration will now be referred to as LC and leader initiating structure will be called LIS. 36 Fleishman and Harris (1962), using workers from body assembly, body paint and assembly operation work groups, also found a negative correlation between satisfaction and high LIS. House, 23.31: (1970) in a study replicating Fleishman and Harris (1962), found a positive relationship between LIS and satisfaction. House (1971) argued that these incon- sistent findings were the result of the task. In the Fleish- man and Harris (1962) study, the tasks were routine, i.e. high in repetitiveness. In the House, et a1. (1970) study, the subjects were researchers and scientists who had non- routine tasks, i.e. low in repetitiveness. House suggested that on the low repetitiveness tasks, it was inferred that high LIS was positively related to satisfaction because it provided the guidance and direction for the scientists to complete their tasks. Whereas on the routine tasks, LIS was unnecessary and seen as excessive control and direction. The result was low satisfaction with high LIS. It is also predicted that high motivation will be associated with more satisfaction with work than low moti- vation, especially when the task has some variety. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant interaction effect among task repetitiveness, LIS, LC and motiva- tion such that: Performance will be higher under conditions of high task repetitiveness, high LIS, high LC and high motivation, than under conditions of low task repetitiveness, low LIS, low LC and low motivation. 37 There have been several studies supporting the posi- tive relationship between LIS and performance (Nealey and Blood, 1968; Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Fleishman, Harris and Burtt, 1955). In the Nealey and Blood (1968) study, performance increased under high LIS for both the first and second level supervisors, even though the second level supervisors had tasks which were less repetitive. Fleishman and Harris (1962) found a positive rela- tionship between LIS and performance for working with repetitive jobs. House (1971) stated that high LIS had a positive effect upon the performance of these tasks by pro- viding direction and control for the workers. Besco and Lawshe (1959) reported a positive rela- tionship between LC and performance in an organization where the jobs were highly automated and routinized. In terms of the Path-Goal model, it could be suggested that performance was high because high LC is a source of support to the employee, making his path to high performance easier to travel. Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant interaction effect among task independence, LIS, LC and motiva- tion, such that: Satisfaction with work will be higher under conditions of high task inde- pendence, high LIS, high LC and high motiva- tion, than under conditions of low task independence, low LIS, low LC and low motiva- tion. 38 The assumption is made by House (1971) that low levels of task independence are dissatisfying, and high levels of task independence are satisfying. High task independence provides more opportunity for the exercise of responsibility, initiative and job challenge. These are intrinsic outcomes which are positively related to satis- faction (Lawler, 1970; House and Wahba, 1972). High LC can produce high levels of satisfaction with work by providing social recognition and approval to the subordinate. Therefore, low LC and low task independence should result in low satisfaction with work. House (1971) suggested that high LIS will provide the necessary guidance and direction for tasks with high independence. The subordinate's knowledge and capacity to perform the task will increase. Satisfaction with work may also increase. Low LIS under high task independence may cause frustration, tension, and dissatisfaction. High motivation has been found to relate to high levels of satisfaction with work (Lawler, 1970). When it is combined with high LIS and high LC and high task inde- pendence, high motivation should result in high satisfac- tion with work. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4: There will be a significant interaction effect among task independence, LIS, LC and motiva- tion such that: Performance will be higher under conditions of low task independence, high LIS, high LC and high motivation than 39 under conditions of high task independence, low LIS, low LC and low motivation. According to the logic of the Path-Goal model, under low task independence the knowledge and capacity to meet the task requirements should be much greater than with high task independence. The supervisor is around more frequently under low task independence to provide the assistance needed to clarify tasks demands and insure direction and control. Performance will, according to the Path—Goal logic, be higher under low task independence, and high LIS (House, 1971). High LC, similarly, increases performance under task independence when making social approval, recognition, praise contingent upon the performance of the subordinate. If, as House assumes, low task independence is more dissat- isfying than high task independence, then the outcomes pro- vided by high LC should be more satisfying to the subordi— nate in a task of low independence because there are fewer alternative sources of job satisfaction. High motivation is expected to result in high performance (Vroom, 1964). The Measures This section reports the development of scales to assess leadership behavior, task structure, intrinsic out- comes, extrinsic outcomes, expectancies, satisfaction with work and performance. In general, items were drawn from existing instruments. However, some scales (i.e. task structure and the extrinsic outcomes) were designed for 40 this study. Each item pool was subjected to factor analysis to determine how items were related. The expectancies and the extrinsic outcomes were not factor analyzed, but used according to the method suggested by House (personal con- versation, 1973). Leadership Behavior A revised LBDQ (House, 1971) composed of 38 items instead of the 100 appearing in the LBDQ Form XII (Stogdill, 1965) was used. The items were scored on a Likert-type scale from one to five. The items asked the indi- vidual to rate from "very little" to "a great deal“ a description of his supervisor. The instructions were: Following is a list of items that may be used to des- cribe the behavior of your superior or supervisor. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior is desirable or undesirable. Although some items may appear similar, they express differences that are important in the description of leadership. Each item should be considered as a separate description. This is not a test of ability or consistency in making answers. Its only purpose is to make it possible for you to describe, as accurately as you can, the behavior or your supervisor. Note that the term "group" as used in the questions refers to a department, division, or other unit of organization that is supervised by the person being described. The term "members" refers to all the people in the unit of organization that are super- vised by him. Please indicate the extent to which you think best describes his behavior by circling the appropriate number: These following criteria were used to determine which items were included in each factor, in the leadership measure, as well as the other scales. 41 l. The degree to which each item correlated with the factor to which it was assigned. By examining the factor/item correlation matrix, items with factor loadings of .35 or less were dropped. This was done in order to maximize factor independence. 2. It was desirable to obtain factors with high levels of statistical independence. Efforts to minimize factor intercorrelation were made, dropping items which loaded heavily on one or more factors. 3. The number of factors was a function of the variance which could be explained by the different number of factors. The use of an additional factor was made only if it increased the total explainable variance of all the factors by at least .05 and if the item had psychological meaning. Similarly, factors were dropped when they contrib- uted less than 10 per cent of the total variance. 4. Items with negative values were reflected, which thus enables the factor to be more easily interpreted with the rest of the items in the factor (Nunnally, 1967). Ten items from the 38 original items were deleted in the final analysis. The remaining items were factor anal- yzed and two factors extracted accounted for 57 per cent of the variance. The intercorrelation between these two factors in the final analysis was .24 (See Appendix A for the factor analysis and items deleted). The following items included are in Table 1 below: 42 Table l.--Leadership behavior factors. Item Factor Loading Item Description Factor 1: Leader Consideration l .73 He shows he has confidence in his subordinate's ability to meet the objectives. 2 .77 He asks subordinates for their ideas and suggestions. 3 .80 He gives clear recognition for outstanding work. . 4 .77 He shows concern for the needs of the group members. 5 .69 The Objectives are clarified at the outset. 8 .61 He tries to get all members of the group involved in the dis- cussion of the problems. 9 .78 He praises subordinates whose performance was especially good. 10 .81 He makes an effort to be helpful. 11 .77 He lets subordinates know how they are doing throughout the task. 13 .75 He tries to suspend evaluation of alternatives until everyone has a chance to speak. 14 .80 He shows approval of subordi- nates who put forth their best effort. 15 -.61 He behaves as though others were not as smart or as com- petent as he is. 43 Table l.--Continued. Item Factor Loading Item Description 16 .69 He is pleasant when telling others what to do. 18 .70 He encourages continual improvement. 19 .83 He gives serious consideration to the ideas and suggestions of others. 20 .77 He gives recognition to sub- ordinates for improvement in their performance. 21 .80 He tries to make the task enjoyable. 22 .62 Members of the group know what is expected of them. Factor 2: Leader Initiation 6 .75 He tells subordinates about specific poor task perfor- mance. 7 .77 He lets his subordinates know about specific poor task per- formance. 12 .75 He gets on subordinates if their work is not as good as he thinks it should be. 17 .72 He reprimands subordinates whose performance is below his expectations. 23 .77 He is quick to let subordi- nates know when he thinks they are not performing well. 44 Table l.--Continued. Item Factor Loading Item Description 24 .52 He decides what shall be done and how it shall be done. 25 .35 He assigns group members to particular tasks. 26 .36 He schedules the work to be done. 27 .54 He asks that the group mem- bers follow standard rules and regulations. -28 .45 He encourages the use of uniform procedures. Clearly, the items which composed the first factor represented the concept of leader consideration (LC) as defined by Halpin and Winer (1957). The leader high in LC is one who provides support, concern and interest in the subordinates' welfare. He is also interested in rewarding good work, but avoids any negative feedback. The internal reliability2 of this scale is .90. Typical of these items was: 2For each factor an internal reliability was deter- mined by the use of coefficient alpha: R = 1—zs‘f- l 8Y2 (Nunnally, 1967, p. 196). 45 a. He encourages continual improvement; b. He is pleasant when telling others what to do; c. He shows concern for the needs of the group members. The second factor, Leader Initiating Structure (LIS), represents direction, role definition, role correction from deviations in the performance standards, negative feedback for poor performance, guidance and scheduling. The internal reliability of this scale was .88. Some examples of this factor are: . a. He assigns group members to particular tasks; b. He lets his subordinates know about specific poor task performance; c. He schedules the work to be done. Motivation It was desired to measure the level of motivation for each subject. This was done using an expectancy approach which takes into account the expectancies, the intrinsic and the extrinsic outcomes in the following manner: M = IVb + E1 (IVa + Z(E2EVn)) (House, 1971, p. 323). The meaning of the individual terms in this for- mula is: 46 M = The individual motivation to work IVb The intrinsic outcomes associated with task behavior IVa = The intrinsic outcomes associated with goal accomplishment E1 = The expectancy or the subjective probability estimate of each individual that his effort will result in successful performance. E2 = The eXpectancy or the subjective probability estimate of each individual that his performance as a result of E1 will result in attainment of extrinsic outcomes. House (1971) uses an expectancy model which is a modification of Vroom's motivation model (1964) and Porter and Lawler's (1968) approach in explaining why leader beha- vior is effective under different circumstances. In order to determine each individual motivation level, according to the above formula, it was necessary to derive measures of the intrinsic outcomes, the extrinsic out- comes and the expectancies. Intrinsic Outcomes Intrinsic outcomes refer to the subordinate's feeling of being skillful and a sense of pride from a job well done. A list of outcomes suggested by House (1971) were included in the questionnaire. This was done in order to determine the level of intrinsic outcomes perceived by each individual in his task. There were 57 items. Thirty assessed the intrinsic value of work behavior and 27 assessed the amount of intrinsic value associated with goal accomplishment. 47 The intrinsic value of goal accomplishment is the level of satisfaction attached to the feeling of goal accomplishment or the completion of a task, i.e. whether there is a great deal of pride and internal pleasure. The intrinsic value of task behavior measures the amount of pleasure and feeling of enjoyment while performing the task. Subjects responded on a scale from 1 to 3, indicat- ing the presence, absence or undecidedness of each outcome. The specific instructions were two types. For the IVa the instructions were: Think of how you usually feel immediately after accomp- lishing job ggals. How well does each of the following words describe your feelings? In the blanks beside each word, put: 1 if it describes the feelings you experience after completing a job goal if it does 39E describe them if you cannot decide [who For the IVb the instructions were: Think of what you are usually involved in and how you usually feel while carrying out your work. How well does each of the following words describe you at work? In the blank beside each word below, put: if it describes you at work if it does not describe you at work if you cannot decide luflwhe The first factor analysis resulted in two factors accounting for 21 per cent of the variance. There was extremely high intercorrelation of the factors (r=.69). An analysis of the factor item loadings revealed 24 items which either had small loadings or complex loadings and thus were drOpped (See Appendix B). 48 A second factor analysis of the remaining 23 items resulted in two factors accounting for 31 per cent of the variance. The intercorrelation of the two factors was .48. The first factor, Intrinsic Value of Goal Accomplish- E223 (IVa), describes the feeling of pride and accomplishment from completing a task well. The reliability of this scale was .80. Examples of items in this scale are: a. being skillful; b. meeting high standards; c. a sense of pride. The second factor, Intrinsic Value of Task Behavior (IVb), is characteristic of behavior which is associated with the work process. The processes and people that are associated with performing the task contribute to outcomes. The scale had a reliability of .84. Typical of the items are: a. trying to sell an idea; b. coordinating the efforts of others; c. supervising others. The items for IVa and IVb are listed with their factor loadings in Table 2. Expectangy The expectancy scale was derived from Dessler (1973). It was divided into two components: Expectancy 1 and Expectancy 2. Table 2.--Intrinsic outcomes. Item Factor Loading Item Description 11 13 14 15 16 10 Factor 1: Intrinsic Value of Goal Accomplishment (IVa) .49 .54 .52 .41 .42 .39 .62 .58 .51 .55 .33 .42 Of being skillful. Of satisfaction. That I have met high standards. Of increased importance. Of pleasantness. Of having completed a total task rather than only part of one. Of a sense of pride. That I have accomplished something significant. Achieving something signifi- cant. Meeting high standards. Able to measure my own per- formance. Happy. Factor 2: Intrinsic Value of Task Behavior (IVb) .42 .47 .55 That I have helped other people. That I have successfully spent my time convincing others what to do. That I can supervise a number of people. 50 Table 2.--Continued. Item Factor Loading Item Description 12 .64 That I have successfully managed other people. 17 .62 Persuading others. 18 .67 Supervising others. 19 .49 Telling others what to do and how to do it. 20 .58 Coordinating efforts of others. 21 .64 Trying to get others to COOp- erate. 22 .66 Trying to convince others. 23 .55 Trying to sell an idea. Expectancy l is defined as the probability relation- ship between effort and performance which the subordinate perceives. Expectancy 1 scale contained the following items: Putting forth as much energy as possible results in completing my work on time. Doing things as well as I am capable results in com- pleting my assignment on time. Trying as hard as I can leads to completing my work on time. Giving the job all I can leads to completing my work on time. 51 Putting forth as much energy as possible leads to my producing a high quantity of work. Doing things as well as I am capable leads to a high quantity of work. Trying as hard as I can leads to a high quantity of work. Giving the job all I can leads to a high quantity of work. Putting forth as much energy as possible leads to my producing highly professional work. If I work hard at my job, it is more likely that I will meet high standards of excellence. Doing things as well as I am capable leads to highly professional work. Trying as hard as I can leads to meeting standards of excellence here. Subordinates responded on a l to 5 scale for each item, and scores were obtained by summing the response of each indi- vidual. The internal scale reliability was .86. Expectancy 2 is defined as the probability rela- tionship between performance and reward which the subordinate perceives. In the model used, different components of Expectancy 2 must be weighted by different extrinsic val- ences. This subscale contained the following components: Recognition is the acknowledgment given to the worker for work well done. It was measured by the following items: The more my work approaches standards of excellence the more recognition I receive. Management gives me recognition when I produce a high quantity of work. Completing my work in a timely manner leads to recognition. The The The The 52 internal reliability for this subscale was .54. Security is the degree to which the subordinate is able to retain his job within the company. It was measured by the following items: When I accomplish my work goals on time, my job is more secure. Producing a high quantity of work here leads to job security. internal reliability for this subscale was .45. Promotion is the opportunity for advancement within the company when the subordinate does good work. It was measured by the following items: Highly professional work increases my chance for promotion. Handling a high quantity of work increases my chances for promotion. Getting the job done on time increases my chance for promotion. internal reliability of this subscale was .47. Pay is the amount of monetary reward which the sub- ordinate receives for doing a good job. It was measured by the following items: Producing highly professional work is rewarded with higher pay here. Producing a high quantity of work is rewarded with higher pay here. Getting work done on time is rewarded with higher pay. internal reliability of this subscale was .52. Influence in Decisions is the amount of influence which the subordinate has because of his high level of performance on the job. It was measured by the follow- ing items: Completing my tasks on time leads to more influence with the supervisors. The The The 53 Supervisors in this organization listen to those who do the most effective work. internal reliability of this subscale was .43. Pleasant Emplpyees describes the attitude of one's fellow employees when he does his work well. It was measured by the following items: Working with the other peOple on my job is more enjoyable when I get my job done on time. Fellow employees accept each other more if his or her work is very good. Getting my work on time leads to better relationships with