ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF AN EXECUTIVE TRAINING PROGRAM: A FIELD EXPERIMENT By John Roland Mietus Purpose: A field experiment was conducted to determine the effects of four levels of leader development treatments on leadership attitudes and perceived behaviors of high—level, state government executives. Subjects and Treatments: Sixty—three §§ from several different depart- ments of a state government were exposed to one of four levels of treatment: l) feedback to §s of (a) subordinates' perceptions of §s' individual leader behaviors, (b) §s' self reports of leader behavior and attitudes, (c) collective, fellow gs' self reports of leader be- havior and attitudes, (d) all subordinates' collective perceptions of all §s' leader behaviors; 2) feedback as above and a university sponsored, general management development program; 3) feedback and development program as in (2) above and placement of §s into a situation requiring a decision to set or not set goals for improved leader be- haviors; 4) no intervention. John Roland Mietus Design and Instrumentation: A multivariate pretest and six months after treatment posttest design was used. The dependent variables were (l) §s' collective leadership attitudes, (2) collective leader behavior as perceived by §s and (3) by 254 of their subordinates. Also measured were §s' perceptions of their superiors‘ individual expectations for §s' leader behavior. Measurement was through an instrument, developed specifically for this study, which in turn was based on several similar standard leadership instruments. Results: The four treatment levels exerted no significant main effects. There was some mild support for the hypothesis that §s' perceptions of their superiors' expectations for their leadership were related to ‘ changes in §s‘ behaviors and attitudes; construct validity limitations in the instrument, however, prevented a more definitive statement of, the relationship. §_reported and subordinate reported behaviors were correlated to a low positive degree. THE IMPACT OF AN EXECUTIVE TRAINING PROGRAM: A FIELD EXPERIMENT By John Roland Mietus A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1974 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Credit for this work is especially due to: Phyllis, John, and Michael, my wife and children, for being; Professor Frederic Nickert for his interest in my professional development, his endless hours spent helping me develop this work, and his being an all around good guy; Professor Eugene Jacobson, Professor Carl Frost, Professor Frank Schmidt, and Professor John Nakeley, for their encouragement, advice, and faith; Dr. Russell Dore and the Training Division of the Michigan Civil Service Commission for their help in data collection. ii Page LIST OF TABLES .......................... v LIST OF FIGURES ......................... vii LIST OF APPENDICES ...................... . . viii Chapter I. HISTORY ......................... 1 Introduction ..................... 1 Purpose ....................... 1 Related Research ................... 2 General Management Training ............. 4 Cognitive and Motivational Structures ........ 12 Feedback and Goalsetting ............... 19 The Measurement of Leadership ............ 28 II. STUDY OBJECTIVES ..................... 32 III. METHODOLOGY ....................... 35 Instrumentation ................... 35 The Setting ..................... 40 Sample ............... . . . ..... 41 TABLE OF CONTENTS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page Design ........................ 47 Data Analysis .................... 51 IV. RESULTS ......................... 62 Scale Validation ................... 62 Sample Characteristics ................ 72 Hypothesis Testing .................. 74 V. DISCUSSION ........................ 87 APPENDICES ..... . ...................... lOO LIST OF REFERENCES ........................ l96 iv Table 10. n. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES The Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix Used to Assess Construct Validity of the Behavior Scale of the Instrument ..... Sample Size in Each Treatment Level and Method of Selection ........................ Attrition from the Initial Sample ............. The Experimental Design .................. General Model for Univariate Analyses of Variance Used in Testing Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3 ............ Interscale Correlation Matrices with Alpha in the Diagonal Construct Validity of the Behavior Scale .......... Original and Revised Scales ................ Item-Scale Correlations on the Revised Scales , ...... Interscale Correlation Matrices with Alpha in the Diagonal, Revised Scales ................. Means and Standard Deviations of Scale Scores ....... Comparison of Pretest Scores ................ Mean Post Minus Pretest Difference Scores ......... Attitude Scores of §s and Their Subordinates ........ Mean Post Minus Pretest Difference Scores, Goalsetting Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 38 42 46 48 58 64 66 68 69 71 72 74 76 76 77 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table l6. l7. l8. l9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Summary of Results, Hypothesis 5 ....... . . . . . . Design of MANOVA for Hypothesis 5 . . . .......... Mean Post Minus Pretest Difference Scores, Hypothesis 5 . . Univariate ANOVA for Perceived BOSXPECTS Effect . . . . . . ANOVAs for Interaction of BOSXPECTS and Treatment Levels. . Differences Between High and Low BOSXPECTS Groups' Change Scores, Expressed in Standard Deviation Units, in the ATT and §:Reported BEH Variables ............. Univariate ANOVAs for Perceived BOSXPECTS Effect, Groups G, T, and F only ..................... Differences Between High and Low BOSXPECTS Groups' Change Scores, Expressed in Standard Deviation Units, in the Subordinate Reported BEH Variable ............ Relationship Between ATT and BEH .............. Vi Page 78 79 80 80 81 82 83 84 85 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Hypothesized Treatment Effects. . . . ........... 58 vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE, TRAINEE VERSION ......... . B. PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE, SUBORDINATE VERSION ........ C. POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE, TRAINEE VERSION .......... D. POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE, SUBORDINATE VERSION ........ E. LETTER TO SUPERIOR OF TRAINEE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SUBJECT .................. . ...... F. FEEDBACK PACKET FOR TRAINEES, PRETEST RESULTS ....... G. INFORMATION USED TO STANDARDIZE FEEDBACK BETWEEN COMPARISON GROUPS, PRETEST FEEDBACK ........... H. GOALSETTING EXERCISE, MAY l973 .............. I. GOALSETTING EXERCISE, JULY 1973 .............. J. FEEDBACK PACKET FOR TRAINEES, POSTTEST RESULTS ...... K. ITEM-SCALE CORRELATIONS, INITIAL SCALES .......... viii Page 100 lll 122 134 I47 167 T69 T71 174 I89 CHAPTER I HISTORY Introduction Management development programs that include a mix of content and techniques have become pervasive and expensive aspects of modern organizations. Yet the number of carefully designed studies measuring the impact upon the manager and his followers of a total management development package are few, and the number of studies measuring the relative effects of two or more variations in total packages of man- agement development are fewer still. From a cost and effectiveness standpoint, it would be beneficial to both the practitioner and academic communities to have available more studies of the latter kind. Purpose This research compared the effects over time of three variations of a management development package with the effects of no treatment upon the leadership beliefs, desires, and behaviors of a sample of high level state government leaders and their direct subordinates. Related The treatment patterns were: Data handback to §s of subordinates' perception of, and desires for, Ss‘ leadership behaviors; information given to each §_as to how his leadership behaviors and beliefs compared with those of his peers. Data handback as above and a university-sponsored general management development program. Data handback and management development program as above, and the placement of S; into a situation requiring a decision to set or not set goals for their leadership behaviors. No treatment. Dependent variables were: Collective perceptions of significant leader behavior: l. as reported by gs. 2. as reported by direct subordinates of Ss. Collective §s' leadership attitudes. Research Cartwright (1949), in presenting some findings of research on U.S. War Bond sales, postulated a general model of behavioral change. To influence the behavior of a person, a chain of processes must be activated within him. These processes, in order, were: 1. A particular cognitive structure must be created. The person must become aware of the message of the potential influencer; this perception must then be accepted as part of the person's cognitive structure. Here cognitive structures are considered to be clusters of beliefs, without their corresponding affect. A particular motivational structure must be created. The person must see the behavior suggested by the cognitive structure as a realistic path to some personal goal. The more goals seen as attainable by a behavior or behaviors, the more probable it is that the person will engage in the behavior. Attitude, as viewed within the instrumentality-value analysis framework, is a close approximation to motivational structure. A particular behavioral structure must be created. The cogni- tive and motivational structures must gain control of the person's behavior at some point in time. To the extent that a path of action is specifically defined and located in time, it will more probably gain control of behavior. An effective method of placing a given motivational structure in control of behavior is to put the person in a situation requiring a deci- sion to take, or not to take, an action that is part of the structure. If the person's cognitive and motivational struc- tures are appropriate to the behavior requested of him, he will act. The treatments described earlier could be analyzed for differ- ential effects in inducing these cognitive, motivational, and behav- ioral structures, and for inducing behavioral changes per se. A review of the literature on these leadership development programs showed no systematic attempt to do this. General Management Training Since top management began to be convinced in the late 1940's that leadership training was useful for their supervisors and middle managers, there has been a remarkable adoption of human relations training programs. There has been quite a bit of variability in con- tent, methods, and settings for these programs. The more traditional programs had classrooms as a setting, staffmen as trainers, and lecture- discussion methods as a primary medium. Substantively, they included information on personality, motivation, attitudes, leadership, personal efficiency, and interpersonal relationships. The trainee was primarily in a passive role. The sensitivity training group and structured laboratory involved the learner in active learning and practice in interpersonal relationships, using data gathered in the training ses- sions. The survey collection, feedback, and team development meeting approach involved the gathering of interpersonal process data about the supervisor's organization; the supervisor, subordinates, and trainer then discussed these data as a means to the improvement of interper- sonal functioning. This thesis was primarily concerned with the first type of program discussed above, the more popular and traditional lecture- discussion classroom type of training. Few systematic studies have been made to evaluate rigorously this type of training. Many studies of a less than experimental design have been conducted, and most pro- claim many benefits. Rigorous evaluations of human relations training have generally made the following assumptions: l) changes occur as a result of train— ing in the leader's attitudes about supervision, 2) these changes are reflected in the leader's behavior toward subordinates, 3) this changed behavior is perceived by subordinates, and 4) they in turn become more satisfied with their superior, more motivated and productive (Mann, l957, p. 150). Because of the confounding of many uncontrolled inter- vening variables, it has been difficult at best to assess leadership training impact against the extrinsic criterion of worker productivity. On the other hand, evaluation studies measuring the impact by means of the focal person's self-reports have been incomplete. If the direct subordinate of the trainee has noted a change in trainee behavior it can then be said that training had an effect. A more rigorous standard would require observed behavioral changes in subordinates. Hence, properly done evaluation studies measure not only trainee self-reports of beliefs and behaviors, but also subordinate perceptions of trainee behavior. Few studies have done this within the framework of a well controlled experimental design. The following were studies that met these criteria. In the early l950's, three studies were conducted at the Inter- _national Harvester Company's Central School in conjunction with the University of Chicago by Fleishman, Harris, and Burtt. These studies had a target population of supervisors; various techniques and content were presented. Evaluation criteria were the Leadership Opinion Ques- tionnaire (LOQ) and the supervisor form of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). The first study focused on an exper— imental group of forty-six supervisors; no control groups were used. Initiating structure scores decreased and consideration scores in- creased. The second study used three experimental groups which were differentiated on length of time after training that the posttest was administered; a control group was used. No differences were found on the LOQ between the experimental and control groups, and the only significant difference on the LBDQ was that one of the three trained groups was lower on consideration than the controls. However, when the trainees were differentiated on the basis of their manager's LOQ scores, significant differences on the LBDQ were found between those trainees who had managers with high scores and those trainees whose managers had low scores. Thus the impact of training, if there was any, was u" u 0.. u.