my fellow workers. The people I work with are more enjoyable when I produce a high quantity of work. internal reliability of this subscale was .61. Job Challenge is the feeling of accomplishment from doing a task well. It was measured by the following items: Getting my job done on time leads to the experience of accomplishment. Producing a high quantity of work makes me more satisfied that I am achieving something. Producing highly professional work here gives me a sense of accomplishing something significant. internal reliability of this subscale was .36. Valence of Extrinsic Outcomes (EVn) are Extrinsic outcomes such as pay, security, promotion administered to the subordinate by people other than himself. The outcomes which were important to the individ- uals in the research sample were listed and presented in the 54 questionnaire.3 The participants were asked to rank the outcomes in terms of the importance of the outcome to them. The Specific instructions were: In this part of the questionnaire we are trying to identify what you think are the most important char- acteristics of a job to you personally. Please indicate how you would rank the importance Of the following job characteristics to you personally. Rank the items numerically, using 7 as the highest ranking and l as the lowest. Use each number 1 through 7 only once. Please rank all items, even though you may find it difficult to do so. The valence of each extrinsic outcome was determined from the rank assigned to each outcome. The seven extrinsic outcomes were: - Opportunity to earn more money - chances for subsequent promotion - recognition of your work by others - assurance that the job will not be eliminated - challenging work - opportunity to work with pleasant employees - opportunity to influence important decisions Note that each of these outcomes corresponds to each of one of the a priori Expectancy 2 subscales. Determination of Motivation Scores Using an adapted version of a motivation formulation proposed by House, motivation scores were computed. The formulation is stated: 3This researcher discussed possible extrinsic out- comes with several individuals from the organization. Then a list of the most relevant extrinsic outcomes was con- structed. Where IVb IVa El E2 55 M = IVb + El(IVa + )3 (E2EVn)) The individual motivation to work The intrinsic outcomes associated with task beha- vior. This score was derived by summing the 11 items derived in the factor analysis and described as the intrinsic outcomes associated with task behavior (IVb). The intrinsic outcomes associated with goal accomp- lishment. This score was derived by summing the 12 items derived in the factor analysis and described as the intrinsic outcomes associated with task accomplishment (IVa). Expectancy l or the subjective probability estimate of each individual that his effort will result in successful performance. The score was derived by summing the 12 items in the scale developed by Dessler (1973). Expectancy 2 or the subjective probability estimate of each individual that his performance will result in one of several possible rewards or outcomes. The several outcomes each have their own corresponding eXpectancy 2. Scores for each a riori E2 scale were multiplied by the ranking assigned to the valence for that outcome. These totals were then summed. An example is given below: Intrinsic outcome of task behavior score (IVb) 25 Intrinsic outcome of task accomplishment score (IVa) 30 Expectancy 1 Score 35 56 Expectancy 2 Subscale Score X EVn Rank Score Recognition 12 7 84 Promotion 15 6 90 Pay 12 5 60 Security 10 4 40 Influence in Decisions 15 3 45 Pleasant Employees 20 2 40 Job Challenge 10 l 10 Total Expectancy 2 Score 269 The motivation score is 10,465.4 Task Structure Task structure is composed of two dimensions, Task Independence and Task Repetitiveness. Task Independence des- cribes the degree of dependence of the employee on his super- visor and the organization for financial and non-financial resources. It also includes the amount of discretion the subordinate has in initiating the interaction with his supervisor and determining the methods and procedures to per- form his task. Task Repetitiveness describes the perceived work cycle. The more repetitiveness in the task, the shorter the work cycles. The task structure questionnaire was composed of 15 items. Nine of the items measured task independence and six measured task repetitiveness. The task independence and task repetitiveness items were developed by Wigdor (1969). (See Appendix C for the items which were deleted from the final analysis and the development of the factors.) The individual 4The range of motivation scores was 5,173 to 49,135. 57 was asked to respond on a five-point Likert—type scale from very seldom to a great extent. The specific instruc- tions were: The purpose of the following items is to seek a job description of the job on which you work. Included are descriptions of how independent you are on your job and how much variety you have. Please indicate the choice which best describes the characteristic of your job. These items were factor analyzed and two factors emerged. These two factors accounted for 47 per cent of the variance. These factors, however, correlated highly ‘with each other (r=-.45). Because of the high factor cor- relation, five complex items were dropped. Another factor analysis produced more conceptually distinct factors, reduced the factor intercorrelation, but also reduced scale relia- bilities. The correlation was -.31 and the variance accounted for was 49 per cent. The factor item content is shown in Table 3. The first factor, Task Repetitiveness, describes the repetitiveness Of the task demands and the extent of variety on the job. A high score on this factor indicates a high amount of repetitiveness. The internal reliability of this scale was .69. For example, some of the items were: a. How much variety is there in the work tasks which you perform? b. What is the average time it takes you to com— plete an assigned task? 58 Table 3.--Task structure factors. Item FaCtor Loading Item Description 10 11 12 13 14 15 Factor 1: Task Repetition .86 .66 .84 .52 Factor 2: Task Independence .74 .70 .59 .71 How repetitious are your duties on your present job? How much variety is there in the work tasks which you perform? Every job is confronted by certain routine and repetitive demands, what percent of the activities or work demands connected with your job would you consider to be of a rou- tine nature? What is the average time it takes you to complete an assigned task? To what extent are you able to act independently of your supervisor in performing your task functions? To what extent are you able to schedule and plan your task requirements independent of others in the organization? How often does the supervisor keep check on you and closely observe your work? To what extent do you control your job and pace of your work? 59 The second factor, Task Independence, describes the job situation in which the subordinate is independent from his supervisor over the control of his task and is allowed discretion concerning the interaction with his supervisor. A high score indicates a high amount of independence and discretion. The internal reliability was .61. Typical of the items were: a. To what extent do you control your job and the pace of your work? b. How often does the supervisor keep check on you and closely Observe your work? Satisfaction With Work The Job Description Inventory developed by Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) contains 18 items measuring job satisfaction (See Appendix E). Each item is a positive or negative statement about satisfaction with work. For example, some of the items are: a. Fascinating b. Routine c. Frustrating The specific instructions were given as follows: The purpose of this section of the questionnaire is to determine how you feel about your job and what you think are the most important aspects of work for you. You will be asked to describe your feelings about what job characteristics are important to you. All informa- tion that you provide will be kept strictly confidential. Many of the questions will be repeated, using slightly different phrasing. This repetition is not intended as 60 a check on your honesty or consistency. Rather, we have found that questionnaires yield more reliable information if the ideas are communicated in several different ways. Please answer one question at a time without thinking about your prior answers. The following sections deal with how you feel while working toward accomplishment of job goals pg while carrying out necessary tasks. Please indicate these feelings by checking the column with the number that most reflects your feelings while you are engaged in work activities. Think of your present job. What is it like most of the time? In the blank beside each word given below, write: 1 for "Yes" if it describes your work 2 for "No" if it does not describe it 3 if you cannot decide Smith, et a1. (1969) reported the scale reliability for job satisfaction items to be .84. Performance Criterion In order to assure that the performance levels of the employees in the sample could be compared across dif- ferent size groups, the Corporate Evaluators were used. The title Corporate Evaluator was given to reflect the description of individuals who were evaluating employees in a large section of the organization. The Corporate Evaluator came from a department within the organization which had extensive knowledge of the employees on the jobs and what their performance levels were. There were five corporate evaluators who were selected by the organization on the basis of their knowledge 61 of the employees in the sample. The entire sample was divided into approximately five equal groups. The exact division of the sample was determined by the Corporate Evaluators' knowledge of the employees. For the list of employees which each Corporate Evaluator had, he was asked to rank each of them from one to four. (See Appendix D for the instructions given to the evaluators.) This, in effect, located each subordinate's performance in relation to all of the other subordinates in the sample. Each subordinate in the total sample was, .therefore, assigned a rank from 1 to 4, with intervals of .5 allowed. That is, an employee could be given a 1.5 as well as a 3.0. The rank of 1 indicated the highest per- formance and 4 was the lowest performance. Methodology Analysis of variance will be used to test the hypotheses. A four-way experimental design will be used with two levels of each variable. The main effects are task repetitiveness, task independence, LC, LIS and motivation. Each of these was divided at the median into high and low categories. The dependent variables are satisfaction with work and perfor— mance. Because there are two dimensions of task structure which are hypothesized to interact differently with LIS, LC and motivation, each will be used in a separate analysis 62 of variance. The analysis will be made for each of the dependent variables. Therefore, there are four analyses. The four separate analyses of variance will be: 1. LC, LIS, subordinate motivation and task repe- tition with subordinate satisfaction with work. 2. LC, LIS, subordinate motivation and task repe- tition with corporate evaluators' ranking of subordinate performance. 3. LC, LIS, subordinate motivation and task inde- pendence with subordinate satisfaction with work. 4. LC, LIS, subordinate motivation and task inde- pendence with corporate evaluators' ranking of subordinate performance. When significant main effects or interaction effects are found, a post-hoc analysis of means will be performed. This determines which pairs or combinations of means was contributing to the significant F value. Of the several tests available, the Scheffé test will be used because it is able to handle both pair and complex comparisons at the same alpha level. It can be used with or without equal cell sizes. Additionally, since the Scheffé test is the most conservative, if significant differences are found, any other such test of mean differences will also find differ- ences (Kirk, 1972). 63 The Sample The Managerial Needs and Effectiveness Study Ques- tionnaire was administered to 391 employees consisting of managers in a large manufacturing organization at all levels, clerical workers, professional workers, technicians and blue collar workers (See Appendix E). They were selected by use of the organization's directory of employees, which con- sisted of 1500 employees. Every third individual was selected from the directory. From the list of 500, 50 were eliminated immediately because they had either moved to another unit in the company or had departed from the firm. Four hundred and fifty employees were sent a letter describ- ing the Questionnaire administration and asking them to vol- unteer themselves if they so desired. The questionnaire was administered during regular working hours. There were nine administrations over a period of three days. The individuals were sent letters, arranged times in which to come and complete the questionnaire. Fifty- nine individuals did not participate, reducing the sample to 391. Because of incomplete information in the responses, the final sample size was 354. From the job descriptions of the individuals in the sample, a majority of the jobs were apparently highly repeti- tive and low on task independence. There were 159 individuals with job descriptions of clerical, tradesman or technicians. Another 109 were top level clerical workers, foremen or 64 entry level professionals. The remaining 86 in the sample had jobs which were either top professionals (See chart below). Sample Characteristics Job Description 1. Clerical, tradesman, technician 2. Top clerical, foreman, entry level professional 3. Top level managers, and professionals Total sample individuals managers or Sample Size 159 109 86 354 CHAPTER III RESULTS Findings In this chapter the results of the statistical analy- sis are presented. Scheffé tests for differences in means follow the analysis of variance (when the F ratio is sig- nificant). Four hypotheses are tested and discussed below. Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1: There will be an interaction among task repetitiveness, LIS, LC, motivation such that: Satisfaction with work would be higher under conditions of low task repetitiveness, high LIS, high LC and high motivation, than under conditions of high task repetitiveness, low LIS, low LC and low motivation. Table 4 presents summary results testing Hypothesis 1. The hypothesized relationship among high motivation, high LC, high LIS and low task repetitiveness was not sup- ported. Instead, significant main effects were found for motivation (p<.0001), LC (p<.0001), and task repetitive- ness (p<.0001). The category means in Table 5 indicate that subordinates who were highly motivated were more satisfied with work than those subordinates who were less motivated. Subordinates who had supervisors who were high in LC were more satisfied with work than those subordinates who had supervisors who were low in LC. Finally, the more 65 66 Table 4.--Satisfaction with work/task repetitiveness. Degrees of Mean Freedom Square F Significance MOTIVATION 5845.273 73.984 <.0001 CONSIDERATION 4505.053 57.021 (.0001 INITIATION 1 149.383 1.891 <.l701 TASK REPETI- TIVENESS 1 4885.228 61.833 <.0001 MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION 1 422.745 5.351 <.021 MOTIVATION X INITIATION 1 122.269 1.547 <.214 MOTIVATION X TASK REPETITIVENESS 1 33.277 .421 <.517 CONSIDERATION X INITIATION 1 89.608 1.134 <.287 CONSIDERATION X TASK REPETITIVENESS 1 291.072 3.684 <.050 INITIATION X TASK REPETITIVENESS 1 35.783 .453 <.502 MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X 1 10.326 .131 <.718 INITIATION MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X 1 1.865 .024 <.878 TASK REPETITIVENESS MOTIVATION X INITIATION X TASK 1 27.707 .351 <.554 REPETITIVENESS CONSIDERATION X INITIATION X TASK 1 102.887 1.302 (.255 REPETITIVENESS MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X < 78 INITIATION X TASK 1 246.619 3.122 .0 REPETITIVENESS ERROR 338 79.007 67 Oo.mm mm.vv mm.mm mm.mv mo.mm om.m¢ hm.mm mo.vv Oh.mm mm.mv oo.mm Nv.mm mw.mm av.vm mm.vm mm.mm m®.Nm hH.Nv m®.Nm hH.Nv m©.Nm NA.NV m©.Nm hA.Nv m A m A m A m A mmm mmm mmm mmm m©.Nm hA.Nv m®.mm ha.mv mo.mm hA.Nv mo.mm hA.Nv m A m A m A m A mmm mmm mmm mmm mm.hm Am.©m mm.hm Hm.©m mHA mHA mm.hm Hm.©m mm.hm Hm.©m mHA mHA mh.Av va.mm 0A mh.A¢ vA.mm UA mm.Av AN.vm ZOHB<>HBOZ .xno3 ADHB coauommeDMm\wcmoE AAOUII.m mance 68 repetitiveness in the task, the less satisfying it was to the subordinate when compared to less repetitiveness in the task. Two interaction effects were found: between LC and task repetitiveness (p<.05) and between motivation and LC (p<.021). Scheffé tests are reported in Table 6, examining the interaction between different levels of LC and repetitive- ness . Table 6.--Schefféa tests for the interaction of LC and task repetitiveness for satisfaction with work.b Low LC-Low Repetitiveness versus High LC-High Repetitivenessb 40.42 v. 38.12 n.s. Low LC-Low Repetitiveness versus Low LC-High Repetitiveness 40.42 v. 28.80 Sig. Low LC—Low Repetitiveness versus High LC-Low Repetitiveness 40.42 v. 43.61 n.s. High LC-High Repetitiveness versus Low LC—High Repetitiveness 38.12 v. 28.80 Sig. High LC-High Repetitiveness versus High LC-Low Repetitiveness 38.12 v. 43.61 Sig. Low LC—High Repetitiveness versus High LC-Low Repetitiveness 28.80 v. 43.61 Sig. aThese Scheffé tests used the alpha level of .05. bThese Scheffé tests compared the mean of the depen- dent variable which is the weighted average of all the means in the cells where LC and task repetitiveness are low against the other mean of the dependent variable, which is the weighted average of all the means in the cells where LC and task repetitiveness are high. The figures shown in the Scheffé tables represent the weighted means of the dependent variable. This applies for all the Scheffé tests. 69 Table 6 shows six pairs of comparisons to determine significant interactions. Two comparisons are not signifi- cantly different, and four comparisons are significantly different. For a more understandable discussion of the Scheffé tests, Table 7 represents a summary of the combinations of consideration and repetitiveness. The presentation of the combination of consideration and repetitiveness is made by using group-levels. Within each group-level, the means of the combinations are not significantly different. However, among group-levels, the means are significantly different. The superscripts indicate group-levels which are the same and which are different. Combinations which have at least one common superscript are the same, while absence of a common superscript indicates a significant difference. Table 7.-—Summary Scheffé tests for the interaction of LC and task repetitiveness for satisfaction with work. Group Level 1 High LC-Low Repetitiveness 43.61a b Low LC-Low Repetitiveness 40.42a' Group Level 2 High LC-High Repetitiveness 38.12b'C Group Level 3 Low LC-High Repetitiveness 28.80C 70 The summary Table 7 indicates that subordinates who work under conditions of a highly considerate supervisor and low task repetitiveness are as satisfied with work as are subordinates who work under conditions of a low considerate supervisor and low task repetitiveness. However, the combi- nation of high LC-low task repetitiveness is more satisfy- ing than high LC-high repetitiveness and low LC-high repetitiveness. Subordinates are least satisfied with their work when they have a supervisor low in consideration and a task high in repetitiveness when compared to all other groups. This suggests that there is no optimal relationship between LC and task repetitiveness for job satisfaction. Both high LC—low repetitiveness and low LC-low repetitiveness are equally as satisfying. However, high LC-high repetitive- ness is less satisfying than high LC-low repetitiveness, but equal to low LC-low repetitiveness. Clearly, the least sat- isfying combination is low LC-high repetitiveness. The Scheffé tests are reported in Table 8, examining the interactions between motivation and LC. Table 8 indi- cates that there is only one pair of means which was not significantly different. For a more easily interpretable presentation of these Scheffé tests, Table 9 is a summary of the combinations of motivation and LC. Within a group- level there are no significant differences in the means. However, between levels the means are significantly different, as also indicated by the use of superscripts. 71 Table 8.-—Scheffé tests for the interaction of LC and motivation for satisfaction with work. Low Motivation-Low LC versus High Motivation-High LC Low Motivation-Low LC versus Low Motivation-High LC Low Motivation-Low LC versus High Motivation-Low LC High Motivation-High LC versus Low Motivation-High LC High Motivation-High LC versus High Motivation-Low LC Low Motivation-High LC versus High Motivation-Low LC 29.88 29.88 29.88 43.11 43.11 39.04 43.11 Sig. 39.04 Sig. 38.18 Sig. 39.04 Sig. 38.18 Sig. 38.18 n.s. Table 9.--Summary Scheffé tests for the interaction of LC and motivation for satisfaction with work. Group Level 1 High Motivation-High LC Group Level 2 Low Motivation-High LC High Motivation-Low LC Group Level 3 Low Motivation-Low LC 43.11a 39.04b 38.18b 29.88C 72 The results of Table 9 indicate that a highly moti- vated subordinate working for a highly considerate supervisor is more satisfied with work than the other combinations of motivation and LC. Persons not strongly motivated to work and who work for low considerate supervisors are least sat- isfied. When there is either high motivation or high con- sideration, there are moderate levels of satisfaction. This suggests that both motivation and consideration need to be high in order to attain the highest level of sat- isfaction. And the least satisfying condition is when both motivation and consideration are low. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant interaction effect among task repetitiveness, LIS, LC and motiva- tion such that: Performance would be higher under conditions of high task repetitiveness, high LIS, high LC and high motivation, than under conditions of low task repetitiveness, low LIS, low LC and low motivation. See Table 10 for the results of the analysis of var- iance test using performance as the dependent variable. The predicted four-way interaction of high LIS-high LC-high motivation-high task repetitiveness was not supported by the analysis of variance. Table 11 shows the performance scores under each of the conditions in the analysis of variance. There were two significant main effects and one three-way interaction. Table 10 shows that LC had a signif- icant (p<.0004) main effect on performance. Subordinates who perceived supervisors as being low in LC were rated 73 Table lO.--Performance/task repetitiveness. Degrees of Mean Freedom Square F Significance MOTIVATION 1 .175 .205 <.652 CONSIDERATION 1 11.118 12.976 <.0004 INITIATION 1 5.608 6.545 <.001 TASK REPETITIVENESS 1 .002 .003 (.958 MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION 1 .414 .484 <.487 MOTIVATION X INITIATION 1 13.889 16.210 (.0001 MOTIVATION X .TASK REPETITIVENESS 1 .025 .029 (.864 CONSIDERATION X INITIATION l .078 .092 (.763 CONSIDERATION X TASK REPETITIVENESS l .228 .266 (.606 INITIATION X TASK REPETITIVENESS 1 .057 .066 (.797 MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X 1 2.773 3.237 <.073 INITIATION MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X 1 1.548 1.807 <.179 TASK REPETITIVENESS MOTIVATION X INITIATION X 1 11.894 13.882 <.OOO3 TASK REPETITIVENESS CONSIDERATION X INITIATION X 1 .307 .358 <.550 TASK REPETITIVENESS MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION x < INITIATION X l .108 .126 .724 TASK REPETITIVENESS ERROR 339 .857 ho.N om.N mw.H NN.A mm.m Ah.m mH.N mb.H mh.A oo.A mH.N om.A mm.m Am.A mb.A mm.N mO.N AOO.N mO.N AOO.N mO.N AOO.N mo.m AOO.N mo.N AOO.N mo.N Aoo.m mo.N AOO.N mo.m Aoo.m 74 m A m A m A m A m A m A m A m A mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm 0H.N OO.N 0H.N OO.N ©A.N OO.N ©A.N OO.N m A m A m A m A mHA mHA mHA mHA vm.H mH.N vm.H mH.N m A m A DA UA ©O.N NO.N m A ZOHB<>HBOE .mocmfiyomuom\mcmm8 AAOUII.AA OAQmB 75 higher performers than subordinates who perceived their supervisors as being high in LC. Similarly, supervisors who were rated as being high in LIS had subordinates who were significantly (p<.001)higher in the level of perfor- mance than subordinates who had supervisors low in LIS. This suggests that workers actually performed better under high LIS. There could be no leniency effect because the subordinates' ranking of performance was not determined by the supervisors for whom the subordinates worked. The significant (p<.0003) three-way interaction was among motivation, LIS and task repetitiveness. Because of the complexity of a significant three—way interaction, a summary of the Scheffe tests is presented in Table 12 by grouping combinations of motivation, LIS and task repetitive- ness into levels. Within each of the three group-levels of comparisons, the combinations of motivation, LIS and task repetitiveness were not significantly different from each other. However, combinations of motivation, LIS and task repetitiveness between group-levels l and 3 are significantly different. There were no significant differences between group-levels l and 2 or between 2 and 3, as noted by the superscripts. This summary table indicates that there are seven combinations of motivation, LIS and task repetitiveness which show levels of performance that are not significantly dif- ferent. Only group-level 3 (high motivation-low LIS-low 76 task repetitiveness) is significantly different from group- level 1 combinations. These results suggest that the com- binations of high motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness lead to the lower performance ratings. Table 12.--Summary Scheffé tests for the interaction of motivation, LIS, task repetitiveness for performance.* Group-Level 1 High motivation-High LIS- High Task Repetitiveness 2.19a Low Motivation-Low LIS- a Low Task Repetitiveness 2.15 High Motivation-Low LIS- a High Task Repetitiveness 2.09 Low Motivation-High LIS- a High Task Repetitiveness 2.05 Group-Level 2 High Motivation-High LIS- a b Low Task Repetitiveness 1.95 ’ Low Motivation-Low LIS- a b High Task Repetitiveness 1.89 ' Low Motivation-High LIS- a b Low Task Repetitiveness 1.72 ' Group—Level 3 High Motivation-Low LIS- b c Low Task Repetitiveness 1.45 ' *The Scheffé tests are reported in Appendix G. 77 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant interaction effect among task independence, LIS, LC and motiva- tion such that: Satisfaction with work would be higher under conditions of high task inde- pendence, high LIS, high LC and high motivation, than under conditions of low task independence, low LIS and low LC and low motivation. Table 13 presents a summary of the analysis of vari- ance using satisfaction with work as the dependent variable. The hypothesized four-way interaction of high LC, high LIS, high motivation and high task independence did not occur. There were, however, two significant interaction effects: motivation-LC (p<.019) and LC-task independence (p<.0001). There were also three significant main effects. As indi- cated in Table 14, subordinates who had supervisors who were high in LC were significantly (p<.0001) more satisfied with their work than those subordinates with supervisors who were low in LC. Subordinates on tasks with high levels of inde- pendence were also significantly (p<.0008) more satisfied than subordinates on tasks with low independence. High sub- ordinate motivation also resulted in subordinates who were significantly (p<.0001) more satisfied with their work than those subordinates who were low in motivation. The Scheffé tests are shown in Table 15. This table examines the interaction between LC and task inde- pendence. 78 Table l3.--Satisfaction with work/task independence. Degrees of Mean Freedom Square F Significance MOTIVATION 1 5845.273 66.943 <.0001 CONSIDERATION 1 4505.053 51.594 <.0001 INITIATION 1 149.383 1.717 <.l91 TASK INDEPENDENCE 1 1018.247 11.662 <.0008 MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION 1 484.836 5.553 <.Ol9 MOTIVATION X INITIATION 1 35.809 .410 <.522 MOTIVATION X TASK INDEPENDENCE 1 55.299 .633 <.427 CONSIDERATION X INITIATION 1 123.811 1.418 <.235 CONSIDERATION X TASK INDEPENDENCE 1 1339.101 16.023 <.0001 INITIATION X TASK INDEPENDENCE 1 41.825 .479 <.489 MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X 1 22.489 .258 <.612 INITIATION MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X 1 277.458 3.178 <.076 TASK INDEPENDENCE MOTIVATION X INITIATION X 1 1.311 .015 <.903 TASK INDEPENDENCE CONSIDERATION X INITIATION X 1 .404 .005 <.946 TASK INDEPENDENCE MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION x 1 .0007 .000 <.998 INITIATION X TASK INDEPENDENCE ERROR 338 87.317 79 0A.mv mm.Av m©.m¢ mw.mv hm.ov A®.mm Hm.ov Am.mm AN.A¢ NA.mm Om.Av om.bm Am.vm om.vm mo.¢m mm.mm mm.mm m©.vm mm.mm m®.vm mm.mm m®.vm mm.mm m©.vm m A m A m A m A DZH QZH 02H DZH mm.mm m©.vm mm.mm m©.¢m m A m A DZH QZH mm.mm m©.vm mm.mm m©.vm m A m A OZH QZH mm.hm Am.om mm.hm Hm.©m mHA mHA mm.hm Hm.©m mHA mm.hm Am.©m mHA mn.Av vA.mm 0A mh.Av va.mm Mb.Av Am.vm ZOHB¢>HBOE .xmoB ADAB coAuommmAHMm\mcmoe AAOUII.vA OAQMB 80 Table 15.--Scheffé tests for the interaction of LC and task independence for satisfaction with work. Low LC-Low Independence versus High LC-High Independence Low LC-Low Independence versus Low LC-High Independence Low LC-Low Independence versus High LC-Low Independence High LC-High Independence versus Low LC—High Independence High LC-High Independence versus High LC-Low Independence Low LC-High Independence versus High LC-Low Independence 28.23 28.23 28.23 43.04 43.04 37.47 V. V. 43.04 37.47 41.56 37.47 41.56 41.56 Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. This table shows that all combinations of means were significantly different from each other except high LC-high independence versus high LC-low independence. A summary of these Scheffé tests is presented in Table 16. Table l6.--Summary of the Scheffé tests for the interaction of LC and task independence. Group-Level 1 High LC-High Independence High LC—Low Independence 43.04a 41.56a Group-Level 2 Low LC-High Independence 37.47 Group-Level 3 Low LC-Low Independence 28.23C 81 This summary table indicates that subordinates who work for supervisors who are highly considerate have the highest level of satisfaction regardless of whether the degree of task independence is high or low as indicated by the super- scripts. The least satisfying condition is when a subordi- nate works for a supervisor who has low consideration and his task is low in independence. Moderate satisfaction results when the supervisor is low in consideration, and the subordinate has high task independence. An examination of the interaction between the means Of the combinations of motivation and LC was also made by the Scheffé tests. The results of these tests are in Table 17 below. Table l7.--Scheffé tests for the interaction of motivation and LC for satisfaction with work. Low Motivation-Low LC versus High Motivation-High LC 29.31 v. 43.10 Sig. Low Motivation-Low LC versus Low Motivation-High LC 29.31 v. 39.10 Sig. Low Motivation-Low LC versus High Motivation-Low LC 29.31 v. 37.13 Sig. High Motivation-High LC versus Low Motivation-High LC 43.10 v. 39.10 Sig. High Motivation-High LC versus High Motivation-Low LC 43.10 v. 37.13 Sig. Low Motivation-High LC versus High Motivation-Low LC 39.10 v. 37.13 n.s. 82 The comparison of the means of low motivation-high LC versus high motivation-low LC was the only non-significant test. Summary Table 18 for these Scheffé tests is shown below. Table 18.—-Summary of Scheffé tests for the interaction of motivation and LC for satisfaction with work. Group-Level 1 High Motivation-High LC 43.10a Group-Level 2 Low Motivation-High LC 39.10b High Motivation-Low LC 37.13b Group-Level 3 Low Motivation-Low LC 29.31C This summary table shows one condition as the most satisfying. That condition is when highly motivated sub- ordinates work for supervisors who are highly considerate. The least satisfying situation is when the subordinate is low on motivation and works for a supervisor who is low on consideration. Moderate levels of satisfaction result from conditions where either motivation or LC is high. Of the conditions examined, it appears that the condition that tends to have the highest level of satisfac- tion is high motivation—high LC. If both of these conditions 83 are not met, the result will be a low level of satisfac- tion situation. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4: There will be a significant interaction among task independence, LIS, LC and motivation such that: Performance would be higher under conditions of low task independence, high LIS, high LC and high motivation than under condi- tions of high task independence, low LIS, low LC and low motivation. The analysis of variance results for this hypothesis using performance as the dependent variable are shown below .in Table 19. The results of the analysis of variance in 'Table 19 clearly show a significant four—way interaction. There were also two significant main effects: LC was sig- nificantly (p<.0004) related to performance. The cell means in Table 20 clearly show that high LC was associated with lower performance ranking of the subordinates than low LC. LIS is also significantly (p<.01) related to performance. That is, when the supervisor's behavior is high on direction and initiation the subordinates are ranked higher in their relative performance than when the supervisor's behavior is low in direction and initiation. The higher the LIS, the higher the performance rank. The Scheffé tests are presented in summary form in Table 21 by grouping combinations of motivation, LC, LIS and task independence into levels. The significant four- way interaction was not the hypothesized relationship of high motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task independence. 84 Table l9.--Performance/task independence. Degrees of Mean Freedom Square F Significance MOTIVATION l .175 .205 <.651 CONSIDERATION 1 11.118 13.002 <.0004 INITIATION 1 5.608 6.558 <.001 TASK INDEPENDENCE 1 1.707 1.996 <.159 MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION l .494 .578 <.448 MOTIVATION X INITIATION 1 13.902 16.258 <.0001 MOTIVATION X TASK INDEPENDENCE 1 .621 .726 <.395 CONSIDERATION X INITIATION 1 .096 .113 <.737 CONSIDERATION X TASK INDEPENDENCE l .015 .018 <.895 INITIATION X TASK INDEPENDENCE 1 .435 .509 <.476 MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X 1 .2938 3.437 <.O65 INITIATION MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION x 1 1.555 1.819 <.l78 TASK INDEPENDENCE MOTIVATION X INITIATION X 1 1.807 2.114 <.l47 TASK INDEPENDENCE CONSIDERATION X INITIATION X 1 2.957 3.458 <.064 TASK INDEPENDENCE MOTIVATION X CONSIDERATION X INITIATION X 1 5.384 6.296 <.013 TASK INDEPENDENCE ERROR 339 .855 85 AN.N AN.N mm.A m.A oo.m om.m No.N mN.N O.N mm. mm.A oo.N AA.N mA.N mN.N mw.A mo.N NH.N mo.m hA.N m .DZH m A .DZH mo.m hA.N mo.m hA.N m A m .QZH .QZH mo.N hA.N mo.m PA.N A m AA .QZH .DZH mo.N hA.N mO.N hA.N m A m A .DZH .QZH 0A.N oo.N MHA 0A.N oo.m mHA ©A.N oo.m mHA ©A.N oo.m mHA vm.A mA.N UA vm.A mA.N oo.N ZOHB¢>HBOE .OocmEMomumm\mcmmE AAOUII.ON OAQmB 86 Table 21.--Summary Scheffe tests for the interaction of motivation, LC, LIS, task independence for performance.* Group-Level 1 High Motivation-Low LC-High LIS-High Task Independence Group-Level 2 High Motivation-Low LC-High LIS-Low Task Independence High Motivation-Low LC-Low LIS-Low Task Independence Low Motivation-Low LC—Low LIS-High Task Independence High Motivation-High LC-High LIS-High Task Independence High Motivation-High LC-High LIS-Low Task Independence -Low Motivation-Low LC-High LIS-Low Task Independence Low Motivation-Low LC-High LIS-High Task Independence Low Motivation-High LC-High LIS-High Task Independence High Motivation—Low LC-Low LIS-High Task Independence Low Motivation-High LC-Low LIS-High Task Independence Group-Level 3 High Motivation-High LC-Low LIS-High Task Independence High Motivation—High LC-Low LIS-Low Task Independence Low Motivation-Low LC-Low LIS-Low Task Independence Low Motivation-High LC-High LIS-Low Task Independence Group-Level 4 Low Motivation—High LC-Low LIS-Low Task Independence 3.00 2.36 2.25 2.29 2.21 2.21 2.18 2.19 2.11 2.02 2.00 1.38C 1.50C 1.630 1.41C .83 *The Scheffé tests are reported in Appendix G. 87 The results of summary Table 21 indicate that the combina- tion of high motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indepen— dence results in significantly higher performance than any other combination of these variables. On the other hand, low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task independence results in significantly lower performance than any other combination of these variables. There are two moderate levels of performance rankings, superscripted b and c, which are also significantly different from all the other group levels. Summary There was a lack of support for the hypothesized interactions of motivation, LC, LIS and task structure, for satisfaction with work. This was true with task independence and task repetitiveness. There were significant interaction effects and main effects which were in agreement with the assumptions and predictions of the Path-Goal model. These will be discussed in detail in Chapter IV. LIS did not have, however, any effect upon subordinate satisfaction with work. There was a lack of support for the hypothesized interaction of motivation, LC, LIS and task repetitiveness for performance. High motivation-high LIS—high task repeti- tiveness was associated with the highest performance ranking. It is interesting to notice, however, that the second highest performance level was low motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness. Close examination of the Scheffé tests 88 revealed that subordinate motivation was crucial in under- standing the effects of LIS and task repetition. In the hypothesis using motivation, LC, LIS and task independence with performance, there was a significant four- way interaction. It was contrary to the hypothesized inter— action, however. The highest performance conditions were usually with low LC. Subordinate motivation, LIS and task independence interacted in the predicted manner (i.e. high motivation-high LIS-low task independence resulted in higher performance) but only when the subordinate motivation was high. However, opposite conditions of task independence, LIS and subordinate motivation were also associated with similar performance levels. The effect of the subordinate level of motivation was helpful in understanding the pattern of interaction of motivation, LC, LIS and task independence for performance. Interpretation of these findings and their theoreti- cal support for the Path-Goal model of leadership will be discussed in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter the results of the analyses are sum- marized and then discussed in relation to the predic— tions of the Path-Goal model. The presentation is made by grouping the task dimensions and the subordinate motivation variables and focusing upon the leadership behavior vari- ables of LC (leader consideration) and LIS (leader initia— tion). Some practical implications of these findings are suggested. From the results of this research, some revised propositions are also offered. Finally, the limitations of the research and directions for future studies are sug- gested. Satisfaction with Work High Task Repetitiveness There was a significant interaction effect between LC and task repetitiveness. Under high task repetitiveness, high LC resulted in a moderate level of satisfaction, less than the level of satisfaction from high leader considera- tion and low task repetitiveness, but not significantly different from the level of satisfaction from low leader consideration and low task repetitiveness. With high task 89 90 repetitiveness, low leader consideration was associated with the lowest level of satisfaction (see Table 7). Therefore, with high task repetitiveness, only high leader consideration is associated with a positive influence on subordinate satisfaction (see Table 22). Table 22.