- 11'. fi neutralized by organizational climate. As this was a posttest only design, with matching of Ss on age, education, and experience, it may have been that the groups were not comparable. A third study was run. One experimental and one control group were measured before training and after one year after training. There were no changes in mean scores, but the pre-post correlation of subordinate ratings on the LBDQ was lower for the experimental group; that is, leadership patterns were less stable for the experimental group. This might be explained in that different sub-groups of trainees might have reacted differen- tially to the training; when they were placed together in the analysis of the experimental group changes, differences between them may have cancelled out (Fleishman, 1953; Fleishman, Harris, Burtt, 1955; Harris and Fleishman, 1955). Canter (1951) ran a supervisory human relations training pro- gram for eighteen first line supervisors in an insurance company. Training was by lecture-discussion methods and emphasized cognitive information regarding the psychology of human behavior. Ten two-hour sessions were presented. A control group of eighteen supervisors re- ceived no training. Both groups had a battery of six tests administered in a pre- and posttest design. For five out of twelve scores available, the experimental group changed more than would have been predicted on the basis of the control group's changes. However, in this study the probability of a Type I error was set at .10. Tests measured knowledge of general psychological facts, logical reasoning, social judgment, supervisory knowledge and ability to estimate group opinion. Tyler (1949) in a companion study, measured changes in morale of the subordi- nates of these supervisors. Improvement in morale was found in both . experimental and control groups. Hariton (1951) studied the effects of human relations training on skilled trades foremen in a large public utility. Fifty first—line foremen and their four hundred subordinates were split into matched experimental and control groups; these groups were further naturally split into two field divisions each. The criteria were foremen's atti- tudes and behaviors toward subordinates; these were operationally de- fined by measuring employee perceptions of foremen before the training period and three months after the end of the training. There was a significant increase in satisfaction with foremen in one experimental division and a significant decrease in the other experimental division. When the experimental divisions were combined, the differences were neutralized. Changes in the control group did not center on supervi— sion. The variable most highly related to changes in the experimental division was the practices of the foreman's superior. It was concluded that training foremen in human relations principles was effective in changing subordinate satisfaction with foremen only when higher level supervision was open to both the course content and to change. In 1958 Moon and Hariton studied the effects of a human rela- tions training program in inducing behavioral changes in engineering supervisors in a section of the General Electric Corporation. Sixty- six subordinates of thirty-two trainees and sixty-seven subordinates of non-trainees were asked to fill out a ten-item questionnaire regard- ing behavioral changes their superiors made in training-related areas over a two-year period encompassing the training. Trainees were seen as changing more on eight of ten items; these items were primarily related to the consideration construct. Schwartz, Stillwell, and Scanlan (1968a, 1968b) report a study in which middle managers from an insurance company were exposed to a "stock" university training program. A cycle or time lag design was used, and §s were randomly assigned to the two groups; it was six months between the times the two groups were trained. The LBDQ was adminis— tered before and after training; no feedback to participants was re- POrted. Between the two training programs, each participant was inter- VIewed in regard to how he handled critical incidents in his job. The §§ irlthe first group were described as becoming less definitive, less Production-centered, less active, less oriented toward superiors, and more oriented toward subordinates. The S; in the second group were described as becoming more active and moving toward more structure. An interaction of the first training program and other parts of the orga- nizational system was found. The interviews showed the trained group 10 talked more of employee development and reported more personnel inci- dents; the second group talked more of conflict and staffing problems. Hand, Richards, and Slocum (1972, 1973) evaluated the effective- ness of a human relations training program for inducing changes in con- sideration, initiating of structure, and self-awareness in forty-two steel industry middle managers. Experimental and control groups were randomly selected and further divided, on the basis of organization climate, into consultative and authoritarian groups. The dependent variables were measured by the LOQ, the Supervisory Behavior Descrip- tion Questionnaire (SBDQ), a performance rating scale, and Berger's self-acceptance scale. Climate was measured by the Institute for Social Research's Profile of Organization Characteristics. Measurements were nude prior to training, ninety days after training, and eighteen months after training. Ninety days after training not much change was noted; elghteen months after training SBDQ consideration scores increased in b0th experimental groups and decreased in both control groups. Experi- mental subjects also saw themselves as more considerate and self-aware. The autocratic control group increased in SBDQ initiating structure scores at eighteen months. Salary and promotion increases favored the conSultative group; this was taken to be an indication of top management values which reinforced the human relations consideration training but not the initiation of structure training. The need for a long period , . .‘.C " - I... o b .I-!' , .... .F '2 ‘ ‘OI' l U can '0'- l OI.- n! .5- 'l 1 11 of time to elapse between training and assessing attitude and perform- ance changes was suggested. Numerous forces, other than training, have been seen as influ- encing the leader and establishing, in the Lewinian sense, an equi- librium state. A well established finding within the organizational psychology literature has been that the cultural environment of a leader has a large impact upon his behavior and attitudes. Essentially unilateral power and authority structures of a bureaucratic organiza- tion underlie the hierarchical structuring of roles. The expectations of a superior have been viewed as one of the determining factors in a nanager's behavior (Mann, 1957, p. 152). The aforementioned studies (Fleishman, Harris, Burtt, 1955; Hariton, 1951; Hand, Richards, and Slocum, 1972) indicated that organizational climate, especially the leadership style of the superior of the trainee, heavily influenced the effect of training. Therefore, in assessing the impact of an interven- tion, it has been important to consider this variable. These studies, among the best designed in the literature, con- clentrated on measuring as dependent variables subordinate and trainee Perceptions of trainee's consideration and initiation of structure behaviors. No attempt was made to relate the training to changes in trainee beliefs about leadership or motivation to change one's leader- ship style. Yet it may have been that the interventions had an effect at these cognitive and motivational levels but not at the behavioral 12 level. A time lag between training and behavior change was noted in one of the studies. Perhaps cognitive or motivational measures might have predicted behavior change. Qggnitive and Motivational Structures Early in this paper Cartwright's (1949) formulation of a be- havioral change model was briefly described. It was theorized that cognitive; motivational, and behavioral structures appropriate to the desired behavior must be present before the actual behavior occurs. The former two structures are discussed now, while the latter will be discussed in the next section. This author conceived of the cognitive and motivational struc- tures as being in the domain of attitude and attitude change theory. According to Triandis, this area of social psychology appeared to have tWO‘main theoretical camps. Instrumentality-valence analysis models ”Ade up one orientation; in these the attitude toward a psychological °bJect was defined as a composite of the perceived instrumentality of “it object to the subject's goals, weighted by the subject's evaluation °f‘those goals. Triandis (1971) placed M. B. Smith, Cartwright, Fish- bfiin, and the Michigan School of Carlson, Peak, Rosenberg, Walker, and HeVnes all as working within this framework. Miner and Dachler (1973) cited studies in this tradition done by Lawler, Dachler, Graen, and Mabley. 13 The other theoretical orientation was that attitude had three components, the cognitive, affective, and conative; it was the combi- nation of these three components that defined attitude. Researchers using this approach to a greater or lesser degree have been, according to Triandis (1971), Krech and Crutchfield, Newcomb, Turner and Con- verse, Secord and Bockman, Sherif, and Cantril. The instrumentality- valence model addressed itself to the cognitive component of the cognition-affect-conation model; a person had beliefs regarding the instrumentality of an act or object. In the process of providing an instrumental view of the world, the instrumentality-valence model addressed itself to affective components by considering valences of expected outcomes. Cognitive structures and beliefs were essentially similar. Fishbein and Ajzen defined belief as the subject's perception that an ObJect or person had certain characteristics, qualities, or attributes, or was related to some other concept, object, or person. Also, a belief was the subject‘s judgment that a given behavior, policy, or 5W6 tegy had certain characteristics or led to certain goals, values, °V<3ther outcomes (Fishbein, Ajzen, 1972, p. 494). In order to induce a given cognitive structure in a person, it was conceived that the SEHGer must send the message, the receiver must receive it wholly and accurately, and then accept it. 14 In leadership development programs, the above may have been quite a feat. In programs utilizing guest speakers, the messages related to the same topic have sometimes differed depending on the speaker. When the lecture, group exercise, or group discussion modes were used, there was some probability that the trainee never received the message or that he perceived it inaccurately; seldom if ever has there been testing of the student to determine acquisition of this belief structure. Given that the belief structure sent by the instructors has been received and accepted accurately by the trainees, the next ques- tion concerned itself with the type and level of affect the partici- pants held regarding the belief structure. Here was the core of atti- tude. This author considered Fishbein's conceptualization of attitude useful. Following Thurstone (1931), Fishbein conceived of attitude as a unidimensional level of affect for or against a psychological object (1967, p. 478). To put it another way, attitude was viewed as a com- POund in which the elements were beliefs and its affective value (i.e. attitude) was a function of the affective value of the constituent beliefs (Fishbein, Ajzen, 1972, p. 488). Although each belief sug- geSted an attitude, the attitude itself could only be reliably ab- Stracted from a consideration of the constellation of beliefs the individual held. Thus, if one had been measuring an individual's attitude regarding a leader's being considerate toward his followers, 15 one would have determined the beliefs forming the cluster “considera- tion," measured the affect for each of the separate beliefs, and finally obtained an overall score, which would have been defined as attitude toward considerate behavior in a leader. The simple affect toward a belief structure did not denote com- pletely the motivational structure. A manager may have been kindly disposed to the belief that consideration is a mark of an effective leader, yet not have desired that he himself be considerate. The defi- nition of motivational structure included the instrumentality—value model of attitude referred to earlier. Only when a person believed that actions, based on a cognitive structure which he evaluated highly, led to a valued goal, could an appropriate motivational structure be said to exist. For example, if a participant in a leadership develop- ment program wished to become a more effective leader (goal or high Value), if he believed considerate leaders were effective (belief), and If he believed he would be effective as a considerate leader (instru- mentality), he could be said to have the appropriate motivational Structure for becoming more considerate. An instrumentality-value analysis was not all that was neces- Sary to explain a motivational structure, affect apart from instrumen- tality was essential. If in the example above, the participant evaluated considerate behavior for himself very low (which was a belief about the instrumentality and value of considerate behavior for C r... e \- u-o pl . IQ! V! In! 0 u 1'- no a o , ., ., u I. 4 ~03 ' n ‘D .0 ‘IP ' | 'n v u .l‘ O. n . ' on e r. o 1 . a. . j . e [- I a.'