-~Summary table for level of satisfaction with work. Task Subordinate Task Repetition Motivation Independence High Low High Low High Low High Mod. High High Mod. High High LC Low Low Mod. Mod. Low Mod. Low l Low Task Repetitiveness Under low task repetitiveness, the subordinates reported high levels of satisfaction when their supervisors were viewed as highly considerate (see Table 22). Simi- larly, when the subordinates worked on tasks with low repetitiveness, and their supervisors were seen as less considerate, the subordinates experienced moderate levels of satisfaction. Low task repetitiveness with leaders high on consideration was related to greater amounts of subordi- nate satisfaction than either high leader consideration with high task repetitiveness or low leader consideration with 91 high task repetitiveness. The lowest level of satisfaction was associated with low consideration from the supervisor while the subordinate worked on a highly repetitive task. Therefore, the most effective method by which to have the highest level of subordinate satisfaction is to have the subordinates work on tasks of low repetitiveness with highly considerate supervisors. High Task Independence A significant interaction effect occurred using -task independence and leader consideration. Under high task independence and high leader consideration, high levels of satisfaction were indicated by the subordinates. Subordi- nates working on tasks with high independence, but with less considerate supervisors, experienced less satisfac— tion than if their supervisors were more considerate (see Table 16). This suggests that high leader consideration with high task independence is more satisfying than low leader consideration with high task independence. Low Task Independence A high level Of satisfaction, however, also occurred under low task independence for the supervisors viewed as highly considerate (see Table 22). If the task had a low degree of independence, less considerate super- visors were seen by the subordinates as less satisfying than highly considerate supervisors. Therefore, when the 92 tasks have a low degree of independence, a high level of subordinate satisfaction occurs only with supervisors who are highly considerate. It thus appears that high subordi- nate satisfaction can be attained when there is a high or low degree of task independence as long as the leader is highly considerate. Therefore, high task independence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the highest level of satisfaction. The degree of task independence is not as strongly related to subordinate satisfaction as task repetitiveness because with task repetitiveness the only situation of high satisfaction was associated with high leader consideration and low task repetitiveness. High task repetitiveness and high leader consideration was associated with only a moder- ate level of subordinate satisfaction. This may occur because task repetitiveness can involve intrinsic outcomes, such as variety and task identity, while task independence refers to extrinsic outcomes of the task, such as the relationship between the subordinate and supervisor. Since intrinsic outcomes are more highly related to satisfaction than extrinsic outcomes, there may be more of an effect on satisfaction from task repetitiveness than task indepen- dence (House and Wahba, 1972). High Subordinate Motivation There was a significant interaction between motiva— tion and leader consideration. The highly motivated 93 subordinates were the most satisfied when they worked for highly considerate supervisors (see Table 22). When their supervisors were less considerate, the highly motivated subordinates were less satisfied than when their super- visors were more considerate (see Table 9). This suggests that when dealing with highly motivated subordinates, the more considerate supervisors will have more satisfied sub- ordinates than less considerate supervisors. Low Subordinate Motivation Low motivated subordinates, working with highly considerate supervisors, reported a moderate amount of sat- isfaction which was equivalent to the satisfaction reported by highly motivated subordinates working for less con- siderate supervisors. However, the least satisfied subor- dinates were those who were low in motivation and worked for less considerate supervisors. This indicates that less motivated subordinates are more likely to evidence low satisfaction than highly motivated subordinates. Even with highly considerate leaders, low motivated subordinates do not report as high a level of satisfaction as highly moti— vated subordinates with highly considerate supervisors. The highly motivated subordinates reported more satisfaction because they had higher job expectancies and greater amounts of intrinsic outcomes than less motivated subordinates. 94 Conclusions LIS did not interact with LC, motivation, task independence or task repetitiveness to affect subordinate satisfaction as hypothesized. For the tasks with high independence, it might be that high LIS did not affect satisfaction because the subordinates' abilities were suf- ficient to solve the task requirements. The task require- ments and the subordinates' abilities may have been more important than the supervisor's behavior. Thus, leader initiation could have limited impact on satisfaction because it was not related to the subordinates' path-goal instru- mentalities (Evans, 1970). Under conditions of low task independence and high LIS, low levels of satisfaction were not reported, contrary to the Path—Goal model. It may be that subordinates react favorably to the structure in their work environments with attendant low role ambiguity. High amounts of structure were provided by both high LIS and low task independence. This suggests that individual prefer- ence and difference variables may also be important to consider in leadership research. With low task repetitiveness, high LIS may not have provided any needed direction and guidance to the subordi- nates to attain their work goals and satisfaction as the Path-Goal model suggests. Perhaps policies and procedures existed in the organization which the subordinates could follow to complete their tasks, making leader initiation 95 irrelevant (Besco and Lawshe, 1959). This also indicates that even with high task repetitiveness, high LIS might not generate resentment and dissatisfaction from being seen as excessive direction and control as suggested by the Path- Goal model. Possibly the subordinates did not interpret the high leader initiation as redundant and frustrating to cause dissatisfaction, but merely as unnecessary. Performance There was a significant three-way interaction among motivation, LIS and task repetitiveness for subordinate performance. Leader consideration failed to interact with motivation, LIS and task repetitiveness for subordinate performance as hypothesized in the Path-Goal model, i.e. the highest performance condition was predicted to be associated with high motivation, high leader initiation, high leader consideration and high task repetitiveness. High Subordinate Motivation and High Task Repetitiveness When highly motivated subordinates worked on tasks which they perceived as highly repetitive and with super— visors high in initiating behavior, the subordinates were reported as having high performance (see Table 23). The same was true for subordinates working on highly repetitive tasks who had supervisors low in initiating behavior (see Table 12). Apparently, the high structure of the job provided by high task repetitiveness was sufficient 96 to guide the subordinates' behavior without the assistance of the supervisors. Under conditions where there are highly motivated subordinates working on highly repetitive tasks, leader initiation behavior may not be an important variable affecting the subordinates' performance. Table 23.—-Summary table for level of performance/task repetitiveness. Task Repetitiveness 'High Low Motivation LIS High Low High Low High High High Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate Low High High Subordinate Motivation and Low Task Repetitiveness The leader's initiating behavior is more important, however, for highly motivated subordinates working on tasks with a low degree of repetitiveness. The structure which was previously provided by the job from high task repetitive— ness is reduced here. Some direction and guidance are needed by the subordinates as evidenced by the difference in subordinate performance under a highly initiating super- visor versus a less initiating supervisor. The lowest level 97 of performance for highly motivated subordinates was associ- ated with low task repetitiveness and high leader initiation, i.e. some structure. Perhaps the highly motivated subor- dinates require guidance and direction for successful per- formance, and perform better when the guidance and direction come from the task dimension, not supervisory behavior. This point is treated more extensively later on in the section dealing with the consistency of these results in comparison to the Path-Goal predictions. Low Subordinate Motivation and Low Task Repetitiveness For the less motivated subordinates, working on tasks with low repetitiveness and for supervisors who pro— vide little structure (i.e. low initiation) seems to pro— vide a good opportunity for subordinates to perform well. However, when the supervisors are more initiating, the less motivated subordinates on tasks with low repetitiveness perform less well. The less motivated subordinates, on tasks with low repetitiveness, perform better with low LIS than with high LIS. Perhaps the less motivated subordinates prefer to work at their own pace. If this is the case, they may View their supervisors' attempts to initiate task behavior as undesirable and perform less effectively (Dessler and House, 1973). 98 Low Subordinate Motivation and High Task Repetitiveness The less motivated subordinates perform well when the task is highly repetitive and when the supervisor is highly initiating. The subordinates, however, working on highly repetitive tasks, perform just as well when the supervisor is less initiating as when he is highly initiat- ing. They attain the same level of performance as highly motivated subordinates on highly repetitive tasks, also regardless of the level of leader initiation. The leader's behavior in the situation of high task repetitiveness with less motivated subordinates is of less importance than where the subordinates have low motivation and their tasks are low in repetitiveness. Structure from the task may be seen as less personal and arbitrary and less harrassing than structure from the supervisor. And as long as struc- ture comes from the task, additional structure from the supervisor does not hinder the performance of the less moti- vated subordinates. This issue of structure is further discussed in the section examining the consistency of the results with the Path-Goal model. Conclusions Leader consideration did not interact with motiva- tion, leader initiation and task repetitiveness as pre- dicted. Perhaps leader consideration was not viewed by the individuals in this research as smoothing the route to performance, or making the task more enjoyable for the 99 subordinates as the Path-Goal model suggests. Low leader consideration, on the other hand, did not hinder the sub- ordinates' performance. This suggests that the subordi— nates may not have reacted to considerate behavior, whether it was given or withheld, by the supervisor. It is also reasonable to question the Path-Goal hypothesis that high leader consideration will smooth the routes which the sub- ordinates encounter in order to perform their tasks. Con- siderate behavior may result in warm feelings, but since it is not goal directed, will probably not smooth the path Ito results. High Subordinate Motivation and High Task Independence Motivation, leader behavior and task independence did relate to subordinate performance, but not in the man- ner predicted by the Path—Goal model. There were, however, four significantly different levels of performance for dif- ferent combinations of motivation, LC, LIS and task inde- pendence (see Table 21). Under high task independence, the highly motivated subordinates perform best when their supervisors are highly initiating and low on consideration (see Table 24). How- ever, under high task independence, the highly motivated subordinates perform less well when their supervisors are highly considerate and highly initiating or when their supervisors are less considerate and less initiating. 100 Table 24.--Summary table for level of performance/task independence.a LC High Low Independence Independence High Low High Low Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation High Low High Low High Low High Low . Mod. Mod. Mod. Low High Mod. Mod. Mod. High 1 l 1 l 1 1 LIS Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Mod. Low 2 l 2 l 2 l 2 l aThere are four levels of performance: High, Moderate 1, Moderate 2, Low. Under the conditions of high task independence with highly motivated subordinates, when leader consideration was high the subordinates' and leader initiation was low, performance was lower than the above conditions. So highly motivated individuals on highly independent tasks may react negatively to low structure and low consideration. Perhaps the highly motivated people are very task oriented and preferred leader behavior (i.e. some structure) which best aids them in their attainment of task objectives. 101 High Subordinate Motivation and Low Task Independence Leader behavior which is highly structuring and less considerate positively influences performance for highly motivated subordinates on tasks with low degrees of inde— pendence. However, the performance of the highly motivated subordinate is also positively effected under low task independence when the supervisors' behavior is character- ized as low in consideration and low in structure or high in consideration and high in structure. The performance of the highly motivated subordinates benefited least from highly considerate supervisors who provided little struc- ture on tasks with low independence. Contrasting the low task independence with low task repetitiveness, highly moti- vated subordinates may work better when structure comes only from the supervisors, not the task. Low task independence may provide more structure and less discretion than the highly motivated subordinates desire. It may put the sub- ordinates into more frequent personal contact with the supervisors than under high task repetitiveness. The highly motivated subordinates possibly perceive low super- visory consideration as more task oriented than high super- visory consideration and perform better with the former condition (Evans, 1970). 102 Low Subordinate Motivation and Low Task Independence The influence on subordinates' performance was dif- ferent when the subordinates were less motivated and the tasks had low levels of independence. The higher perfor- mance occurred when the less motivated subordinates on tasks with low independence had supervisors who were low on consideration and high on initiation. Under the same task condition (low independence), for less motivated subordinates, performance was less favorably influenced when the supervisors' behaviors were either low in consid- eration and low in initiation or high in consideration and high in initiation. The least favorable performancesitu- ation existed when the leaders were highly considerate and less initiating for the less motivated subordinates on tasks with low independence. This suggests that the leaders' initiation and consideration behaviors may be crucial for the less motivated subordinates' performance when they are working on tasks of low independence. In particular, high leader initiation behavior and low consideration is better for the subordinates' performance. Low Subordinate Motivation and High Task Independence When high independence characterizes the tasks, the influence of the supervisor's behavior on the performance of the less motivated subordinates is negligible. Regard- less of the combinations of the leaders' behavior 103 characterized as consideration and initiation, the level of the less motivated subordinates' performance working on tasks with high independence is the same. In contrast to the situation of low motivation and high task independence, the supervisors' behavior may be less important because of the additional discretion given the less motivated subordi- nates under high task independence. When the less moti- vated subordinates had some discretion on their tasks, they were less likely to be resentful and reduce output. Conclusions Supervisory consideration again failed to interact in the predicted pattern with motivation, LIS and task independence for subordinate performance. Low leader con- sideration, not high consideration as predicted by the Path-Goal model, was associated with the highest level of performance in interaction with high subordinate motivation, high leader initiation and high task independence. High leader initiation has been shown to be related to perfor- mance because of its emphasis upon the achievement of task goals (Fleishman, e£_al., 1955). Low leader consideration may have been seen as negative reinforcement and perfor- mance was a method to avoid it. Performance was instru- mental to avoiding low leader consideration (Evans, 1970). High leader consideration may have distracted the subordi- nates from their performance. The subordinates may also 104 have interpreted high consideration by the supervisors as a lack of concern for performance. It should be noted that the highest levels of per- formance for highly motivated subordinates occurred under conditions of high task independence, not low task inde- pendence as hypothesized. This suggests that subordinates may prefer some discretion on their tasks and, when given the discretion perform better than under less discretion. The discretion may be a source of intrinsic satisfaction positively influencing subordinate performance (House and Wahba, 1972; Hackman and Lawler, 1971). The Path-Goal rationale was that performance would be higher under low task independence than high task independence because there would be more direction and guidance for the subordinate; however, low task independence would also be less satis- fying than high task independence. As a result, the sub- ordinate may withdraw from his situation and performance would be reduced. This withdrawal could be prevented, however, by an additional imposition of control and direc- tion by a highly initiating supervisor. Evidently, high leader initiation with low task independence was too frus- trating and dissatisfying and the subordinate withdrew despite the presence of the supervisor. This is discussed further in the section below. 105 Consistency of the Results With the Path-Goal Model Predictions Satisfaction With Work Task Repetitiveness The Path-Goal model predicts that for tasks with low repetitiveness, high leader initiation would be related to high performance since it will provide direction and guidance to assist the subordinate in the completion of his tasks. This, in turn, will be associated with high satisfaction with work. The results (see Table 4) indicated that leader initiation had no such relationship to subordi- nate satisfaction. However, contrary to previous research (Nealey and Blood, 1968), leader initiation was not nega— tively related to subordinate satisfaction. The Path-Goal hypothesis that under high task repetitiveness, high leader initiation would be redundant and, therefore, dissatisfy- ing was not supported. Leader initiation did not have the affect predicted by the Path-Goal model. This may have resulted under the conditions where the subordinates knew their tasks well even though the tasks had low repetitiveness. If the sub- ordinates have high ability, the leaders may become a less important determinant of subordinates' performance (House and Dessler, 1973). High leader initiation would not pro- vide any needed direction and guidance. If the task is highly repetitive, high leader initiation is hypothesized to be related to dissatisfaction 106 because of excessive control and direction. Excessive con- trol and direction would also have existed under low task repetitiveness and high leader initiation if the subordi- nates were competent. The results, however, suggest that high leader initiation may not be seen as over—control and direction. Subordinates' preferences may be important to consider in further leadership research also. High leader consideration was predicted by the Path-Goal theory to provide psychologically satisfying out— comes, e.g. recognition, praise, positive feedback. The data (see Table 6) indicate that there was higher satis- faction under high leader consideration and low task repet- itiveness than under low leader consideration and high task repetitiveness. Thus, as found by other research (e.g. Vroom, 1960; Tosi, 1970), leader behavior in which leader behavior is seen as participative by subordinates is consistently related to satisfaction. Task Independence The Path-Goal model hypothesizes that when tasks have high independence, subordinate satisfaction will be higher when direction and guidance are present. High leader initiation should provide this direction and guid- ance in order that the subordinates may perform their tasks and achieve the satisfying outcomes from their performance. In this study, however, high leader initiation with high task independence did not have this effect. Nor was high 107 leader initiation associated with low satisfaction under either high or low task independence. Perhaps high leader initiation was not seen as excessive by the subordinates, but providing just the right amount of structure and direction by the subordinates. Perhaps high leader initiation was not seen by sub- ordinates on the highly independent tasks as needed to achieve successful performance. Therefore, high leader initiation would not have affected satisfaction in the man- ner predicted by the Path-Goal model. High leader initia- tion may not have been needed because the subordinates were competent and/or policies and procedures existed by which tasks could be completed without the assistance of the leader. Similarly, high leader initiation did not have a negative relationship to satisfaction under conditions of low task independence. The Path-Goal model predicts that dissatisfaction will be associated with high leader initiation