. I . v. I ‘_‘ ‘b ‘- a ’- . \ .I . u’ ." Pm .‘n 16 himself), but desired very much to be an effective leader and believed that considerate leaders are effective, the motivational structure to behave in a considerate manner may or may not be induced. Also, if he had in his repertoire other beliefs about effective leaders, for ex- *ample, structuring leaders are effective, which he evaluated highly, the motivational structure for these older beliefs would remain high and the motivational structure for consideration would not be induced. If, however, he did not have these other, non-conflicting beliefs, in all likelihood, the considerate motivational structure would be induced. A motivational structure in its broadest sense has been con- ceived of as a willingness or desire to engage in a general class of behaviors with respect to a class of psychological objects. This was not the same as a behavioral intention, which, according to Dulany (1961), was the person‘s intention to perform a specific behavior in a specific situation. In examining the relationship between beliefs and attitudes, bEtween cognitive structures and motivational structures, it has been Possible to become quickly confused due to the diverse conceptual and Opewational definitions used. However, from a tremendous amount of research there seemed to emerge a consistent positive relationship between cognitive structures and motivational structures on the whole. Attitudes were formed on the basis of beliefs. A unidimensionally 17 defined attitude was related to a belief about the same psychological object (Rosenberg, 1960; Fishbein, 1965, 1967; Fishbein and Ajzen,1972). There was no reason to expect that any specific belief would be related to any specific behavior or behavioral intention simply because of the multitude of intervening variables in the relationship, particu- larly the type of motivational and behavioral structures involved. The findings relating attitudes to behaviors have been incon- sistent. Fishbein and Ajzen (1972, p. 528) reviewed twenty-four studies investigating the influence of a given manipulation on attitudes and behavior; nineteen reported different results, two reported the same effects, and three reported no effects at all. In a review of sixty other studies manipulating or measuring attitudes, fifteen studies re- ported a positive relationship with behavior, fifteen found no relation, and the remainder found relationships under some conditions but not Under others. Wicker, in a review of thirty studies, concluded it was more likely that attitude be found unrelated or slightly related to behavior (1969). There were a number of reasons for these inconsistent findings. Perimps the most important related to Operational definitions of atti- tudes and of behaviors. Fishbein and Ajzen (1972) found over 500 dif- fErent operations designed to measure attitudes; they stated that there WAS little reason to believe that these were measuring the same thing, Or that many even reached acceptable psychometric standards. Behavioral 18 criteria used have ranged from the quite common single or repeated observations of a single act (where the general pattern of findings was non-significant results) to indices based on repeated measurements of different behaviors. In the latter, significant positive relationships were common (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1972). Another reason for the incon- sistent findings may have been that mediator variables, such as social norms, situational characteristics, expectancies about positive or nega- tive reinforcements and personality characteristics, were present; these have not been systematically investigated. Placing these variables and their relationships into the context of human relations training, it seemed reasonable to assume that the largest and most immediate impact should be observed in the cOgnitive structures of the participants. Inasmuch as these development programs espoused particular points of view and attempted to persuade partici- pants to adopt certain attitudes, it seemed likely that motivational structures should be changed, but perhaps not to the same extent as cognitive structures. Finally, there was less reason to find consistent changes in behaviors of participants. In addition to difficulties in measuring leadership behaviors accurately and reliably, there were many interven- ing variables possible in the relationship. For example, social norms, expectations of the participant's superior, peers, or subordinates were thought to have a large effect in determining behavior. The 19 participant may not have had the required behaviors in his skill repertoire, or he may have been unable to perform them without exces- sive energy cost. Briefly summing up, general management or human relations training was conceived of as a rational-empirical strategy of change induction based on the views of the enlightenment and classical liber- alism; findings from applied research were diffused through a linkage system to a user population. Cognitive structures, belief systems about the nature of reality, should have been considerably influenced by this strategy. Motivational structures, desires to engage in a general class of behaviors with respect to a class of psychological objects, were less likely to be influenced by human relations training: empirical evidence was not available on this matter. Empirical evidence on the impact of human relations training on behaviors of trainees provided mixed findings; impact varied as individual, group, organizational, and task factors related to the focal person varied. There were no empir- ical studies on the relationship between cognitive structures, motiva- tional structures, and behaviors in a human relations training context. Feedback and Goalsetting This thesis was concerned with variations of leadership devel- opment programs. Human relations training was one strategy of change. 20 Feedback of pertinent information to the focal person regarding his leadership and placing him in a position to set goals were two other change strategies. The data collection and feedback approach was based upon a normative, therapeutic model, and stemmed primarily from the Lewinian action research tradition (Chin, Benne, 1968, p. 58). An assumption of inadequate knowledge of the characteristics of system members by system members was made by the change agent. Attempts were made to heighten self-awareness of focal persons by providing information on the beliefs, attitudes, desires, or behaviors of significant organiza- tional members (Lippitt, Watson, Westley, 1958, p. 47). Research evidence indicated that feedback of superior, subordi- nate, or peer perceptions and expectations of trainee leader behavior did have a positive effect on both trainee attitudes and behaviors. Ayers (1964) found that feedback to supervisors of their own LOQ scores and the norms for their peers was effective in accelerating the supervisors' thinking about their attitudes toward supervisory practices. Daw and Gage (1967) found that feedback from teachers affected principal's behavior. Elementary school principals were informed how their teachers rated them and an ideal principal on twelve dimensions; other principals, similarly rated, had the information withheld. After a period of time thought sufficient by the experimenter to allow any 21 behavioral changes to be perceived by teachers, a second description of principals by teachers was obtained. Score changes indicated the prin- cipals who received feedback moved more toward teacher expectations than did those who did not receive feedback. Data collected by the University of Michigan's Inter-Company Longitudinal Study from 14,800 respondents in 23 organizations have (been analyzed in terms of the organizational development procedure that intervened between pre— and post-measures. Data handback, a treatment consisting of the obtaining of subordinate perceptions of leader, sub- ordinate, and organizational characteristics and then the handing back to the work group supervisor the summary results, has produced signifi- cant changes, especially on the leadership indices of the measurement instrument, but only when climate is controlled (Bowers, 1973). Goodacre (1963) reported an attempt to change management prac- tices in regard to telling salaried subordinates what was expected of them, delegating responsibility, rewarding subordinates on the basis of performance, and openly communicating evaluations of subordinate per- formance to them. A questionnaire was given to 750 exempt subordinates which asked how well the managers did the above. There were four separate groups. The questionnaire was administered at a one-year interval. The experimental groups differed in the number of different treatments they received. These treatments were a new results-oriented performance appraisal program, individual feedback to the managers of -~ 22 their subordinates' reactions to their management practices, and an education program associated with the new appraisal program. The department that had the greatest number of treatment variables changed the most. It was not possible to isolate differential effects of the variables. The assessment center has been considered a management devel- opment program in that it provided the assessee with exercises at which to work, and in that it provided the assessee with feedback on his performance. Although this selection-placement and development program was becoming more common in the U.S., only two studies could be found which evaluated the impact of the assessment on the trainee. The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company was concerned if there were any negative, long—range effects of the assessment center upon unsuccessful assessees. A random sample of ninety—nine males were given in-depth interviews by staff psychologists some time (exact time not reported in secondary source) after an assessment center experience. Of these, forty-seven were unsuccessful, that is, they were not promoted after assessment. These unsuccessful assessees adjusted fairly con- structively to the negative feedback, with thirty-eight percent using some form of rationalization. Most appeared to have expanded their self development activities. Vogels (1973) studied the impact of assessment center experience upon sixty males who were in their mid-thirties and potential managers 23 in a parts division of an automotive manufacturing firm. Independent variables were self-esteem, time, and assessment rating. Dependent variables were job performance and job satisfaction measured six months after assessment. Only one significant change was found: satisfaction with promotions declined for those assessees with high self-esteem who attained below median assessment ratings. Vogels suggested that these high self-esteem persons externalized to the promotion system their failure to obtain high assessments. No significant changes were found in job performance or job satisfaction for either high or low self- .esteem assessees. Management-by-objectives has been a popular technique which combined feedback of performance results with goalsetting. The de- scriptive, case study literature emphasized both the positive and negative results of the technique. One well-designed empirical study appeared in 1965 (Meyer, Kay, and French). The General Electric Com- pany had a traditional performance appraisal program for its exempt employees. The personnel research group obtained permission to exper- imentally modify the appraisal interviews. Managers of a group of ninety-two appraisees, representing a cross section of salaried em- ployees in a single plant, were asked to break the single appraisal interview into two, one for appraisal and suggestions, one for salary consideration. One half of the appraisees received a participative interview with mutual goalsetting, the other half received a 24 non-participative interview with superior imposed goals. Results showed that: 1) a more than average amount of criticism disrupted subsequent performance; 2) that mutual goalsetting resulted in more goal accom- plishment than superior—imposed goals; and 3) that individuals accus— tomed to participation reacted more favorably to the participative interview than those not accustomed to participation. A subsequent - field survey design, found attitudes to be more favorable among appraisees whose superiors used the new management-by-objectives ap- praisal than the attitudes of appraisees whose managers did not use it. Two experiments tested the effectiveness of a new procedure for self-directed change in a self-analytic group and investigated the ef- fects of variations in the change technique (Kolb, Winter, and Berlew, 1968). In both studies graduate students in industrial management se- 1ected personal change goals that could be measured in the group and worked to achieve them during weekly or biweekly group meetings. Ini- tial commitment to achievement of the change goal was