and low task independence because low task independence is characterized by low subordinate discretion. Low subordinate discretion and high control and direction from high leader initiation are dissatisfying. High leader consideration is predicted by the Path- Goal theory to be related to high satisfaction when it occurs under conditions of high task independence. The Path-Goal rationale is that high leader consideration pro- vides satisfying outcomes. In addition, when combined with 108 tasks characterized by high independence, which should pro- vide job outcomes such as challenge and responsibility, satisfaction should be substantially increased. Under con- ditions of high leader consideration and high task inde- pendence a high level of satisfaction occurred, consistent with the predictions of the Path-Goal model (see Table 16). Performance Task Repetitiveness From the Path-Goal model, high performance is hypothesized to occur with high leader initiation and high task repetitiveness. This occurs because high leader initiation provides direction and control for the subordi— nate. There occurred a distinct pattern of interaction between leader initiation and task repetitiveness relating to performance (see Table 12). These patterns are dis- tinguished by the level of subordinate motivation. A low level of performance occurred under conditions where the subordinates were highly motivated, working on tasks with low repetitiveness and who had supervisors who were low in initiation. This level of performance was significantly less than conditions where the subordinates were highly motivated, worked on highly repetitive tasks and for leaders who were either high or low in initiation. Also, the less motivated subordinates with low leader initiation on less repetitive tasks or with high leader initiation on highly repetitive tasks performed better than the highly motivated 109 subordinates working on tasks with low repetitiveness and who had supervisors who were low in initiation. These results suggest that leader initiation is performing in the manner hypothesized by the Path-Goal model, but only for highly motivated subordinates. Perhaps the highly motivated subordinates require or expect more direction and control than low motivated subordinates. The highly motivated subjects may have common under- lying personality characteristics which cause them to react positively to direction and control, while less motivated subordinates working under conditions of high task repeti- tiveness react adversely to direction and control. The effects of subordinate personality and needs in leadership and motivation literature have been demonstrated and sug- gested for inclusion in research on the Path-Goal model (Vroom, 1960; Tosi, 1970; House and Dessler, 1973). Leader consideration was predicted by the Path- Goal model to be positively associated with high perfor- mance under high task repetitiveness. The reasoning is that high leader consideration is a source of pleasant outcomes such as praise and recognition. This is espe- cially true for highly repetitive tasks, which lack the intrinsic sources of outcomes found in low task repetitive- ness (House, 1971). High leader consideration provides sources of satisfaction and can make the path to perfor- mance more pleasant to travel. High task repetitiveness 110 does not require additional direction and guidance from the leader in order for the subordinates to meet their task requirement since the job is fairly well defined by the task condition. The results of the analysis do not support this hypothesis from the Path-Goal model. High leader consid- eration may not have been seen as a source of satisfying outcomes or if it was, then these outcomes were unrelated to performance. If the path to performance was sufficiently satisfying, then additional praise and recognition from the .leader may have had little effect on satisfaction. Perhaps high leader consideration may be a satisfying condition to work under but conditions which are highly satisfying may not lead to high performance. Task Independence The Path-Goal model predicts that high leader initiation will provide direction and control for tasks of low independence. House (1971) assumed that these tasks were dissatisfying. The subordinates would, therefore, seek to avoid their tasks in order to avoid dissatisfaction. Performance would be low. However, high leader initiation imposes direction and control over the subordinates to preclude their avoidance of the task. Performance will, therefore, be high. However, for tasks with high inde- pendence, high leader initiation results in high performance 111 by providing guidance and direction to assist the subor— dinates in their task requirements. The data presented indicate that high, not low, task independence was associated with the highest performance (see Table 21). Low task independence was associated with the lowest performance level. Higher performance occurred with conditions of high leader initiation on tasks seen as highly independent. However, under low task independence, performance was significantly lower than under high task independence. ‘ Higher levels of performance may have been asso- ciated with high task independence because high task inde- pendence provided more intrinsic outcomes than low task independence. Intrinsic outcomes have been demonstrated to be related to performance (Lawler, 1970; House and Wahba, 1972) and under high task independence, the direction and guidance from high leader initiation may have been needed by the subordinates but seen as unnecessary under low task independence. This would follow the Path-Goal logic. Per- formance under high task independence would have benefited from the intrinsic outcomes and the direction and guidance from high leader initiation. It is also possible that the high performing subordinates who knew their jobs, saw the behavior of their supervisors as highly task oriented. Therefore, they would have scored them as being high on leader initiation. 112 A further examination of the data (see Table 21) reveals some other interesting four-way interaction patterns. The highest performance occurred with highly motivated sub- ordinates working on tasks with high independence for super- visors who were low in consideration and high in initiation. The second highest level of performance occurred with highly motivated subordinates working on tasks with low independence and for supervisors who were high in initiation and low in consideration. This was, however, significantly different from the highest level of performance. In the first case, there was only one type of direction and control and it was provided by high leader initiation. However, when the sub- ordinates were under high leader initiation and low task independence, they had two forms of direction and control. Two sources of control and direction are possibly seen as excessive and frustrating. The highly motivated subordinates performed better with just one form of control and direction, in particular, when it emanated from the task. For the less motivated subordinates, another pattern of relationships occurred. The highest performance was associated with low leader initiation and high task independence, i.e. low direction and control. This performance level was significantly below the combination of high motivation, low leader con- sideration, high leader initiation and high task inde- pendence, but equal to high motivation, low leader consider- ation, high leader initiation and low task independence. 113 The less motivated subordinates, however, performed as well under low direction and control (low LIS and high task independence) as under high direction and control (high LIS-low task independence). Although the subordinates did do as well without the direction and control as they did with it, perhaps they did well for different reasons. The direction and control from high leader initiation and low task independence obligated them to perform. They could have resented the imposition of two sources of control and reduced their performance. Without direction and control they were able to work as well as with it, and perhaps they were less resentful. Their performance level, however, was lower than the highly motivated subordinates because they were less motivated to work than the highly motivated sub— ordinates. High leader consideration is hypothesized by the Path-Goal model to interact with low task independence and result in high performance. The results were the opposite of the Path-Goal predictions, and inconsistent with previous research (Besco and Lawshe, 1959). It is shown that low leader consideration was associated with the lowest per- formance (Table 21). Low leader consideration may have been perceived as more task oriented and rated as such by high performing subordinates. 114 Limitation of Research Ability Was Not Measured Measures of subordinates' abilities were not included. If subordinates have high levels of abilities, the need for direction and guidance from the leader may be substantially reduced. High leader initiation may not have been perceived as providing needed direction and guidance since the work situation might be such that the subordi- nate may have had the ability to solve the task require- ments. Consequently, the leader's behavior may have had .little effect on task performance and satisfaction. Individual Personality Differences Nor were measures of personality or need differ- ences, such as the needs for affiliation, power and achieve- ment, included in this research. Personality differences and need differences may explain when subordinates will react favorably or unfavorably to conditions of high leader initiation and low task independence or high leader initiation and high task repetitiveness. Personality dif— ferences may explain why highly motivated subordinates work better with direction and control than low motivated subor- dinates (House and Dessler, 1973). Causal Inferences From Data It was not possible to say that leadership behavior with certain task dimensions for the highly or less motivated 115 subordinates resulted in high or low subordinate satisfac- tion or resulted in high or low subordinate performance. Because this field survey research gathered data on these variables at a single point in time, only statements of relationships and not causality could be made. Objective Measures of Task Characteristics Objective measures of task independence and task repetitiveness were not obtained in this research. It is possible that the range of task repetitiveness was not .1arge enough to detect significant differences between low and high leader initiation for low and high task repeti- tiveness conditions.5 Leader initiation would then be having the same effect for all tasks in the sample if the real range were narrow. The results of the analyses sug- gest that perhaps these findings and interpretations may only be applicable to environments which have tasks with a narrow range of objective task repetitiveness and inde- pendence if the real range is narrow. 5Range refers to the difference between the highest and lowest scores on the perceived task repetitiveness (independence) scales. The size of the range is a func- tion of individual perceptions and the objective task characteristics. Although this research sample had dif— ferent job types, the objective task repetitiveness and independence may have been narrow. The means for the high and low groups indicate that it was quite possible. The low repetitiveness group had a mean of 8.22 and the high group had 12.89. The high independence group had a mean of 17.01 and the low group had 11.37. The total possible range for repetitiveness and independence was 4 to 20. 116 Evaluation of Performance Another limitation of the research may be the method of performance evaluation by the use of Corporate Evaluators. These Corporate Evaluators were removed from the subjects' daily operations, but indicated that they were familiar with the performance of the subjects. The method of using Corporate Evaluators is similar to the field review method of performance evaluation. Both methods have similarly trained individuals to evaluate the work of the subjects. Using only a few evaluators, the field review method increases the reliability of the performance eval- uations across evaluators (Miner and Miner, 1973). This increases the possibility of legitimate performance com— parisons among subjects in different groups of the organ- ization. To have used the immediate supervisors to appraise the performance of their subordinates would have made the performance comparability across groups more difficult. The reliability of the performance evaluation across several supervisors may have been less than with the Corporate Eval- uators since each supervisor may have used his own criteria on which to evaluate his workers. The advantages of using the Corporate Evaluator method of performance evaluation may have been negated if the Corporate Evaluators only had a limited sample of the subjects' work which was not representative of the subjects' performance. It is possible that the common instructions 117 given to the Corporate Evaluators were not sufficient "train- ing“ to insure a high reliability of performance evaluation among the Evaluators. Therefore, this would have made it difficult to interpret the meaning of the performance data in this research. To resolve these possible limitations on establish- ing comparable and meaningful performance data, subjects' performance evaluation made by their supervisors should be obtained along with the Corporate Evaluators. Also, the evaluation should be made on several aspects of subordinate performance and effort instead of one global measure. This might help establish comparable performance evaluations and make it possible to measure convergent and discriminant validity from interrater and intertrait agreement (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick, 1970). Revised Propositions There are several new propositions suggested by the results of this research. The propositions utilize the same leader behaviors and task dimensions as discussed above as well as subordinate motivation and their interaction in relationship to satisfaction and performance. Satisfaction With Work Highly motivated subordinates working for highly considerate leaders have a higher level of satisfaction than less motivated subordinates working for less con— siderate leaders. 118 Subordinates working for highly considerate leaders on tasks with low repetitiveness have a higher level of satisfaction than working for leaders who are less con- siderate on tasks which are high in repetitiveness. Subordinates working for leaders who are highly considerate on tasks which are high in independence have a higher level of satisfaction than subordinates working for leaders who are less considerate on tasks which are low in repetitiveness. Performance Highly Motivated Subordinates Highly motivated subordinates working for leaders who are highly initiating on tasks with high repetitive- ness have higher levels of performance than highly motivated subordinates working for leaders who are less initiating on tasks with less repetitiveness. Highly motivated subordinates working for leaders who are highly initiating and less considerate on highly independent tasks have higher levels of performance than highly motivated subordinates working for leaders who are less initiating and highly considerate on less independent tasks. Less Motivated Subordinates Less motivated subordinates working for leaders who are less initiating on tasks with high repetitiveness have higher levels of performance than less motivated subordinates working for leaders who are highly initiat- ing on tasks high in repetitiveness. Less motivated subordinates working for leaders who are less initiating and less considerate on highly inde— pendent tasks have higher levels of performance than less motivated subordinates working for leaders who are highly initiating and highly considerate on less independent tasks. Practical Implications There are several practical implications which the results of this research suggest. The implications are first 119 discussed in terms of satisfaction with work and then in terms of performance. Satisfaction With Work When high subordinate satisfaction with work is desired, the variables to examine are subordinate motiva- tion, leader consideration and task repetitiveness and independence. The leader's initiating behavior did not appear to influence the subordinate‘s level of satisfaction with work in this research. Therefore, there are several conditions of subordinate motivation, task structure and leader behavior which are favorable for high subordinate satisfaction. The more considerate and supportive the supervisor is, the more likely that his subordinates will report a high level of satisfaction with their work. Especially when the subordinates are highly motivated, increasing leader consideration will have a positive influence upon the subordinates' level of satisfaction. Obtaining highly motivated subordinates is also a positive action toward employing individuals who report high satisfaction with work. The controversy concerning the effects of task structure on workers' attitudes is not resolved in the literature (for example, see Hulin and Blood, 1968; Shepard, 1969; Schuler, 1973; Wanous, 1973), but this research indicates that high task independence is associated 120 with a higher level of satisfaction than low task inde- pendence. Individuals in this sample evidently preferred freedom and discretion from their supervisors. Reducing the amount of dependence and reliance of the subordinates on their supervisors should have a positive benefit on the subordinates' levels of satisfaction. Another task dimension perceived by the subjects was task repetitiveness. Low task repetitiveness was preferred by these subjects over high task repetitiveness. Reducing the repetition and routine of the tasks should also be associated with high levels of subordinate satisfaction. The level of subordinate satisfaction can also be posi- tively influenced if the situation presents itself to manip- ulate both the leader behavior and task structure can be changed. This positive influence may occur if it is pos- sible to augment the leaders' consideration for their subordinates and also to increase the degree of task inde- pendence. A benefit for subordinates‘ satisfaction should also accrue from increasing the leaders' consideration for their subordinates and reducing the degree of task repeti- tiveness. The alternative(s) selected to increase satisfac- tion will depend upon several factors. The first is whether or not supervisory behavior can be changed through training. The International Harvester study has shown the possibilities of changing leader behavior, but maintaining that changed 121 behavior may be more difficult. Research on successfully changing leader behavior is not extensive, so relying on leader training may not be an effective alternative (Fiedler, 1965). There are so many stimuli in the environ- ment which may not reinforce the new behavior that the subjects changed may revert back to the previous beha- vior (Bennis, Berlew, Schein and Steele, 1973). Second, whether supervisors with certain behavior patterns, e.g. showing high considerationanuilow initiation, can be recruited and selected may be difficult for it requires determining, a priori, the applicants' leader beha- viors. For example, what subordinates would rate the appli- cants' leader behavior: the subordinates in the new organi- zation or the previous organization? And what if the new applicants have never been employed before? Third, the ability to select and recruit highly motivated subordinates must be considered. This may pose similar difficulties as in recruiting individuals with certain leader behaviors. The measurement of individual motivation in this research was a function of individuals' expectancies and intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes. Expec- tancies and the intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes may be situationally unique. This being the case: 1. Would the applicant be exposed to his job environment and then his expectancies measured? 122 2. Would his first impression of the job environ- ment be correct? Intrinsic and extrinsic out- comes may also be situationally unique. 3. How could the applicant be exposed to the organ- ization's outcomes during a pre-employment selection process? Fourth, the feasibility of restructuring tasks may be limited by technological and/or economic constraints. Plant size, competitive forces and given work force may also preclude task restructuring. . Because of these barriers to training, recruiting, selecting and job restructuring, it may be more appropriate to think in terms of matching the existing conditions—-that is, determining the present leaders' behaviors, types of tasks, and types of motivated subordinates and match these in accordance with the research results. Before such spe- cific matching can occur, additional data on subordinates' competence levels and individual differences variables may need to be collected and analyzed also. Performance In attempting to influence subordinates' perfor- mance levels, it may be essential to treat highly motivated subordinates differently from the less motivated subordi- nates. The level of performance of a highly motivated subordinate may best be influenced by providing direction 123 and guidance. This direction and guidance may be derived from the leader's behavior and/or the nature of the task. In the situation of task independence, reducing the degree of task independence may be seen as increasing con- trol but not direction and guidance. This increased control will probably be detrimental to the subordinate's perfor- mance. Increasing task independence and the leader's initiating (guidance and direction) behavior should be efficacious to the subordinate's performance level. If the degree of task independence cannot be changed, increasing othe leader's initiating behavior should prove beneficial to the subordinate's performance. Additional guidance and direction can also result from a greater degree of task repetitiveness. Therefore, increasing the degree of task repetitiveness for highly motivated subordinates should be beneficial. Increasing the leader's initiation and structure along with the degree of task repetitiveness is also suggested as an inducement for higher performance. With less motivated subordinates, the strategy for influencing performance is different. Less motivated sub- ordinates prefer to have less direction and guidance from either the task structure or the leader's behavior. Accord- ingly, it will be beneficial for performance, if the less motivated subordinates work for a boss who has a low amount of initiation. While working for this type of supervisor, 124 performance can also be assisted by reducing the degree of task repetitiveness. Both the highly motivated and less motivated sub- ordinates respond favorably to increases in task independence, i.e. both types of subordinates appreciate less control from the supervisor in conjunction with the task. Additionally, both subordinate types work better under a supervisor who gives little consideration and support to them. The selection of alternative(s) which influence performance is also confronted with the problems in select- .ing strategies to influence satisfaction. Thus the sug- gestion is made to consider matching the leader's behaviors with subordinate types working under certain task condi- tions. However, further data on subordinate competence levels and individual differences should be obtained before making conclusive match-ups among the task structure, leader beha- vior and subordinate motivation. Suggestions for Future Research Future research on the Path-Goal theory of leadership should examine individual difference variables such as needs, preferences and personality characteristics (House and Dessler, 1973). Individual differences could help to explain why highly motivated subordinates respond to task dimensions and leadership behaviors differently from less motivated subordinates. 125 Knowledge of the level of subordinate competence may aid in specifying when high leader initiation will be effective, e.g. conditions of high task independence or low task independence. Even if the subordinates are com- petent and the task requirements known, the subordinates may still prefer high leader initiation. Information of individual preferences may assist in explaining when high leader initiation will be preferred. Since the individual's perceptions of the proba- bilities of effort to performance and performance to Oreward (Expectancy l and Expectancy 2) were added together in this research, it may be desirable to look at the expectancies separately and examine their effects on satis- faction and performance in interaction with task structure and leadership behavior. The lack of predicted interaction of leader initia- tion and task repetitiveness and task independence for satisfaction and the lack of interaction of leader consid- eration with task repetitiveness and task independence for performance may have been due to a narrowness of range of task repetitiveness and task independence. This suggests that a broader spectrum of tasks be obtained with a large a priori objective difference in task repetitiveness and task independence. (Both supervisors' performance rankings and Corporate Evaluators' performance rankings should be obtained. 126 Additionally, information on the size and number of groups in the organization, and the administration and flexibility of the reward systems should be obtained. These are organ- ization variables which may affect subordinates' attitudes and behavior, in addition to the leadership and task struc- ture in the organization. The more important these other variables are, the less effect leadership, task dimension and subordinate motivation may have on the subordinates' performance and satisfaction. Conclusion The essence of these findings for leadership research and theory is that in explaining the effects of the super- visor's behavior upon the subordinate‘s performance and satisfaction, task repetitiveness, task independence and motivation of the subordinate should be considered. The precise theoretical framework of the leadership behavior task and motivational variables will vary when using sat- isfaction and performance as the dependent variables. When using satisfaction, the leader's initiating behavior did not perform as hypothesized. High satisfaction was not reported by subordinates who had highly initiating super- visors and who worked on highly independent tasks, nor with subordinates who had highly initiating supervisors and who worked on less repetitive tasks. However, highly motivated subordinates were high performers when their leaders were highly initiating and 127 worked on tasks which were highly repetitive. The amount that the leader was considerate did not affect subordinate performance under task repetitiveness, but did positively affect subordinate performance when the subordinate was highly motivated and worked on a highly independent task for a highly initiating supervisor. Less motivated sub- ordinates performed best under the less structured condi- tions of high task independence and less initiating and less considerate supervisors. It was suggested that future research include more 'objective measures of task repetitiveness and task inde- pendence and performance rankings from the supervisors also. Having knowledge of individual differences and individual competence levels may provide additional insight into effective matching of task structure, level of sub- ordinate motivation and leader behaviors. APPENDICES 128 APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR FACTORS 129 Appendix A Description of Leadership Behavior Factors Items Table Number Means and Standard Deviations for the Leadership Behavior Description A-l Questionnaire Items LBDQ Factor AnalySis, 28 items, A-2, A-3 2 factors The following items were deleted from the original scale: He talks down to subordinates. He asks questions for the purpose of embarrassing others. He constantly sets challenging goals. Directions were provided as to what shall be done and how it should be done. He puts subordinates down when correcting their work or giving them instructions. Members of the group know what's expected of them. He maintains definite standards of performance. He makes his attitudes clear to the group. He makes sure his part in the group is understood by group members. He tries out his ideas on the group. 130 131 Table A-1.--Means, standard deviations, and item descriptions for leadership behavior. Item Mean SOD. Item Description 10 11 12 13 3.847 3.617 3.308 3.516 3.417 2.961 3.062 2.969 3.293 3.811 3.104 2.948 3.109 1.119 1.196 1.150 1.094 1.090 1.068 1.287 1.183 1.057 1.103 .956 1.117 He shows he has confidence in his subordinate's ability to meet the objectives. He asks subordinates for their ideas and suggestions. He gives clear recognition for outstanding work. He shows concern for the needs of the group members. The objectives are clarified at the outset. He tells subordinates about specific poor task perfor- mance. He lets his subordinates know about specific poor task per- formance. He tries to get all members of the group involved in the discussion of the problems. He praises subordinates whose performance was especially good. He makes an effort to be helpful. He lets subordinates know how they are doing throughout the task. He gets on subordinates if their work is not as good as he thinks it should be. He tries to suspend evaluation of alternatives until everyone has a chance to speak. Table A-l.--Continued. 132 Item Mean S.D. Item Description 14 3.554 1.045 He shows approval of subordi- nates who put forth their best effort. 15 2.215 1.281 He behaves as though others were not as smart or as compe- tent as he is. 16 3.834 1.074 He is pleasant when telling others what to do. 17 2.671 1.037 He reprimands subordinates whose performance is below his expectations. 18 3.738 1.066 He encourages continual improvement. 19 3.635 1.115 He gives serious consideration to the ideas and suggestions of others. 20 3.435 1.054 He gives recognition to sub- ordinates for improvement in their performance. 21 3.345 1.069 He tries to make the task enjoyable. 22 3.702 1.102 Members of the group know what is expected of them. 23 2.824 1.048 He is quick to let subordinates know when he thinks they are not performing well. 24 3.132 1.143 He decides what shall be done and how it shall be done. 25 3.733 1.074 He assigns group members to particular tasks. 26 3.114 1.305 He schedules the work to be done. 133 Table A-l.--Continued. Item Mean S.D. Item Description 27 3.534 1.187 He asks that the group members follow standard rules and regulations. 28 3.484 1.185 He encourages the use of uni- form procedures. 134 Table A-2.-—Factor loadings for leadership behavior items.a Item 1 2 Factor 1: Leader Consideration 19 83* 4 10 81* 7 14 80* 16 21 80* 1 3 80* 10 9 78* 13 2 77* l 20 77* 13 4 77* 11 l 73* -ll 11 71* 32 18 70* 31 5 69* 22 16 69* - 5 13 65* - 3 22 62* 24 8 61* 17 15 -61* 31 Factor 2: Leader Initiation 7 8 77* 23 2 77* 6 — l 75* 12 - 1 75* 17 -13 72* 27 24 54* 24 - 6 52* 28 25 45* 26 11 36* 25 23 35* Proportion of Variance 1 2 .35 .16 aThese item numbers correspond to item numbers in Table A—1. The succeeding Appendix tables follow the same format. 135 oo« :N a: a: an mm «o :0 oN No NN 00 nNI :N :n n N am a: a: «I «N o« a m« o« «« :N o« M« New :N oo« 0N :« cN .NI «N :I o o N« c« on No No :0 No oN NN :N «N NN .oN NN oN on oN «o «o :o «am a: 0N 0« Nn an :n «n :« «N n«. N« 9N mI o« :N N« o« NN mm NN n« .:N «N o« c« n« :« mN mN NN mN a: :« NM 0« Nn o: N: u N« e« o« :« NI N« MN « «« NN :« 0N a :« : N o w :« N« :« N 0N. om 0N mm Nn mN :n ”N m« NN. m« «N O« NI :N :n c mN on :n eN :« NN n« :« o« m« «N o« oN N« oN mm NI :n o: :n an N: NN an mN an :N NNI «I N« m«I « m« N« :« M«I : nu oI @I no NI NI 0 NI :N «c cN «n N: nN N: Na :N 0N 0N cN :N « o« Nn n «N on Nn ON 0« mN oN N« .N« o« NN o« 0N N« NN :0 :I :« o m« NN :N «4 mo om No am mNI N N :I :«I co m «« :«I mI n :I : oI o«I : oI :I N« 9N a «N N« NN on 0N .mo a: mm 00 cm NNI o« «« oI mI o« o« @N o«I w :« : N« «« «I «« N N N« No 0 n« o« m« mN oN 0m mm :3 No «c :«I :« N« : on «« NN 0« nl N c« : «« w mI :« n : o ~N N« N« o« «N on oN No no No Nm No o«I o« aN «I :I n« oN NN oI @ m« n :« o« : o« a o nN on o« oN :« o« :N :N am cm «0 No a: m«I @« «N e« MI 0« mN on o m« o« N« &« n« o NN v «« N MNI om mI NI NI NNI « mNI NNI :«I o«I m«I «n 0N Nn N: am on NN cN cm on on m: N» 9: cm N: w: w: m« :N No o« N« :N «I c« N w« :« e« O« 0N on :n Nm on N: N: «m mm N: .o: No mm «m m: N: 0: mm o :n N@ :N nN :n N« Nn N «« N« eN «N Nn :n on oN N: m@ o: m: cm N: o: N: on N: am m: mm :m NN n :c N« « o m«0 n :0 cl : «I e« N: Nm cN «: an «: an :: 0: am «m mm «m am am Nm Nm om n« N No v« «« mN « «N :«I OI on :I nI am on N: on :: N: «m :: mm mm N: o: n: m: 90 o: no mm 0« an oN NN NN an m« an oI o« «« n« o« an N: we «: N: @: mm Nm o: «m Nm m: «m :m :m am am «m m a: NN mm :« :n N« Nn a u« NN 0N 0N NN N: a: an «m om Nm mm 0: mm no om mm mm cm «0 No «a c« a: :N NN 0N cN :« 0N «« oN ¢« NN on oN «m m: :: :: Nm om mm N: mm «o :m mo oo .«o co No mm «« «I «N n« o :« n«I o« :«I o«I NI 0| 9 am an am 0: mm o: m: N: am Nm 6: :o am am mm mm Nm No « «N NN :N :«. NN : mN mI o N w .0« an N: N: am mm «m mm mm Nm mm :0 an om No no No «0 No : o« oN «N : n« MI eN n :« e« m« w« an o: o: «m N: Nm no «0 o: co «m nm «N we om mN om No ON 0 NN o« N :« wI N« :I : a n N« o: Nm N: am o: c: on :m :0 mm mm om cm «a co «0 «o «N N e« QN c« o n« oI N« c N« «« :« w« Nn mm on «m n: «m mm mo om om «N cm «a «c an mN Nm No v o« 90 n« v m« MI c« eI «« m a« o« a: «m N: an m: :m mm mo mm No 00 «o «o :0 Mo :N so No n «« 0N :« :« «N ”I NN o«I «I MI 3 0 on m: am am co :m cm «0 mm no wm 90 em «a no No co co «N :N «0. MN N« o« NI c« : «« :« @« NN N: N: m: Nu m: cm «o co mm No mN no mN :N No we co co :« 0« «c mN :« 0N o 0N OI N n o a a: 0: mm Nm no em No No Nm «0 am «e Nm ca 90 co 00 No a« n« :c NN N N« NI N« :I N 4 ¢ «« 0: mm :m on om am «e mm No No No «N No No co 00 No oN 0« New «90 DN 0N oN :N NN N« N« a nN N m« c NN n« o« u o« «« « : oN N o n «N :« a« o« .mEmuH HOH>msmn mflnmnmpmma HON xHHumE mcflomoa pom mcoflumamunooumDCH HODOMMII.MI¢ mHQMB APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF INTRINSIC OUTCOMES FACTOR ANALYSIS 136 Appendix B Description of Intrinsic Outcomes Factor Analysis Items Table Number Means and Standard Deviations B-l for the Intrinsic Outcomes Intrinsic Outcomes Factor Analysis, 23 items, 2 factors 3‘2: B-3 The following items were dropped from the original scale: of relief that I have guided other peOple of togetherness with other people of exasperation of fatigue of having worked with others of unhappiness of having gotten to know others better that I have been able to help other people of joy that I have influenced things to run smoothly of having enjoyed frequent contact with other people nervousness of my ability to influence others of group membership that the result is as good as could have been achieved learning involved nervous restricted afraid active angry doing my own thing furthering my own career talking and joking with others helping others working as a team member getting to know new people sympathizing with others keeping others happy making new or better friends 137 138 Table B—l.——Means, standard deviations and item descriptions for intrinsic outcomes. Item Mean S.D. Item Description 1 1.200 .488 Of being skillful. 2 1.522 .661 Of satisfaction. 3 1.579 .676 That I have met high standards. 4 1.644 .703 That I have helped other people. 5 1.101 .378 Of increased importance. 6 2.013 .441 Of pleasantness. 7 1.564 .791 Of having completed a total task rather than only part of one. 8 1.353 .660 That I have successfully spent my time convincing others what to do. 9 1.444 .686 Of a sense of pride. 10 1.597 .689 That I can supervise a number of peOple. 11 1.878 .503 That I have accomplished some- thing significant. 12 l.597 .750 That I have successfully managed other peOple. 13 1.361 .654 Achieving something significant. 14 1.348 .610 Meeting high standards. 15 1.439 .678 Able to measure my own per— formance. 16 1.953 .342 Happy. 17 1.842 .675 Persuading others. 18 1.608 .691 Supervising others. Table B-l.--Continued. 139 Item Mean S.D. Item Description 19 1.166 .482 Telling others what to do and how to do it. 20 1.751 .728 Coordinating efforts of others. 21 1.268 .580 Trying to get others to cooperate. 22 1.629 .752 Trying to convince others. 23 1.390 .656 Trying to sell an idea. 140 Table B—2.--Factor loadings for the intrinsic outcomes. Item 1 2 Factor 1: Intrinsic Outcome of Work Accomplishment 9 62* 2 11 58* 23 14 55* 16 2 54* - 3 3 52* 19 13 51* ~ 18 1 49* 7 16 42* 13 4 42* 24 6 42* 4 5 41* 29 7 39* 17 15 33* 2 Factor 2: Intrinsic Outcome of Work Behavior 18 10 67* 22 6 66* 21 1 64* 12 14 64* 17 19 62* 20 18 58* 23 6 55* 10 16 55* 19 19 49* 8 19 47* Proportion of Variance 1111 ao«.o: on a; so. «m am an mN «m an cm :m o~ nu on - - ~o an o~ mo an In . mo an on . so o~ «a :o m~ m~ as - on a: an m. :~ ~: m: km a: mu m: on I“ ma ma cu n~ N: a. o. a: s k~ mm c" 3. nm S. "a c: a o~ om cu an co a~ o“ «a N «on «on a «m «n oN 0N :N m« N» :n «n NN Nn m: N« m« o« N« o« N« m« o« c« o« o« «« o« :m 0N an :N oN o« mm Nn mm «n :N an o« oN N« «« :« :« m« n« :N :« o« No Mn oN NM mm ON on a: n: NM N: n« «N n« «N o« o« N« o« o« N« N« .N :0 mN mN Nn :N nm N: :n mm mm c« N« N« m« N« m« 0N o« NN m« nn nN o« NN «N «« 0N mm o« Nam :« m« 0« Nn :N mN :« on :m 0N m m« o« «m oN «N m« :N :« nN an o o« «N @« 0« an an :N :n @N NN : «n o« o« :« 0N N« mN cN «N MM o« cN c« :« :N MN 0« on 0N an «n « «N on 0N nN 0N NM m« on N: nN M« @« Mn N« @« Np nN :« r: «n NN n .meoouso UHmc«nuc« How xHHumE mcflpmoa can mCOHDMHmHHOOHmpcfl HODOMMII.mIm mance APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF TASK STRUCTURE FACTOR ANALYSIS 142 Appendix C Description of Task Structure Factor Analysis Items Table Location Means and Standard Deviations for Task Structure Task Structure, Factor Analysis, 8 items, 2 factors The following items were deleted from the original scale: How much are you required to depend upon your super- visor for the financial resources necessary for the perfor- mance of your job? How often are you given assignments requiring you to search for a solution without directions from your supervisor? How much do your rewards depend upon your supervisor? How much do your rewards depend upon your perfor- mance? In your effort to get ahead on your job, to what extent do you act as an innovator? To what extent do the resources you receive depend upon your supervisor? To what extent do you set objectives, goals, and procedures for your job rather than following directions or established procedures? 143 144 Table C-l.--Means, standard deviations and item descriptions for task dimensions. Item Mean S.D. Item Description 4.117 3.448 2.285 2.593 3.000 3.220 3.666 3.720 .929 1.104 1.273 1.590 1.031 1.196 1.094 To what extent are you able to act independently of your supervisor in performing your task functions? How often does the supervisor keep check on you and closely observe your work? How repetitious are your duties on your present job? How much variety is there in the work tasks which you perform? Every job is confronted by cer- tain routine and repetitive demands; what percent of the activities or work demands con- nected with your job would you conSider to be of a routine nature? To what extent are you able to schedule and plan your task requirements independent of others in the organization? To what extent do you control your job and pace of your work? What is the average time it takes you to complete an assigned task? 145 Table C-2.--Factor loading for task dimensions. Item 1 2 Factor 1: Task Independence 4 76* -10 3 63* -23 5 -51* 10 8 32* 11 Factor 2: Task Repetitiveness 7 - 9 76* 1 - 4 74* 6 l 62* 2 -25 33* Proportion of Variance 1 2 .18 .21 Table C-3.-—Factor intercorrelations and loading matrix for task dimensions. 4 3 5 8 7 1 6 2 501 502 4 77 56 38 24 ~15 ~10 - 9 ~17 91 ~20 3 56 28 21 8 ~26 ~19 ~ 9 ~17 52 ~29 5 38 21 22 19 ~13 ~ 8 ~ 5 -28 46 ~22 8 24 8 19 8 10 5 - 1 - 5 27 4 7 ~15 ~26 ~13 10 58 57 49 23 ~20 77 1 ~10 ~19 ~ 8 5 57 57 41 30 ~15 76 6 — 9 - 9 ~ 5 ~ 1 49 _41 33 16 ~11 57 2 ~17 ~17 ~28 ~ 5 23 30 16 11 ~31 33 501 91 52 46 27 ~20 ~15 ~11 ~31 100 ~31 502 -20 -29 ~22 4 77 76 57 33 -31 100 APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE CORPORATE EVALUATORS 146 Appendix D Instructions Given to the Corporate Evaluators The data we are gathering will be used only as part of our research project on managerial effectiveness and motivation. The responses of individuals will be held in the strictest confidence. It is particularly important to the success of this project that you complete this form con- scientiously. Without this information from you, data cannot be related with the information from the individuals in your work group, It would then be impossible to reach any con- clusions concerning managerial effectiveness and motivation. It is well known that employees differ widely in their overall job performance. There are, of course, a num- ber of things that influence how well someone performs his job. For this ranking we are interested in your overall evaluation, all things considered, of how well you feel the employees in the work group given you are performing their jobs. Would you please rank the people in the work group on the basis of how well you feel they are performing their jobs and contributing to the effectiveness of the company relative to other employees in the work group. Rank the employees from 1 to 4. You may use intervals of .5, e.g. 1.5 as well as 3.0, 2.0 etc. The highest performance rank is 1. The lowest rank is 4. 