significantly related to change for §§ in both experiments. The twenty—five S; in Experiment 1 who were in groups where exchange of feedback about the project was encouraged reported significantly more change than did the twenty-one s; in groups where the projects were not discussed. In Experiment 2, where all fifty—four S; were encouraged to discuss the projects, it was found that the amount of discussion of an individual's project in the group during the second half of the semester was 25 significantly related to both self-perceived change and to group leaders' ratings of change. In field studies it has been difficult to readily determine if feedback or goalsetting regulated performance. Locke and Bryan (1969), in a laboratory study, attempted to separate the effects of knowledge qua knowledge from that of goalsetting using a 2 X 2 factorial design. The task was simple addition. The factors were knowledge of (raw) score (KR) vs. no knowledge of (raw) score (No KR), and hard vs. easy goals. Scores in the KR condition were given in such a form that they could not be used to set goals. The hard- and easy—goal Ss, on the other hand, were informed only of their progress in relation to a stand- ard set by the experimenter. It was found that the hard-goal S; worked significantly faster than the easy-goal gs, but the KR and No KR groups did not differ in performance. Two other studies established that feedback gave cues to per- formance, and in an ambiguous situation, was important in establishing mental sets or expectancies about future performance (Ilgren, 1971), and that it was the expectancy or anticipated satisfaction that best predicted subsequent goalsetting (Locke, Cartledge, and Knerr, 1970). Related research by Cummings, Schwab, and Rosen (1971) found that pre- vious performance on a simple addition task exerted a significant positive impact on the goal levels set by Ss. When the effects of four forms of knowledge of results (KR) were compared it was found the an n- f,- D 26 correct KR increased goal level significantly above that generated by No KR, while incomplete KR increased goal level insignificantly, and erroneous KR decreased goal levels below the level associated with No KR. It was possible to determine the goals which trainees held re— garding their behavior. It was thought that among trainees who re- ceived feedback on their past performance, those performance areas in which trainees set goals should have changed more than those in which trainees did not set goals. The impact of feedback should have been felt more heavily in the cognitive and motivational structures than the behavioral structure. The impact of goalsetting should have been felt throughout all structures. Beliefs should have become clearer and more defined, affect should have changed, and intentionality by definition should have changed. Furthermore, actual behaviors should have been changed most by goalsetting, less so by feedback, and even less by the cognitive inputs of general management training. Cartwright's (1949) analysis of persuasion in the War Bond sales campaign suggested that a behavioral structure could be induced by placing the person in a decision situation. The necessity of making _ a decision in regard to a specific action would have brought the cogni- tive and motivational structures into salience. ,If the apprOpriate Cognitive and motivational structures had been acceptedby the person, the desired goalsetting and/or action would have resulted. The War 27 Bond campaign data illustrated this; the percentages of people buying bonds was much greater among those personally solicited than among those who were not. Furthermore, solicitation among people with favor- able cognitive and motivational structures was much more likely to precipitate buying than it was among those persons with less favorable structures. Favorableness of cognitive and motivational structures was measured by the number of reasons a person could cite for buying bonds. Within management training, the imposition of a behavioral structure, as placing the trainee in such a position as to decide to set or not set a goal for change, could be thought to be roughly equiva- lent to the above personal solicitation. In summary, it was thought that an individual had cognitive structures which were in essence a belief system of what his world was like. He had motivational structures, which were tendencies or desires to engage in classes of behaviors. Motivational structures were closely related to cognitive structures. Finally an individual could be placed in a behavioral structure or situation which elicited acts related to the individual's motivational structure. Three strategies of changing leadership behaviors were considered: human relations training, feed- back of characteristics of system members to the trainee, and goal- setting by the trainee (which is placing him in a behavioral structure). 'These strategies could be studied in terms of the impact they had on cognitive structures, motivational structures, and actual behaviors of 28 focal persons. If these change strategies were considered additively the author predicted that feedback alone would have a slight effect on cognitive structures, and that feedback and human relations training would have more effect on cognitive structures, a moderate effect on motivational structures, and some effect on actual behaviors, although the amount of effect on behavioral structures would be contingent upon the organizational climate of the focal person. If goalsetting were added to the feedback and human relations training, then the impact found in the feedback and human relations combination would be ampli— fied. The Measurement of Leadership In the factor or dimensional approach to leadership, numerous variations on a theme of "consideration and initiation of structure" have been proposed (Hemphill, 1950; Hemphill and Coons, 1957; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Katz, 1950; Katz and Kahn, 1951; Kahn, 1958; Mann, 1962; Likert, 1961; Cartwright and Zander, 1960; Bowers and Seashore, 1966). The Bowers and Seashore formulation, which they termed the "Four Factor Theory of Leadership" appeared to contain within itself all the dimensions postulated by the other theories, with the exception Of those of Katz and Kahn. The dimensions Bowers and Seashore proposed 29 are Support, Interaction Facilitation, Goal Emphasis, and Work Facili- tation. The fbrmer two together defined the more familiar "considera— tion," and the latter two together defined the construct of "initiating structure."~ Support was defined as behavior that enhanced someone else's feeling of personal worth and importance. Interaction Facilita- tion was behavior that encouraged members of the group to develop close, mutually satisfying relationships. Goal Emphasis was behavior that stimulated an enthusiasm for meeting the group's goal or achieving excellent performance. And Work Facilitation was behavior that helped achieve goal attainment by such activities as scheduling, coordinating, planning, and by providing resources as tools, materials, and technical knowledge. The four scale, 13 item instrument measuring these supervisory leadership factors had been subjected to extensive analyses and revi- sions. In a recent form the alpha of the four supervisory scales ranged from .85 to .94. Each of the four scales had some unique vari- ance, enough to be considered a measure of some distinguishable aspect of leadership, although there was a considerable degree of overlap. The degree of overlap between pairs of indices ranged from a low of 52% shared variance for Supervisory Support and Interaction Facilitation, to a high of 66% for Goal Emphasis and Work Facilitation. 0n the average, for any pair of indices, about 60% of the variability in One index duplicated variability in the other index, while 40% of the 3O variability in each index was independent of the other. Approximately 39% to 45% of the variance in any one supervisory factor could have been accounted for by a general factor that ran through all four factors (Taylor and Bowers, 1972, p. 54). The items were of the summated scale variety, and were so worded that they were intelligible to many dif- ferent types of persons and could be applied to many situations. How— ever, it was just this universality of the items that this researcher believed hindered acceptance by the respondent. Numerous post- administration interviews by the researcher with all organizational levels of respondents in an insurance company indicated dissatisfaction with the lack of precise item meanings. As usually administered, the four scales were embedded in the larger "Survey of Organizations," of the Institute for Social Research. Subordinates were asked to indicate how they saw their boss as acting at present and how they would have liked to see him act. This informa- tion was usually computer tabulated and handed back to the supervisor. The feedback information was couched in terms of means, standard devia- tions, percentage of subordinates responding to each item response category, and profile lines showing the difference between Now and Like responses. This instrument provided a basis for the measurement of leader- ship and leadership changes for this study. However, it did not have the capability of fulfilling all the study's needs. 31 The reader will recall that the literature reviewed dealt with persons in three different roles: the role of trainee or focal person, the role of subordinate of a focal person, and the role of superior of a focal person. The latter role was important in the context of what the focal person believed his superior expected of him. The Seashore-Bowers instrument was not capable of meaSuring trainee or subordinate beliefs about effective leadership behavior, the trainee's desires for his own leader behavior, nor the trainee's per- ceptions of his present behavior. Nor was it capable of measuring the trainee's beliefs about his superiors' expectations. With the inclusion of additional scales based upon the same items, it should have been capable of performing the above. It was capable of obtaining subordi- nate perceptions of present and desired leader behavior. The constructs of initiating structure and consideration it measured were quite appro- priate for this study. At this point, the discussion turns from a literature review to the actual research study. CHAPTER II STUDY OBJECTIVES Study objectives were: To develop an instrument, based on the one built by Bowers and Seashore to measure leadership, which would be capable of assessing the following: 1. trainee beliefs about effective leadership, 2. subordinate beliefs about effective leadership, 3. trainee perceptions of present own leader behavior, 4. subordinate perceptions of trainee leader behavior, 5. trainee desires for own leader behavior, 6. subordinate desires for trainee leader behavior, 7. trainee perception of his superior's expectations for trainee's leader behavior. To develop a means of giving the trainee feedback information based on the above measurements. The information should include: 32 C. 33 l. subordinates' perceptions of trainee present leader behavior, 2. subordinates‘ desires for the trainee's leader behavior, 3. information on 1, 2 above, but for a large group of subordinates who report to the trainee's peers, 4. trainee's own perceptions of his leader behaviors, 5. trainee‘s own desires for his leader behaviors, 6. information on 4, 5 above, but for trainee's peers, 7. trainee‘s peers' beliefs about effective leadership. To set up the following treatment levels and to test hypotheses based upon them. 1. Treatments were: Group G--Feedback of information contained in B above, human relations training, and placement in a goalsetting situation. Group T--Feedback and a human relations training program. Group F--Feedback to trainee. Group C-—No treatment, only posttest data collected. 2. Hypotheses were: Hypothesis 1: Among the four groups, after the treatments, the group which changes its cognitive structure most toward behaving in a considerate and structuring manner will be G, followed in order by T, F, and C. 34 Hypothesis 2: Among the four groups, after the treatments, the group which changes its motivational structure most toward behaving in a considerate and structuring manner will be G, followed in order by T, F, and C. Hypothesis 3: Among the four groups, after the treatments, the group which changes most toward behaving in a consid- erate and structuring manner will be G, followed in order by T, F, and C. Hypothesis 4: Within group G, Ss who set goals will change more toward behaving in a considerate and structuring manner than S; who do not set goals. Hypothesis 5: §s who perceive their superiors as expecting more considerate and structuring leadership of them will become more so than those who do not perceive this. Hypothesis 6: Within the entire sample, the relationship between Ss' cognitive structures and behaviors will be lower than the relationship between Ss' motivational structures and behaviors. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY In short, the effects of four different levels of treatment were compared on upper-level civil service executives divided into four groups of approximately 15 each. Dependent variables of Ss' attitudes toward leadership, Ss' and subordinates' perceptions of leader behavior, as measured in a modified pre- and posttest administration of a ques- tionnaire instrument, were analyzed for treatment effects. The instru- ment itself was evaluated for construct validity. Instrumentation Two pre-treatment questionnaires were constructed; one was for Ss, and one for their subordinates. The Ss' questionnaire (Appendix A) was designed to measure cognitive structures or beliefs about effective leadership, motivational structures or desires for one‘s own personal leadership in one's present job situation, and perceptions of own leadership behavior in one's present job situation. The subordinates' form of the instrument (Appendix B) was designed to measure subordinates' cognitive structures or beliefs about effective leadership, motivational 35 36 structures or desires for the leadership of one's superior vis-a-vis oneself, and perceptions of the actual leadership behavior of one's superior in the present job situation. Thus there were three major scales within each questionnaire, and the trainee and subordinate ques- tionnaire forms complemented one another. The instruments designed for post-intervention use were dupli- cates of the pre-intervention instruments in terms of basic scales. However, the trainee or §_questionnaire also had questions which assessed changes in trainee cognitive structures, goals, behaviors, and environment; these were in Open-ended scale format. The trainee instrument also had a twelve-item scale which assessed the trainee's perceptions of his superior's expectations for trainee leadership be— haviors (Appendix C). The subordinate form of the instrument also had an open ended question about changes the subordinate perceived in the trainee's behavior during the period between measurements (Appendix 0). Within each scale were twelve items categorized in two sub- scales based on the Bowers and Seashore Four Factor Theory of Leader- ship (1966). These items were adaptations of those normally used in the Bowers-Seashore instrument; changes were intended to make the ques- tions more restrictive in meaning, thereby hopefully reducing a high positive response bias and also increasing variance. While the Bowers- Seashore instrument separated out all four constructs, this instrument collapsed the constructs into two, consideration and initiating 37 structure. This was deemed desirable inasmuch as basic construct val- idity of the instrument had yet to be assessed; as noted earlier, the Bowers-Seashore instrument had a considerable degree of scale intercor- relation. A five-choice, summated scale format was used. Following the 36 item main body of the questionnaire were biographical items of logical relevance to the research. Determination of scale validity started with the computation of item-total scale intercorrelations on the consideration and initiation of structure subscales. This provided empirical evidence for the ra- tionally based assignment of items to subscales. Construct validity of the instrument was assessed through the use of a multitrait—multimethod matrix. Campbell and Fisk (1959) suggested that both convergent and discriminant validity be assessed completely in order to better under- stand the extent to which the operational definitions of constructs re- flect the constructs. In this instance the traits in the matrix were consideration and initiating structure behaviors of the trainee. Only these two scales were used in the matrix as they were the only two scales in which both trainees and subordinates were referring to the activities of the focal person. To have attempted convergent validity coefficients for the motivational structure scales would have been il- logical, for then one would have been comparing trainees' own desires for the focal person‘s behavior and subordinates' own desires for the focal person's behavior; these were two different things. This also 38 held true for the cognitive structure scales. The methods were self- reports of trainees and reports of the subordinates of trainees. The matrix was set up as shown in Table 1. TABLE l.--The Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix Used to Assess Construct Validity of the Behavior Scale of the Instrument. Method 1 Method 2 Traits A1 B1 . A2 B2 Method A1 () 1 131 ** () Method A2 —— ## () 2 132 ## _ ** () Note.--Trait A refers to the Initiating Structure Behavior Scale. Trait B refers to the Consideration Behavior Scale. Ss' responses were denoted by Method 1, subordinate responses were denoted by Method 2. The convergent validity coefficients are the two values denoted by underlining. The reliability coefficients are the four values denoted by parentheses. The heterotrait-monomethod coefficients are the two values denoted by **. The heterotrait-heteromethod coefficients are the two values denoted by ##. In this assessment of the instrument the reliability coeffi- cients for each subscale were first examined; they should have been high. Also, if one reliability coefficient was much higher than another, the convergent validity coefficient of the two together might 39 have emphasized and exaggerated the method variance of the high one. A second factor considered was the standard deviation of the scales; a curtailment of range would have depressed the reliability coefficients and intercorrelations. Next the convergent and discriminant validity were examined. Summary statistics for assessing significance of differences between intercorrelations were not appropriate for this study. The intent was to assess the present instrument so that it might be improved and to determine the degree of credibility of the main results of this study. Were this a study which evaluated a fixed, published instrument, as the SBDQ or the LOQ, then perhaps a multimethod factor analysis (Jackson, 1969) might have been appropriate. Convergent validity was shown by the values which are underlined in Table l; the higher these values the better, and they must have been at least significantly higher than zero. Convergent validity is the degree to which the results of two or more methods of measuring the same stimulus agree with one another. The methods may be different in that the persons providing the observations have different roles or in that the scoring procedures are different. In this instance, the re- spondents had different roles. Assessing discriminant validity involved the following compar- isons. Each convergent validity coefficient should have been higher than the heterotrait-heteromethod coefficients lying in its column or 4O row. Secondly for any given variable, the convergent val1dity coeffi- cients should have exceeded the monomethod-heterotrait coefficients. Crossvalidation was possible in this study. Measurements were taken at two different points in time with some relatively small dif— ferences in the respondent samples. The above matrix was evaluated for each of the administrations. Although the actual values of the coefficients were expected to vary between the two matrices, the pat- terns should have remained stable. The Setting The Personnel Management Program Service, M1chigan State Univer- sity, provided the Michigan Civil Service Commission with an Executive Development Program , The course consisted of sixty hours of classroom time, with seven half-day sessions of three hours each, and six full-day sessions of six and one half hours each. The program ran from March 7 to May 30, 1973. Focus was on three topical areas: 1. The Management Process The Role of an Executive Planning and Organizing Setting Goals and Objectives for Results Decision Making Management of Management Time 2. The Management of PeOple Motivation Conmunicating and Reviewing Performance Leadership Styles and Climate 41 Job Satisfaction and Enrichment Organizational and Team Development 3. State of Michigan Management Programs Civil Service Programs New Management Systems Varied yet rather traditional techniques were used. The greatest amount of time was spent in lecture and lecture-discussion format. Here the speakers, some of whom were of national reputation and with credentials in psychology, acted as experts giving out infor- mation. One to two hours out of most four-hour blocks of instruction involved either group discussion, role-playing, simulation exercises, or leadership style analysis. For example, the New Truck Dilemma was used in the decision-making session, The Desert Survival Problem was used to illustrate points in the Team Development session, and the Profile of Organization Characteristics was used to illustrate leader- ship styles. Sample The sample consisted of upper-level government executives (GS-14 and above) from all functions of the state of Michigan. Table 2 Shows sample size and method of selection in each treatment condition. 42 TABLE 2.--Sample Size in Each Treatment Level and Method of Selection. Treatment level or F‘fia] Selection Method group G 11 §s participated in training course, Spring, 1973, on Tuesdays. T 18 S5 participated in training course, Spring, 1973, on Wednesdays. F 14 Superiors of Ss in Group G and T selected these Ss. They were considered next in order for similar training as S; in Groups G and T were receiving. C 18 S; participated in training course, Fall, 1973. Focal persons in Groups T and G were participants in the Execu- tive Development Program in Spring 1973. As one half of the partici- pants attended sessions on Tuesdays and the other half on Wednesdays, this served as the basis of selection of persons into groups G and T. At the time of assignment to treatment conditions there was no informa- tion available to the experimenter which indicated that any factor relevant to the experimental design was either responsible for persons attending the Tuesday rather than Wednesday session or discriminated between these persons. There were initially 59 persons in these two classes; 29 persons were in the G group, and 30 persons were in the T group. The total population of managers in the state government at this level was approximately 2000. 43 Focal persons in group F were obtained by asking the superiors of 51 of the persons in Groups G and T to ask another of their immed- iate subordinates to participate in the study. This subordinate was to be the next to be sent to a training program similar to the Executive Development Program. Letters requesting the additional research sub- jects were hand carried to their superiors by the persons in groups G and T (Appendix E). The fourth (C) group of 18 S; was assigned to a posttest only, no treatment level. These 18 persons, of a total of 22 managers in the Fall 1973 Executive Development Program, volunteered to participate in return for §_providing them with information about their leadership. No persons who were part of group F were included in this no treatment group. An examination of the biographical data of the S; showed them to be, on the average, 40 to 49 years of age, college graduates, and to have previously attended two to three seminars or programs dealing with their supervisory skill development. They had served the State of Michigan for 10 to 20 years, and had been in their present job less than five years but more than three. They had ten or more years of supervisory experience and most had either asked their superior to be involved in a training program in the indefinite future or gladly acé cepted when asked to participate by their superiors. 44 Subordinates of the focal persons, as a group and on the aver- age, were in the age range of 30 to 50 years and had either had some college or had graduated from college. They had attended two super- visory skill development seminars or programs, and most had less than four direct subordinates but more than one. Their supervisory exper- ience ranged from three to ten years. They had been in Michigan state government for 10 to 20 years and in their position for three to five years. They had been direct subordinates of their present managers for from two to five years. The question of sampling as related to external validity was addressed. Were these S; systematically different from other high level executives in the state government? Since sampling from the population was not random, there was that possibility. Data on this issue were not readily available. However, one could argue that execu- tives were constantly being trained, and most expected to receive leadership training within their careers; these persons were simply involved in an ongoing organization activity. Randomization was another issue that was addressed. Were there significant differences between groups as initially sampled? As seen in Table 2 the method of assigning persons to groups varied. Since the method of assigning persons to groups was not a random method, the possibility of systematic differences on pertinent variables existed. However the argument referred to in the previous paragraph applied here 45 also. These persons were involved in an ongoing organizational ac- tivity, some were trained in Spring 1973, some were trained in Fall 1973, and others were considered next in order for training by their own superiors. Data were available to assess group differences. Leadership data for S; in groups G, T, and F based on the pretest questionnaire administration were analyzed; results are in the Results section of this paper; comparisons of these data for group C with the other three groups would have been meaningless as the data were gathered at two different times and organizational maturity may have caused differences between the groups. Biographical data could, how- ever, be compared for all four groups. While biographical information was not central to the question, it did provide additional insights and also information on group C. The product of thisexamination is also presented in the Results section. Subject attrition was a critical factor. Table 3 shows attri- tion from the initial contact sample for each of the four groups. The % return was computed by dividing the first number in each row into the last number in each row. Perhaps for group F a more realistic return rate than the .27 presented was .47. This .47 was the quotient obtained by dividing the number of persons who agreed to be pretested into the number of persons with complete posttest data. While 51 re- quests to participate were passed on to superiors of the Spring course 46 participants, it was not known how many of these superiors had other subordinates or had requested these subordinates to participate. ' TABLE 3.