147 APPENDIX E MANAGERIAL NEEDS AND EFFECTIVENESS STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE 148 Appendix E Managerial Needs and Effectiveness Study Questionaire Items Location Extrinsic Outcomes (58—63) p. 150 Job Description Inventory (1-18) p. 151 Intrinsic Outcomes (1-57) pp. 152-53 Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (74-111) pp. 154-56 Task Structure (112-126) pp. 156-58 149 150 EVn In This parT of The quesTionnaire we are Trying To ldenTlfy whaT you Think are The mosT imporTanr characTerisTics of 9_Job To you personally. Please indicaTe how you would rank The imporTance of The following job characTerisTlcs To you personally. Rank The iTems numerically, using 19 as The highesT ranking and .L as The IowesT. Use each number I Through l0 only once. Pleas'3 rank all iTems, even Though you may flnd lT difficulT To do so. 0... 00000000 .0 ..... IO... ..... ~OIIDOOIOOOOIOOOOOCC.00...0.000.....0.....OOOCCOCCOOOOOOIIDO 58.____opporTuniTy To earn more money. 59.~___tmances for subsequenT promoTion. 032_n__recogniTion of your work by oThers. 6i.“___assurance ThaT The job will noT be eliminaTed. 623___;challenging work. 63. _puporTuniTy To work wilh pleasanT employees. 151 JOB DESCRIPTION INVENTORY O The purpose of This secTion of The quesTionnaire is To deTermine how you feel abouT your job and whaT you Think are The mosT imporTanT aspecTs of work for you. You will be asked To describe your feelings abouT whaT job characTerisTics are imporTanT To you. All informaTion ThaT you provide will be kepT sTrichy confidenTial. Many of Tne quesTions will be repeaTed, using sligthy differenT phrasing. This repeTiTion Is noT inTende’1 as a check on your honesTy or consisTency. RaTher, we have found ThaT quesfionnaires yield more reliable informaTion if The ideas are communicaTed in several differenT ways. Please answer one quesTion aT a Time wiThouT Thinking abouT your prior answers. The following secTions deal wiTh how you feel while working Toward accomplishmenT of job goals or while carrying ouT necessary Tasks. Please indicaTe These feelings by cnecking TEE column—wiTh The number ThaT mosT reflecTs your feelings while you are engaged in work acTiviTies. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00......0.0.0.0...OIOOOOOO0.00‘..0...IOOOIOOOOOOOCIOOOOOOOOOCIOOOIOOOOOOOO Think of your presenT job. WhaT is iT like Think of The pay you geT now. How well mosT of The Time? In The blank beside each does each of The following words describe word given below, wriTe: your presenT pay? In The blank beside each word, puT: | for "Yes" if iT describes your work l_for "Yes" if iT describes your pay 2 for "No" if iT does noT describe iT 2 for "No" if iT does noT describe lT :E if you cannoT decide :E if you cannoT decide PLEASE FILL lN EVERY BLANK WORK ON PRESENT JOB L____fascinaiing l0____useful 2____rcuTine lh____Tiresome i____saTisfying l2____healThful 4____boring |3____challenging 5*___good l4____on your feeT 6____creaTive l5____frusTraTing 7 resbccicd lb____simple 8____hof l7____pndless 9____PlcasanT l5 gives sense of accomplishmenT 152 IVa Think of how you usually feel immediaTely afTer accomplishing job goals. How well does each of The following works describe your feelings? In The blanks beside each work, puT: 'L if iT describes The feelings you experience afTer compleTing a job goal 3 if iT does noT describe Them '2 if you cannST—decide PLEASE FILL IN EVERY BLANK 00....0.0...I.OIOOOOOIOOIOOIOOOIOO0.00.00....0...OOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOI.IO... When l accomplish my job goals I have a feeling: I of being skillful 2 of relief ThaT l have guided oTher people 4 of TogeTherness wiTh oTher people 5 of saTisfacTion 6 of exasperaTion 7 ThaT l have meT high sTandardS 8 ThaT l have helped other people 9 of having been creaTive and innovaTive IQ of increased imporTance ll of faTigue l2 ThaT I have enjoyed being wiTh oThers l5 of pleasanTness l4 of having worked wiTh oTherS l5 of having conplefed a ToTal Task raTher Than only parT of one Id of unhappiness l7 ThaT l have successfully spenT my Time convincing people whaT To do IS of having goTTen To know oThers beTTer I9 of a sense of pride 20 ThaT I can supervise a number of people 2! lhaT l have accomplished someThing significanT 22 of joy 25 Thai I have been able To help oTher people 24 ThaT l have influenced Things To run smooThly 25 of having enjoyed frequenT conTacT wiTh oTher people an rerv:u;ncss . «.4 of my abiliTy To influence oThers 1‘ group Temperihip ‘wJT Ire resulT is as good as could have been achieved *rJT l have 50;;cscfully managed oTher people I ‘.. ' i \ ~2- ( Ill 1553 IVb lhrnk of whal you are usually involved in and how you usually feel while carrying ouT beside each word below, puT: if if describes you aT work if iT does noT describe you aT work if you cannoT decide- PLEASE FILL IN EVERY BLANK O O O I C C O I O O O O O O C O O 0 On my presenT job I am ofTen: 3| learning 32 involved 33 resTrIcTed 34 nervous 35 afraid 36 acTive 37 angry 38 achieving someThing significanT 39 meeTing high sTandards 40 able To measure my own performance 4I happy 42 doing my own Thing 43 furThering my career 44 persuading oThers $5 supervising oThers . 46 Telling oThers whaT To do and how To do IT 47 coordinafing efforTs of oThers 48 Trying To geT oThers To cooperaTe 49 Trying To convince oThers 50 Trying To sell an idea Bl Talking and joking wiTh oThers 52 helping oThers 53 working as a Team member 54 geTTing To know new people 55 sympaThizing wiTh oThers Sb keeping oThers happy 57 making new or beTTer friends your work. Haw well does each of The following words describe you aT work? In The blank ..OIOOOCIOOOOOIOOOOOIOOI... 154 L800 Following Is a lisT of lTems ThaT may be used To describe The bahavior of your superior or supervisor. Each iTem describes a specific kind of behavior buT does noT ask you To judge wheTher The behavior is desirable or undesirable. AlThough some iTems may appear similar, They express differences ThaT are imporTanT In The descripTion of leadership. Each iTem should be considered as a separaTe descripTion. This is noT a TesT of abiliTy or consisTency in making answers. lTs only purpose is To make iT possible for you To describe, as accuraTely as you can, The behavior of your supervisor. NoTe ThaT The Term "group" as used in The quesTions refers To a deparTmenT, division, or oTher uan of organizaTion ThaT is supervised by The person being described. The Term "members" refers To all The people in The uniT of organizaTion ThaT are super- vised by him. Please indicaTe The exTenT'To which you Think besT describes his behavior by circling The appropriaTe number: very . greaT ’ liTTle seldom somewhaT ofTen exTenT 74. He shows he has confidence in his subordinaTes' abiliTy To meeT The objecTives. l 2 3 4 5 75. He asks subordinaTes for Their ideas and suggesTions. ' l 2 3 4 5 76. He gives clear recogniTion for ouT- sTanding work. I 2 3 4 5 77. He Talks down To subordinaTes. ' l 2 3 4 5 78. He shows concern for The needs of The group members. I 2 3 4 5 79. The objecTives are clarified aT The ouTseT. I 2 3 4 5 80. He Tells subordinaTes abouT specific poor Task performance. I 2 3 4 5 8|. He IeTs his subordinafes know abouT , specific poor Task performance. I 2 3 4 5 82. He Tries To geT all members of The group involved in The discussion I 2 3 4 5 of The problems. 83. He praises subardiraTes whose per— formance was especially good. I 2 3 4 5 84. He asks CeasTions for The purpose of anagrrsssing oThers. I 2 3 4 5 85. he makes an efferT To be helpful. I 2 3 4 5 85. He leis SubordinaTes knew how They are doing ThroughauT The Task. l 2 3 4 5 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 95. 96. 155 He geTs on subordinaTes If Their work is noT as good as he Thinks iT should be. He conSTanle seTs challenging goals. He Tries To suspend evaluaTion of alTernaTives unTiI everyone has a chance To speak. He shaws approval of subordinaTes who puT forTh Their besT efforT. He behaves as Though oThers were noT as smarT or as compeTenT as he ls. ‘ He Is pleasanT when Telllng oThers whaT To do. DirecTions were provided as To whaT snould be done and how If should be done. He reprimands subordinaTes whose performance is below his expec- TaTions. He encourages conTinual menT. improve- He gives serious consideraTion To The ideas and suggesTions of olhers. He gives recogniTion To subordinaTes far improyenenf in Their perfor- mance. He :eTs his SubordinaTes down when correcfing Their work or giving ThCfil hisrraclions. He Tries To make The Task enjoyable. “e":jrs of The group knew whaT is ‘ a: of Them. TC IeT subordinaTes rs Thinks Tney are noT rs knew whaI IS ., , I;%3 whal shjll be Jane and ” IT - ll be done very |iTTIe seldom I\.) somewhaT ofTen LBDQ greaT exfenT I04. I05. I06. I07. l08. l09. IIO. ll3. ll4. 156 L800 very ’ greaT liTTle seldom somewhaT ofTen exTenT He assigns group members To , parTicular Tasks. | 2 3 4 5 He mainTains definiTe sTandards of performance. I 2 3 4 5 He makes his aTTiTudes clear To The group. I 2 3 4 5 He makes sure his parT In The group is undersTood by group members. I 2 3 4 5 He Tries ouT his ideas on The group. I 2 3 4 5 He schedules The work To be done. I 2 3 4 5 He asks ThaT The group members follow sTandard rules and regulaTIons. | 2 3 4 5 He encourages The use of uniform procedures. I 2 3 4 5 In order To perform The required analysis of The daTa on leadership effecTiveness and moTivaTion which will allow us To combine cerTain Types of managers wiTh cerTain Types of jobs for increased moTivaTion and saTisfacTion, please IndicaTe The name of your supervisor: ' The purpose of The following iTems is To seek a job descripTion of The job on which you work. Included are descripTions of how independenT you are on your job and how much varieTy you have. Please indicaTe The choice which besT describes The characTerisTic of your job. To whaT exTenT are you able To acT independenle Hardly ever of your supervisor in performing your Task Seldom funcTions? Occasionally FrequenTIy AlmosT always How much are you required To depend on your AlmosT always 50:3ritrs for The non-financial resources Very much (in‘5rmafion, supplies) necessary for The OuiTe a biT performance of your Job? Seldom NoT aT all raw ofTen are you given assignmenTs requiring Rarel v‘u To search for a soluTion wiThouT direcfions ’ Y ir:n your superior? Sometimes OfTen Very ofTen AlmosT always Il5. Il6. II7. II8. II9. A. I... I 157 How much do your job rewards depend upon your superiors? How much do your job rewards depend upon your performance? To whaT exTenT are you able To schedule and plan your Task requiremenTs independenT of oThers in The organizaTion? In your efforT To geT ahead on your job, To whaT exTenT do you acT as an innovaTor? To whaT exTenT do The resources (personnel, budgeT) you receive depend upon your superiors? To whaT exTenT do you seT objecTives, goals, and procedures for your job raTher Than following direcTions or esTablished procedures? H51 repafiTious are your duTies on your presenT job? I H;w much varieTy is There in The work Tasks which .3u perform? “xerx job is ccnfronfed by certain rouTine and ‘Iifive camiads. hh1f percenT of The acTiviTies ”:rk dfiVaPfiS ca°n€cfed wiTh your job would you 71:" .o .e :f a reuiire naTure? TA JS TC AlmosT compleTer Very much QuiTe a bIT Some LiTTle Very lITTIe Some OuiTe a biT Very much AlmosT all Hardly ever Seldom Occasionally FrequenTIy AlmosT always Hardly ever Seldom Occasionally Frequenle AlmosT always Very large Large Some SlighT AlmosT none AlmosT never LiTTIe SomewhaT Large Very large Very IiTTle Some QuiTe a biT Very much CompleTer Very much OuiTe a bIT Some LiTTle Very liTlle 0-20% 20-409 40-604 rl—fiv 1 158 IBI. What is The average Time iT Takes you To complete an assigned Task? I25. How often does The supervisor keep check on you and closely observe your work? l26. To what exTenT do you control your job and pace of yOur work? TA JS TC l day or less IL3 days 3 days To I week I-2 weeks more Than 2 weeks AlmosT always Frequently Occasionally ‘Seldom Hardly ever A llTTle Some QuiTe a bIT Very much AlmosT compleTely APPENDIX F SCHEFFE TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION OF MOTIVATION, LIS, TASK REPETITIVENESS FOR PERFORMANCE 159 Appendix F Scheffe Tests for the Interaction of Motivation, LIS, Task Repetitiveness for Performance High motivation-high LIS—high task repetitiveness (2.19)/ low motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (2.15) High motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.19)/ high motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.09) High motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.19)/ low motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.05) High motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.19)/ high motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.95) High motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.19)/ low motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (1.89) High motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.19)/ low motivation-high LIS—low task repetitiveness (1.72) High motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.19)/ high motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.45) Low motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (2.15)/ high motivation—low LIS—high task repetitiveness (2.19) Low motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (2.15)/ low motivation-high LIS—high task repetitiveness (2.05) Low motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (2.15)/ high motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.95) Low motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (2.15)/ low motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (1.89) Low motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (2.15)/ low motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.72) Low motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (2.15)/ high motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.45) High motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.09)/ low motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.05) High motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.09)/ high motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.95) 160 High motivation-low 161 LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.09)/ low motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (1.89) High motivation—low low motivation-high High motivation-low high motivation-low Low motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.09)/ LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.72) LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.09)/ LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.45) LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.05)/ high motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.95) Low motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.05)/ low motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (1.89) Low motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.05)/ low motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.72) Low motivation-high LIS-high task repetitiveness (2.05)/ high motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.45) High motivation-high LIS—low task repetitiveness (1.95)/ low motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (1.89) High motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.95)/ low motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.72) High motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.95)/ high motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.45) Low motivation-low LIS—high task repetitiveness (1.89)/ low motivation-high LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.72) Low motivation-low LIS-high task repetitiveness (1.89)/ high motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.45) Low motivation-high high motivation-low LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.72)/ LIS-low task repetitiveness (1.45) Sig. Sig. APPENDIX G SCHEFFE TESTS FOR THE INTERACTION OF MOTIVATION, LC, LIS, TASK INDEPENDENCE FOR PERFORMANCE 162 Appendix G Scheffe Tests for the Interaction of Motivation, LC, LIS, Task Independence for Performance High motivation—low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ high motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.36) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ high motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.29) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ high motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ high motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.21) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ low motivation-low LC—high LIS-low task indep. (2.18) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.10) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ low motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.11) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ high motivation-low LC-low LIS—high task indep. (2.02) High motivation—low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00) High motivation—low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50) High motivation—low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) High motivation-low LC-high LIS—high task indep. (3.00)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (3.00)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) 163 Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. 164 High motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. high motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. High motivation—low LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. High motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. high motivation-high LC-hish LIS-high task indep. (2.21) High motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. high motivation-high LC-high LIS—low task indep. (2.21) High motivation-low LC—high LIS—low task indep. low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. High motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. High motivation-low LC-high LIS—low task indep. low motivation-low LC-high LIS—high task indep. High motivation-low high motivation-low High motivation-low low motivation—high High motivation-low high motivation-high LC-low High motivation—low high motivation-high LC-low High motivation—low low motivation-low LC—low LIS-low task indep. High motivation—low low motivation-high High motivation-low low motivation-high High motivation-low low motivation-low LC—low LIS-high task indep. (2.36)/ (2.25) (2.36)/ (2.29) (2.36)/ (2.36)/ (2.36)/ (2.18) (2.36)/ (2.19) (2.36)/ (2.11) LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.36)/ LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02) LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.36)/ LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00) LC—high LIS-low task indep. (2.36l/ LIS-high task indep. (1.38) LC-high LIS—low task indep. (2.36)/ LIS-low task indep. (1.50) LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.36)/ (1.63) LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.36)/ LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.36)/ LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25)/ (2.29) (2.25)/ High motivation-low LC—low LIS—low task indep. high motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21) Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. 165 High motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25)/ high motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.21) High motivation-low LC-low LIS—low task indep. (2.25)/ low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.18) High motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25)/ low motivation—low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19) High motivation—low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25)/ low motivation—low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.11) High motivation-low LC-low LIS—low task indep. (2.25)/ high motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02) High motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25)/ low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00) High motivation-low LC-low LIS—low task indep. (2.25)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38) High motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50) High motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) High motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.25)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) High motivation-low LC-low LIS—low task indep. (2.25)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.29)/ high motivation-high LC—high LIS-high task indep. (2.21) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.29)/ high motivation-high LC-high LIS—low task indep. (2.21) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS—high task indep. (2.29)/ low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.18) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.29)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS—high task indep. (2.19) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.29)/ low motivation-low LC-high LIS—high task indep. (2.11) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.29)/ high motivation-low LC-low LIS—high task indep. (2.02) Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. n.s. 166 Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.29)/ (2.00) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.29)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.29)/ (1.50) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.29)/ (1.63) Low motivation-low LC—low LIS-high task indep. low motivation—high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.29)/ (1.41) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.29)/ (.83) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. high motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.21)/ (2.21) High motivation-high LC-high LIS—high task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-low LC—high LIS-low task indep. (2.18) High motivation-high LC—high LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-low LC-high LIS—high task indep. (2.11) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ high motivation—low LC—low LIS-high task indep. (2.02) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00) High high (2.21)/ (1.38) motivation-high motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. LC-low LIS-high task indep. High high motivation-high motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS—low task indep. (1.63) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) High motivation-high LC-high LIS—high task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) n.s. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. 167 High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.18) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ (2.11) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. high motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ (2.02) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation—high LC—low LIS-high task indep. (2.21)/ (2.00) High motivation-high LC-high LIS—low task indep. high motivation-high LC-low LIS—high task indep. (2.21)/ (1.38) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.21)/ (1.50) High motivation—high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.21)/ low motivation—low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) (2.21)/ (1.41) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation—high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.21)/ (.83) High motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.18)/ (2.19) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.18)/ (2.11) Low motivation—low LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.18)/ (2.02) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. high motivation—low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.18)/ (2.00) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.18)/ (1.38) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. high motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.18)/ (1.50) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (2.18)/ (1.63) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. low motivation-low LC-low LIS—low task indep. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. 168 Low motivation-low LC—high LIS-low task indep. (2.18)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-low task indep. (2.18)/ low motivation-high LC—high LIS-low task indep. (.83) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19)/ low motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.11) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19)/ high motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19)/ low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS—high task indep. (2.19)/ high motivation—high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS—high task indep. (2.19)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) Low motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19)/ low motivation—high LC-high LIS—low task indep. (1.41) Low motivation—low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.19)/ low motivation—high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.11)/ high motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS—high task indep. (2.11)/ low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.11)/ high motivation—high LC-low LIS—high task indep. (1.38) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.11)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50) Low motivation-low LC—high LIS-high task indep. (2.11)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS—high task indep. (2.11)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) Low motivation-low LC-high LIS-high task indep. (2.11)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. 169 High motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02)/ low motivation-high LC—low LIS-high task indep. (2.00) High motivation-low LC—low LIS-high task indep. (2.02)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38) High motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50) High motivation—low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) High motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) High motivation-low LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.02)/ low Low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38) Low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00)/ high motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50) Low low Low low Low low motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00)/ motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00)/ motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (2.00)/ motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) High motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38)/ high motivation-high LC—low LIS-low task indep. (1.50) High motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38)/ low motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) High motivation-high LC-low LIS-high task indep. (1.38)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) High motivation-high LC—low LIS-high task indep. (1.38)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) High motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50)/ low motivation—low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63) High motivation-high LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.50)/ low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. 170 High motivation-high LC-low LIS—low task indep. (1.50)/ low Low low Low low Low low motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63)/ motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (1.41) motivation-low LC-low LIS-low task indep. (1.63)/ motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.83) motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (l.41)/ motivation-high LC-high LIS-low task indep. (.82) Sig. Sig. B I BLI OGRAP HY 171 BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyle, M.; Gardner, G.; and Cioffi, F. "Supervisory Methods Related to Productivity, Absenteeism, and Labor Turnover." Human Relations, XI (1958), 23-40. Bass, B. M., and Barrett, G. V. Man, Work and Organizations: An Introduction to Individual and Organizational Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972. Baumgartel, H. "Leadership, Motivations and Attitudes in Research Laboratories." Journal of Social Issues, XII (1956), 24-31. Bavelas, A. "Leadership: Man and Function." Administrative Science Quarterly, IV (1960), 491-98. Bennis, W. G. "Leadership Theory and Administrative Beha- vior: The Problem of Authority." Administrative Science Quarterly, IV (1959), 259-301. ; Berlew, David E.; Schein, Edgar H.; and Steele, Fred I. (eds.). Interpersonal Dynamics. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1973. Besco, Robert, and Laushe, C. H. "Foreman Leadership as Perceived by Supervisors and Subordinates." Per- sonnel Psychology, XII (1959), 573-82. Bowers, David G., and Seashore, Stanley E. "Predicting Organizational Effectiveness with a Four-Factor Theory of Leadership." Administrative Science Quarterly, XI (1966), 238-63. Campbell, John P.; Dunnette, Marvin D.; Lawler, Edward E.; and Weick, Karl E., Jr. Managerial Behavior, Per— formance,and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1970. Cartwright, D. C., and Zander, A. (eds.). Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Chemers, Martin M., and Skrypek, George J. "Experimental Test of the Contingency Model of Leader Effective- ness." Journal of Applied Psychology, LVI (1972), 172-77. 172 173 Crowe, Bruce J.; Bochner, Stephen; and Clark, Alfred. "The Effects of Subordinates' Behavior on Managerial Style." Human Relations, XXV (1972), 215-37. Dawson, Jack E.; Messé, Laurence; and Phillips, James. "Effect of Instructor-Leader Behavior on Student Performance." Journal of Applied Psychology, LVI (1972), 369-76. Day, R. C., and Hamblin, R. L. "Some Effects of Close and Punitive Styles of Supervision." American Journal of Sociology, XVI (1964), 499-510. Dessler, G. "A Test of the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Bernard M. Baruch College, City University of New York, 1973. , and House, R. J. "Test of the Path-Goal Model of Leadership." Working Paper, 1972. Evans, Martin G. "The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on the Path—Goal Relationship." Organizational Beha- vior and Human Performance, V (1970), 277-98. Fiedler, Fred. "Engineer the Job to Fit the Manager." Harvard Business Review, LIX (1965), 115-22. . A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Filley, A. C., and House, R. J. Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1969. Fleishman, E. A. "The Description of Supervisory Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVI (1953), 1-6. . "A Leader Behavior Description for Industry." Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Edited by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, 1957. . "Leadership Climate, Human Relations Training and Supervisory Behavior." Personnel Psychology, VI (1953), 205-22. . "The Measurement of Leadership Attitudes in Industry." Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVI (1953), 153-58. 174 . "Twenty Years of Consideration and Structure." A paper presented at the 5.1.0. Centennial Event Symposium, Contemporary Development in the Study of Leadership, April 29-30, 1971. , and Harris, E. F. “Patterns of Leadership Beha- vior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover.“ Personnel P§ychologyp XV (1962). Fleishman, E. A.; Harris, E. F.; and Burtt, H. E. Leader- ship and Supervision in Industry. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Educational Research, The Ohio State University, 1955. Fleishman, E. A., and Simons, J. "Relationship Between Leadership Patterns and Effectiveness Ratings Among Israeli Foremen." Personnel Psychology, XXIII (1970). Fleishman, E. A., and Peters, D. A. "Interpersonal Values, Leadership Attitudes, and Managerial Success.“ Personnel Psychology, XV (1962). Georgopoulous, Basil 8.; Mahoney, Gerald M.; and Jones, Nyle W. "A Path-Goal Approach to Productivity.“ Journal of Applied Psychology, XLI (1951), 345-53. Ghiselli, E. E. “Managerial Talent." American Psycholo- gist, XVIII (1963). , and Wyatt, Thomas. "Need Satisfaction, Managerial Success and Attitudes Toward Leadership." Personnel Psycholquv XXV (1972), 413-20. Gibb, C. "Leadership." Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. II. Edited by G. Lindszey. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Gibson, J.; Ivancevich, J.; and Donnelly, J. Organizations: Structure, Processes, Behavior. Dallas: Business Publications, 1973. Goodstadt, Barry, and Kipnis, David. "Situational Influ- ence on the Use of Power." Journal of Applied Psychology, LIV (1970), 201-207. Graen, George; Alvares, Ken; Orris, James; and Martella, Joseph. "Contingency Model of Leadership Effective— ness." Psychology Bulletin, LXXII (1970), 285-96. 175 Graen, George; Orris, James; and Alvares, Ken. "Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness." Journal of \ Applied Psychology, LIV (1971), 196-201. Hackman, R. J., and Lawler, E. E. III. "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics." Journal of Applied Psy- chology, LV (1971), 259-86. Halpin, A. W., and Winer, B. J. "A Factorial Study of the Leader Behavior Description.“ Leader Behavior; Its Description and Measurement. Edited by R. M. Stogdill and E. A. Coons. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, 1957. Hemphill, J. K. "Leadership Behavior Associated with the Administration Reputation of College Departments." Journal of Educational Psychology, XLVI (1955). Hersey, Paul, and Blanchard, Ken. "Life Cycle Theory of Leadership." Training and Development Journal, (1969), 26-34. Hill, Walter. "The Validation and Extension of Fiedler's Theory of Leadership Effectiveness." Academy of Management Journal (March, 1969), 33-47. Hollander, Edwin P. "Style, Structure and Setting in Organizational Leadership." Administrative Science Quarterly, XVI (1971), 1-9. , and Julian, James. "Contemporary Trends in the Analysis of Leadership Processes." Psychological House, Robert J. "A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effective- ness." Administrative Science Qparterly, XVI (1971), ; Filley, Alan: and Guyarati, Damodar. "Leadership Style, Hierarchical Influence and the Satisfaction of Subordinate Role Expectations." Journal of Applied Psychology, LV (1971), 422-32. Hrebiniak, Lawrence, and Alutto, Joseph. "Personal and Role-Related Factors in the Development of Organi- zational Commitment." Admipistrative Science Quarterly, XVI (1972), 555-73. Hulin, C. L., and Blood, M. R. "Job Enlargement, Individual Differences and Worker Responses." Psychological Bulletin, LXIX (1968), 41-55. 176 Hunt, J. G. "Leadership Style Effects at Two Managerial Levels in a Simulated Organization." Administra- tive Science Quarterly, XVI (1971), 476-86. Jennings, E. E. "The Democratic and Authoritarian Approaches: A Comparative Survey of Research Findings." Problems and Practices in Industrial Relations. Report No. 16. American Management Association, 1958. . The Executive: Autocrat, Bureaucrat, Democrat. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Kahn, R. L. “The Prediction of Productivity." Journal of Social Issues, XII (1956), 41-49. . "Productivity and Job Satisfaction." Personnel Psychology, XIII (1960). Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. “Human Organization and Worker Motivation." Industrial Productivipy. Edited by L. R. Tripp. Madison: Industrial Relations Research Association, 1951. Katz, D.; Maccoby, N.; and Morse, Nancy. Productivity, Supervision, and Morale in an Office Situation. Detroit: Darel Press, Inc., 1950. Kavanagh, Michael J. "Leadership Behavior as a Function of Subordinate Competence and Task Complexity." Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, XVII (1972), 591-600. Kay, E.; Meyer, H. H.; and French, J. R. P. "Effects of Threat in a Performance Appraisal Interview." Journal of Applied Psychology, XLIX (1965), 311-17. Kipnis, David, and Cosentino, Joseph. "Use of Leadership Powers in Industry." Journal of Applied Psychology, LIII (1969), 460-466. Kirk, Roger. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Beha- vioral Sciences. Belmont, Ca1if.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1968. Klein, Stuart; Kraut, Allen; and Wolfson, Allen. "Employee Reactions to Attitude Survey Feedback: A Study of the Impact of Structure and Process." Administrative Science Quarterly (1971), 497-514. Klein, Stuart, and Ritti, R. R. "Work Pressure, Supervisory Behavior and Employee Attitudes: A Factor Analysis." Personnel Psychology, XXIII (1970). 177 Korman, A. K. "Consideration, Initiating Structure, and Organizational Criteria—~A Review." Personnel Psychology, XIX (1966), 349—61. . Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971. LaWSher C. H., and Nagle, Bryant. "Productivity and Atti- tudes Toward Supervisors." Journal of Applied ngr chology (1953), 151-62. Lawler, E. E. "Job Attitudes and Employee Motivation: Theory, Research and Practice." Personnel Psychology; XXIII (1970), 223-39. . Organizational Pay and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. Lewin, K. "The Dynamics of Group Action." Educational Leadership, I (1944), 195-200. Likert, R. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1961. Lowin, Aaron, and Craig, James. "The Influence of Level of Performance on Managerial Style." Organization Behavior and Human Performance, III (1968), 440-58. Mann, F. C.; Dubin, R.; Homans, G. C.; and Miller, D. C. Leadership and Productivity. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1965. Miles, Raymond and Ruthe. "Human Relations or Human Resources." Harvard Business Review, LIX (1965), 148-63. Misumi, J.: and Shirakashi, S. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Supervisory Behavior on Productivity and Morale in a Hierarchical Organization." Human Relations, XIX (1966), 297-307. Mitchell, Terence. "Leader Competence and Leadership Style." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, XIV (1970), 166-74. ; Biglan, Anthony: Oncken, Gerald; and Fiedler, Fred. "The Contingency Model: Criticism and Suggestions." Academy of Management Journal (March, 1970), 253-67. 178 Nealey, Stanley M., and Blood, Milton. "Leadership Perfor- mance of Nursing Supervisors of Two Organizational Levels." Journal of Applied Psychology, LII (1968), 414-22. , and Fiedler, Fred. "Leadership Functions of Middle Managers." Psychology Bulletin, LXX (1968), 313-29. Nunnally, Jum C. Psyometric Theory. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1967. Oaklander, H., and Fleishman, E. A. “Patterns of Leadership Related to Organizational Stress in Hospital Set- tings." Administrative Science Quarterly, VIII Patchen, M. "Absence and Employee Feeling About Fair Treat- ment." Personnel Psychology, XIII (1960). . "Supervisory Methods and Group Performance Norms." Administrative Science Quarterly, VII (1962). Peak, Helen. "Attitude and Motivation." Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Edited by M. R. Jones. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1955. Pepinsky, Pauline; Pepinsky, Harold; and Pavlik, William. "The Effects of Task Complexity and Time Pressure Upon Team Productivity." Journal of Applied Psychol- ggy, XLIV (1960), 34-38. Rossel, Robert. “Instrumental and Expressive Leadership in Complex Organizations.“ Administrative Science Quarterly (1970), 306-16. Rubenowitz, S. "Job Oriented and Person Oriented Leadership." Personnel Psychology, XV (1962). Sales, 8. M. "Supervisory Style and Productivity: A Review and Theory." Personnel Psychology, XIX (1966). Schuler, R. "Worker Background and Job Satisfaction: Comment." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XXVI (1973), 851-53. Shepard, J. M. “Functional Specialization, Alienation, and Job Satisfaction.“ Industrial and Labor Relations Review, XXIII (1970), 207-19. Skinner, Elizabeth. "Relations Between Leader Behavior Pat- terns and Organization-Situational Variables." Personnel Psychology, XXII (1969), 489-94. 179 Stogdill, Ralph. "Personal Factors Associated with Leader- ship." Journal of Psychology, XXV (1948), 35-71. , and Coons, Alvin (eds.). Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Research Monograph 88. Columbus, Ohio: OSU Bureau of Business Research, 1957. Tosi, H. "A Re-Examination of Personality as a Determinant of the Effects of Participation." Personnel Psy- chology, XXIII (1970), 91-99. Vroom, V. H. Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs, N.JI: Prentice- Hall, 1960. . "Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, LIX (1959), 322-27. . Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964. Wanous, J. P. "The Role of Individual Differences in Human Reactions to Job Characteristics." A Working Paper. New York University, 1973. Wigdor, Larry. “Effectiveness of Various Management and Organization Characteristics on Employee Satisfac- tion and Performance as a Function of Employees' Need for Independence." Unpublished Doctoral dis- sertation, Bernard M. Baruch College, City Univer- sity of New York, 1969. Wofford, James. "Behavior Styles and Performance Effec- tiveness." Personnel Psychology, XXII (1969), 461-95. Yukl, G. A. “Conceptions and Consequences of Leader Beha- vior." Paper presented to the California State Psychological Association, NeWport Beach, Calif., January, 1969a. p . "A Situation Description Questionnaire for Leaders." Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, LXXX (1969b), 515-18. . "Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership." Orggpization Behavior and Human Performance, VI T1971), 414-40. QRIES III I "llllllllllllllll