--Attrition from the Initial Sample. Pretest Agreed Pretest Posttest Posttest request to be data request data Group sent pretested complete sent complete % return ("1 (n) (n) (n) (n) G 29 27 24 24 ll 38 T 30 30 29 29 19 63 F 51 30 26 26 14 27 (47) C 22 18 82 The major reason for the drop between the n's in the "Agreed to be pretested" column and in the "Pretest data complete“ column was the S_had less than three persons return completed subordinate forms of the instrument. To obtain feedback of subordinate perceptions of his be- havior, the S.had to have had at least three subordinate forms of the instrument completed. If S; in groups G, T, and F did not receive feedback, they had to be dropped from the study. The decision of some persons who received feedback packets to not participate in the posttest caused the most serious drops in group sizes. In group F one S_retired from public service, one S_said his 47 work group was too busy to participate further, and one S_said he had not enough subordinates, time or confidence in the instrument to par- ticipate further. In group T, one person transferred to another job and became too busy to participate. Outside of these few persons, no other S; who dropped out of the study communicated with the experimenter after being sent the second set of materials. One reminder letter was sent to all S; who were in the posttest group and who did not return any completed questionnaires. The most serious drop in size occurred in group G, which also was involved in the most treatment levels and hence the most work. This attrition raised serious questions of sampling differences between groups as finally constituted. Sampling differences were assessed by examining biographical and pretest leadership style data on persons in each group who had complete posttest data. The products of this examination are presented in the Results chapter. Design The experimental design is summarized in the following table: 48 A.vmpumrrou mew: open page mmpmowuce m>onm mpnmu mgp cw xv x x u x x x x a x x x x x x e x x x x x x x x a Neoeoeeoem Peoeee=o_m Nxoeeeoee emooomoe meeeoom meewwwee meeooom Feoeeeooe mewuwmme omoooee Feom Peou a song ee\mP\P ~\o_ e~\~ om\m o_\m e_-¢\m K .e\m Enemy we eeo>v soe>eoo< eee mere .cmwmmo Poucmsmemgxm m:e-1.¢ m4m

—— 107 That‘s good. Now we would like you to answer questions 25 to 36 with another frame of mind. In your particular situation, what is the way you would like to manage your subordinates (who report directly to you?) 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. To what extent would you like to go to the extra trouble to encourage your subordinates to give their best effort? Although it would probably mean extra work for both yourself and your subordinate, to what extent would you like to have the two of you together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? To what extent would you like to take the extra time to keep your subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though your guess is that this additional information may help their morale more than their performance? If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent would you like to work with him to improve it? To what extent would you like to be open to the sug- gestions of your subordinates, even though in the past some suggestions may not have been too practical? To what extent would you like to offer unrequested help to an immediate subordinate who is having diffi- culty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a very great extent To a great extent 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 108 To what extent would you like to allow your immed- iate subordinates to choose their work methods, even though you may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort and patience on everyone's part, to what extent would you like to attempt to build your immediate work group, including yourself, into a high-performance work team? To what extent would you like to use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? To what extent would you like to stop what you are doing, not let yourself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to you? To what extent would you like to listen to and counsel subordinates regarding their non-work-related personal difficulties? How friendly and easy to approach would you like to be, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to you? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent 4 5 4 5 45 4 5 4 5 That finishes the main part of the exercise. answer the following items about yourself. in the analysis of the results. If you would, please They are included to aid 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. HOW mth—e How macaw—- o o o o 0 How (”#de How thN-d O 0 HOW mbUNd 109 old are you now? 60 or older. 50 to 59 years. 40 to 49 years. 30 to 39 years. 20 to 29 years. much formal education have you had? Completed doctoral degree. Completed master‘s degree. Graduated from college. Had some college work. Graduated from high school. long have you been with Michigan State Government? 20 or more years. Less than 20 years. Less than 10 years. Less than 5 years. Less than 1 year. long have you been in your present position? 10 or more years. Less than 10 years. Less than 5 years. Less than 3 years. Less than 1 year. much experience have you had in supervisory jobs? 10 years or more. Less than 10 years. Less than 3 years. Less than 1 year. None. At this time, what is the total number of subordinates. including your secretary, who report to you directly? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8 or more. Less than 8. Less than 4. One. None. 110 43. How many managementcn‘supervisory development programs, seminars, or conferences have you attended in your whole career? 1. More than 3. 2. Three. 3. Two. 4. One. 5. None. That does it. Do you have both the exercise booklet and the machine scored answer sheet completed? .Did you fill in the information on the back of the machine scored answer sheet? Great! The results will be given to you in a few weeks as mentioned earlier. APPENDIX B PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE, SUBORDINATE VERSION APPENDIX B PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE, SUBORDINATE VERSION Division of Organizational Research Department of Psychology MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Dear Sir or Madam: Michigan State University is conducting an Executive Develop- ment Program for the Michigan State Government. You and your manager are invited to participate in an exercise from the program. The objective of the exercise is to provide your boss with information on how his leadership practices compare with those of other State Government managers at his level. Another objective is for him to learn what changes, if any, take place in how he meets his leader— ship obligations as a result of using the information he receives. This personalized look at his leadership characteristics--what could be at the guts of his, and your own, career in the State Govern- ment--depends heavily on you. You and your peers who report directly to him are the only persons who can give an accurate and complete picture of his leadership practices. Also, research indicates that an important influence on the way a leader acts and thinks are the expectations and desires of his immediate subordinates. For these reasons you are asked to fill out the attached checklist. The exercise asks information on your beliefs about the effective-manager, on how you see your boss acting now, and how you would like to see him act toward yourself. Some questions you will have: WHAT DO I HAVE TO 00? Simply fill out the attached checklist. Mail the machine scored answer sheet back to M.S.U. in the envelope provided. 00 this no later than Wednesday, March 14, so that your answers can be included in the computer analysis. 111 112 WHEN DOES MY BOSS GET HIS INFORMATION? Early in April, possibly before that. I‘D RATHER NOT HAVE HIM KNOW MY OWN ANSWERS. HOW IS THIS TO BE HANDLED? Your responses will be grouped and averaged with those of other persons who report directly to him. If less than three of his subordinates (or other persons he might ask to complete the check- list) mail in their answers, your boss will get no information about his own leadership style. Of course all personal information will be treated confidentially and according to a professional code of ethics. WHAT IF I DON‘T WISH TO PARTICIPATE? Experience has shown this to be a valuable development tool, for both manager and subordi- nates alike. However, if you would rather not participate, it would probably be best for you to return the booklet to your manager, re- questing that he select another subordinate. WILL I GET ANY INFORMATION ON THE RESULTS? Not directly. However, you might ask your boss, in mid-April, for any information of a general nature. He will have data on how other managers in gen- eral in State Government act toward their subordinates, and also non- personal information on how these managers‘ subordinates responded to the checklist. Your own manager‘s personal leadership practices information is for his private use; it is up to him to decide whether or not to make it available to his subordinates and others. WHAT IF I NEED MORE INFORMATION? First ask your manager. If he cannot provide an answer, call John Mietus in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University, phone (517) 353-0686. 113 INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHECKLIST This is a multiple choice checklist. For each question first look through the answer possibilities and then choose the one that most clearly matches the answer you want to give. Mark that choice in the appropriate space on the machine scored answer sheet. Please answer all questions. Please use a No. 2 lead pencil; our scoring machine cannot read anything but No. 2 lead marks. Also: Make heavy black marks. Erase cleanly any change you wish to make. Make no stray marks. Try not to crease or fold the answer sheet, our scoring machine gets very uppity when fed crinkly paper. Fill out the checklist in privacy if you can. It is not necessary to fill in any identifying information on the front of the answer sheet. We have already assigned a computer code number to the answer sheet: this code number is one of a series that identifies your manager. However, as we will ask you to fill out the checklist again in August, please write your position title on the back of the machine scored answer sheet. This will allow us to match the two checklists from both administrations. Do this now. Mail the answer sheet in the envelope provided no later than Wednesday, March 14. The exercise booklet is yours to keep. It may prove helpful as a reference in the future. 0.K.? Here we go! 114 We get a lot of information about the way we should act as managers from many different sources. Popular magazines, technical journals, and newspapers all contain articles describing competent leadership; leadership training programs tell us to act in certain ways toward our subordinates; we can‘t help but observe the way our superiors, and other managers in State Government handle themselves. As a result, we all have in our minds the way in which the EFFECTIVE MANAGER should act toward his immediate subordinates. For questions 1 to 12, mark what is the way the EFFECTIVE MANAGER, other than your boss, in the State Government at your boss‘s level, SHOULD ACT toward his IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATES. NOTE: Look these answer possibilities over carefully. Answer each of the following questions by circling the number under the answer you wish to give. Iflgg_ mark the appropriate space on the separate machine scored answer sheet. To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent 1. To what extent should the effective manager go to the extra trouble to encourage his immediate sub- To a very great extent ordinates to give their best effort? 1 2 3 4 5 2. Although it will probably mean a lot of extra work for both the manager and subordinate, to what ex- tent should they together clearly define the sub- ordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? l 2 3 4 5 3. To what extent should the manager take extra time to keep his subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though his guess is that this additional information will help their morale more than their performance? 1 2 3 4 5 4. If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent should the manager work with him to improve it? 1 2 3 4 5 5. To what extent should the manager be open to the sug— gestions of a subordinate, even though in the past some of his suggestions have not been too practical? l 2 3 4 5 10. 11. 12. 115 To what extent should the manager offer unrequested- help to an immediate subordinate who is having dif- ficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To what extent should the manager allow an immediate subordinate to choose his work methods, even though the manager does not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent should the manager attempt to build his immediate work group including himself, into a high performance work team? To what extent should the manager use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to his immediate work group? To what extent should the manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to him? To what extent should the manager listen to and counsel a subordinate regarding non-work-related personal difficulties? How friendly and easy to approach should the manager be, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to him personally? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 To a great extent To a very great extent 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 116 Your boss has to manage in a particular job, with subordinates, peers, and superiors each of whom has certain needs, competencies, and expectations. He has to adapt his leadership to the situation. For items 13 to 24, indicate the ACTUAL relationship that exists NOW between your boss and yourself. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. To what extent does your manager go to what seems like extra trouble to encourage you to give your best effort? Although it probably means extra work for both your manager and yourself, to what extent do the two of you together clearly define your work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? To what extent does your manager take extra time to keep you informed about important matters affecting your work, even though you sometimes feel that he thinks this additional information may help your morale more than your performance? If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent does your manager work with him to improve it? To what extent is your manager open to the sugges- tions of his subordinates, even though you have a feeling that he thinks some of the suggestions in the past may not have been too practical? To what extent does your manager offer unrequested help to his subordinates when they have difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 117 To what extent does your manager allow you to choose your own work methods, even though you sometimes feel that he may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent does your manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including himself, into a high- performance work team? To what extent does your manager use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to his immediate work group? To what extent does your manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when you come in to talk to him? To what extent does your manager listen to and counsel you regarding non-work-related personal difficulties? How friendly and easy to approach is your manager, even though you have reason to suspect that this may sometimes be uncomfortable or personally dis— tasteful to him? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a very great extent To a great extent 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 118 Thank you. Now please answer questions 25 to 36 with another frame of mind. In your particular situation, what is the way ygg_ would like your manager to relate to you and his other immediate subordinates? 25. To what extent would you like your manager to go to the extra trouble to encourage you to give your best effort? 26. Although it would probably mean extra work for both your manager and yourself, to what extent would you like to have the two of you together clearly define your work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? 27. To what extent would you like your manager to take extra time to keep you informed about impor- tant matters affecting your work, even though you may sometimes think that he feels this additional information may help your morale more than your performance? 28. If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent would you like your manager to work with him to improve it? 29. To what extent would you like your manager to be open to the suggestions of his subordinates, even though you may have a feeling that he thinks some of the suggestions in the past may not have been too practical? 30- To what extent would you like to have your manager offer unrequested help to his subordinates when they have difficulty in solving a technical or adminis- trative problem? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent 31. 32. 33. 34. 355. 365. Please answer the following questions. 119 To what extent would you like to have your manager allow you to choose your own work methods, even though you may sometimes feel that he may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent would you like to have your manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including himself, into a high-performance work team? To what extent would you like to have your manager use staff meetings to solve problems of vital con- cern to your immediate work group? To what extent would you like to have your manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be inter- rupted, and really listen when you come in to talk to him? To what extent would you like your manager to listen to and counsel you regarding non—work-related per- sonal difficulties? How friendly and easy to approach would you like your manager, even though you may have reason to suspect that this may sometimes be uncomfortable or personally distasteful to him? 01’ the results. To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a very great extent To a great extent 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 They are to aid in the analysis 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 120 How old are you now? 60 or older Less than 60. Less than 50. Less than 40. Less than 30. m-DIWNs—f How much formal education have you had? Completed doctoral degree. Completed master‘s degree. Graduated from college. Had some college work. Graduated from high school. Ul-DOON-J How long have you been with Michigan State Government? 1. 20 or more years. 2. Less than 20 years. 3. Less than 10 years. 4. Less than 5 years. 5. Less than 1 year. How long have you been in your present position? 10 or more years. Less than 10 years. Less than 5 years. Less than 3 years. Less than 1 year. macaw—3 O O O o 0 How much experience have you had in supervisory jobs? 10 or more years. Less than 10 years. Less than 3 years. Less than 1 year. None. UTDOON-J At this time, what is the total number of subordinates who report to you directly? 8 or more. Less than 8. Less than 4. One. None. 01-5de 121 43. How many management or supervisory development programs, confer- ences, or seminars have you attended in your whole career? 1. More than 3. 2. Three. 3. Two. 4. One. 5. None. 44. How long have you worked as a direct subordinate for your present manager? 1 5 or more years. 2. Less than 5 years. 3. Less than 3 years. 4 Less than 18 months. 5 Less than 6 months. That completes the checklist. Did you complete the information on the back of the machine-scored answer sheet? Great. The results, anony- mously of course, will be given to your manager in a few weeks. Thanks. APPENDIX C POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE, TRAINEE VERSION APPENDIX C POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE, TRAINEE VERSION Division of Organizational Research Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 October, 1973 Last Spring you and some of your subordinates filled out the Leadership Practices Exercise and received feedback about how you and other managers like yourself in State Government lead the work of others. You‘ve had some time to weigh the feedback information, and to try new ways of increasing your effectiveness as a leader. Now is the time to find out how you personally, and the other managers as a group, have changed since last Spring. If you and some of your direct subordinates go through the Leadership Practices Exercise again, it will be possible for us to put this new information together with the earlier results and show you what changes you have made in the way you lead. Also, you will recall that a number of your peers were in an Executive Development Program at Michigan State University last Spring. We‘ll assess for you the ways in which you and others like yourself who 1were not in the Executive Development Program changed in relation to 'those managers who were in the program. This kind of comparison often gets interesting and surprising results. But before we can do this you must provide us with the informa- i:ion from the Leadership Practices Exercise. You are already familiar vvith the procedure. You fill out the Exercise, and ask from three to six of your direct subordinates also to fill it out about you. When the persons involved in the Exercise have sent the necessary material back to us, we analyze the answers and mail you a personalized packet of feedback information. 122 123 Specifically, the questionnaire which you fill out is the one to which this note is attached. It is on blue colored paper and it has a blue colored answer sheet. Your subordinates‘ questionnaires are on white paper and have lavender colored answer sheets. It will take you a bit longer this time to fill out the questionnaire because we are asking you, in addition to the familiar questions, to indicate what changes you have made in the way you lead. The three to six subordinates (or other person with whom you work regularly, in the event you don‘t have three direct subordinates) do ggt_have to be the same as the ones who filled out the questionnaire last Spring. However, it would greatly increase the accuracy of your own personal feedback data if they either are the same or at least are in the same jobs. If the person or persons you ask are not your direct subordi- nates, please indicate to them that the wording of the questions may be a bit inappropriate (eg. to what extent does your boss . . .); how- ever there are directions where needed in the questionnaire to make clear what this type of respondent should do. Inasmuch as we have no coercive control over when or if you return the completed questionnaire, it doesn‘t make any sense to set a deadline for returns. To give you an idea of what is probably rea- sonable, we should like to begin computer analysis of all returned forms by the end of October. 0.K.? If you have any questions either drop me a note at the address on the letterhead or call me at (517) 353-6422 or 353-0686. Expectantly, John R. Mietus 124 INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHECKLIST This is a multiple-choice checklist. For each question first look through the answer possibilities and then choose the one that most closely matches the answer you want to give. For each item mark your choice on the machine scored answer sheet. Please answer all the questions. Please use a No. 2 lead pencil; the scoring machine can read nothing but marks made with No. 2 lead. Observe carefully these other important requirements for the machine scored answer sheet: Make heavy black marks. Erase cleanly any change you wish to make. Make no stray marks of any kind. Try not to crease or fold the answer sheet; the scoring machine gets very uppity when it is fed crinkled paper. Try to fill out this checklist in privacy. Return both this booklet and the completed answer sheet in the addressed envelope. 0.K.? Here we go! 125 We get a lot of information about the way we should act as managers from many different sources. Popular magazines, technical journals, and newspapers all contain articles describing competent leadership; leadership training programs tell us to act in certain ways toward our subordinates; we can‘t help but observe the way our superiors and other managers in State Government handle themselves. As a result, we all have in our minds the way in which the EFFECTIVE MANAGER should act toward his immediate subordinates. For questions 1 to 12, mark what is the way the EFFECTIVE MANAGER,_ other than yourself, in the State Government at your level, SHOULD ACT toward his IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATES.”. NOTE: Look these answer possibilities over carefully. Answer each of the following questions by marking the appropriate space on the separate answer sheet. 1. To what extent should the effective manager go to the extra trouble to encourage his immediate sub- ordinates to give their best effort? 2. Although it will probably mean a lot of extra work for both the manager and subordinate, to what ex- tent should they together clearly define the sub- ordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? 3. To what extent should the manager take extra time to keep his subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though his guess is that this additional information will help their morale more than their performance? 4. If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent should the manager work with him to improve it? 5. To what extent should the manager be open to the suggestions of a subordinate, even though in the past some of his suggestions have not been too practical? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 To a great extent To a very great extent 3 4 5 3 4 5 6. 10. 11. 12. 126 To what extent should the manager offer unrequested ‘ help to an immediate subordinate who is having diffi— culty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To what extent should the manager allow an immediate subordinate to choose his work methods, even though the manager does not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent should the manager attempt to build his immediate work group including himself, into a high performance work team? To what extent should the manager use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to his immediate work group? To what extent should the manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to him? To what extent should the manager listen to and counsel a subordinate regarding non-work-related personal difficulties? How friendly and easy to approach should the manager be, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to him personally? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 To a great extent To a very great extent We have to manage in a particular job, with subordinates,‘ 127 peers, and superiors each of whom has certain needs, competencies, and expectations. We have to adapt our leadership to the situation. For items 13 to 24, please indicate the ACTUAL relationship that exists NOW between you and your immediate subordinates. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. To what extent do you go to the extra trouble to encourage your subordinates to give their best effort? Although it probably means extra work for both your— self and your subordinate, to what extent do the two of you together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? To what extent do you take extra time to keep your subordinates informed about important matters affect- ing their work, even though your guess is that this additional information may help their morale more than their performance? If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent do you work with him to improve it? To what extent are you open to the suggestions of your subordinates, even though in the past some suggestions may not have been too practical? To what extent do you offer unrequested help to an immediate subordinate who is having difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. ---‘—--—-----_—‘------------- 128 To what extent do you allow your immediate sub- ordinates to choose their work methods, even though you may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent do you attempt to build your immediate work group, including yourself, into a high-performance work team? To what extent do you use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? To what extent do you stop what you are doing, not let yourself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to you? To what extent do you listen to and counsel sub- ordinates regarding their non-work-related personal difficulties? How friendly and easy to approach are you, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or dis- tasteful to you? That‘s good. Now we would like you to answer questions 25 to 36 with another frame of mind. In your particular situation, what is the way you would like to manage your subordinates (who report directly to you)? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent a To a great extent To a very great extent 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 129 To what extent would you like to go to the extra trouble to encourage your subordinates to give their best effort? Although it would probably mean extra work for both yourself and your subordinate, to what extent' would you like to have the two of you together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? To what extent would you like to take the extra. time to keep your subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though your guess is that this additional information may help their morale more than their performance? If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent would you like to work with him to improve it? To what extent would you like to be open to the suggestions of your subordinates, even though in the past some suggestions may not have been too practical? To what extent would you like to offer unrequested help to an immediate subordinate who is having diffi- culty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To what extent would you like to allow your immediate subordinates to choose their work methods, even though you may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 To a very great extent 130 32. Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent would you like to attempt to build your immediate work group, including yourself, into a high-performance work team? 33. To what extent would you like to use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? 34. To what extent would you like to stop what you are doing, not let yourself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to you? 35. To what extent would you like to listen to and counsel Subordinates regarding their non-work-related personal difficulties? 36. How friendly and easy to approach would you like to be, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to you? -----------_-—--------------- We often act the way we think our boss wants us to. . For questions 37-48, indicate WHAT YOU THINK YOUR BOSS EXPECTS OF YOU. 137. To what extent does your boss want you to go to the extra trouble to encourage your subordinates to give their best effort? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a very great extent To a great extent 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 45. 131 Although it would probably mean extra work for both yourself and your subordinate, to what extent does your boss want to have the two of you together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? To what extent does your boss want you to take the extra time to keep your subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though his guess is that this additional information may help their morale more than their performance? If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent does your boss want you to work with him to improve it? To what extent does your boss want you to be open to the suggestions of your subordinates, even though in the past some suggestions may not have been too practical? To what extent does your boss want you to offer un- requested help to immediate subordinates who are having difficulty in solving technical or adminis- trative problems? To what extent does your boss want you to allow your immediate subordinates to choose their work methods, even though he may not think they are going to work very well? To what extent does your boss want you to use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 To a great extent To a very great extent 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 132 4.) C +3 0.1 C +3 d) x +3 04-, X C +30 00 : r-H did-J HX-H-Hw HOCXG) vu- GUS- F-GJ-OJ Cl PX“ e398: 9:26»? 0 166601wa 00000 F—F—P—F—F— 46. To what extent does your boss want you to stop what you are doing, not let yourself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comesirito talk to you? 1 2 3 4 5 47. To what extent does your boss want you to listen to and counsel subordinates regarding their non-work- related personal difficulties? 1 2 3 4 5 48. How friendly and easy to approach does your boss want you to be, even though he feels this may some- times be uncomfortable or distasteful to you? 1 2 3 4 5 That finishes the main part of the exercise. Please answer the follow- ing questions in the spaces provided. They are included to aid in the analysis of the results. . For these questions, think about your leadership during this last spring and summer. This is the period for which we are assessing any changes that you might have made in the way you lead. 49. List anything significant which happened to, or around, you that might have had an impact on the way you manage people. Examples: new boss; reorganization; promotion; a new and really different subordinate, or perhaps a new office system. 50. How have your beliefs about good or effective leadership-in-general changed? Please be as specific as possible. 133 51. From time to time managers change their goals for becoming more effective as leaders. They may add new goals, discard some goals, or change goals. How have your goals and intentions for becoming a more effective manager changed recently? What goals have you changed? 52. What have you actually changed in the way you lead people? Please be specific; use examples if you can. Thanks, that‘s it. Whew! We‘ll get feedback on this to you as soon as possible. One thing that really delays getting the results to you is the long wait before all respondents return their questionnaires. It would help a lot if you would remind those subordinates, to whom you gave the questionnaire, to fill it out as soon as they can. Please indicate the address to which you wish your personal and rather confidential feedback packet to be sent. Same address as the one to which this questionnaire was sent. E1 Other (Please write out completely, include zip code). 1:1 APPENDIX D POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE, SUBORDINATE VERSION APPENDIX D POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE, SUBORDINATE VERSION Division of Organizational Research Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 October, 1973 Dear Sir or Madam: Last Spring your immediate superior was told how his leadership practices compared with those of other State Government managers at his level. Perhaps you, through filling out a checklist called the Leader- ship Practices Exercise, anonymously contributed to providing him with information on how others in a position to know indicated they thought he leads at that time. Your immediate superior has had some time to weigh the informa- tion provided him, to set whatever goals, if any, he may have decided upon regarding his manner of leading, and to try out new ways of be- having in his leadership responsibilities. Now is an appropriate time for him to find out in what ways he may have changed. . As you possibly did last Spring, you are asked to fill out the attached checklist. You may already be familiar with the form if you filled it out earlier on him. If you are not familiar with it, the Exercise asks information on your beliefs about effective leadership, on how you see your boss acting now, and on how you would like to see him act toward you. After you and the others involved in the study fill out this form and return it to us at the university, say within the month of October, we will analyze the information and give your superior a new report. The report will show him how his direct subordinates see him as leading now and how they would like him to lead. It will also show him how his leadership compares with that of other managers in State Government, as well as any changes he has made in his leadership 134 135 behavior since early last Spring. And finally, the information will be used to evaluate in what ways the Executive Development Program of Michigan State University has helped executives like your boss increase their leadership effectiveness. It is always useful to measure the effectiveness of programs like these. Your own responses will not be known by your boss or any one else in State Government. Your answers will be averaged in with those of other persons who responded about your superior. If fewer than three persons fill out the checklist, your boss will get no personal informa- tion. All information which you provide will be treated confidentially and according to the code of ethics of the American Psychological Asso- ciation. If for any reason you decide not to participate, it would be helpful if you return the booklet to your boss and ask that he select another person. However, if you are thinking of not filling out the checklist because of a less than good relationship with him, consider that giving him some feedback from a safe distance may be just the start he needs to build a better relationship. If you need more information about this program or the forms involved, please first ask your boss. If you would rather not raise any questions with him or if he does not provide an adequate answer, call John Mietus at Michigan State University, phone (517) 353-6422 or 353-0686. Note: In some instances persons other than the direct subordi- nate of the manager in question are asked to fill out the checklist. If you are not a direct subordinate of this manager, and if you feel you know how he acts in a leadership situation, please work through all of the checklist. Where necessary you will find appropriate in- structions directed toward you. 136 INSTRUCTIONS FOR CHECKLIST This is a multiple choice checklist. For each question first look through the answer possibilities and then choose the one that most closely matches the answer you want to give. Mark that choice in the appropriate space on the machine scored answer sheet. Please answer all questions. Please use a No. 2 lead pencil; our scoring machine cannot read anything but No. 2 lead marks. Also: Make heayy black marks. Erase cleanly any change you wish to make. Make no stray marks. Try not to crease or fold the answer sheet; our scoring machine gets very uppity when fed crinkly paper. Fill out the checklist in privacy if you can. It should take 15 minutes to a half hour. It is not necessary to fill in any identifying information on the front of the answer Sheet. We have already assigned a computer code number to the answer sheet; this code number is one of a series that identifies your manager. However, please write your position title on the back of the machine scored answer sheet. 00 this now. Mail the machine-scored answer sheet in the addressed envelope provided. The exercise booklet is yours to keep. It may prove helpful as a reference in the future. 0.K.? Here we go! 137 We get a lot of information about the way we Should act as managers from many different sources. Popular magazines, technical journals, and newspapers all contain articles describing competent leadership; leadership training programs tell us to act in certain ways toward our subordinates; we can‘t help but observe the way our superiors, and other managers in State Government handle themselves. As a result, we all have in our minds the way in which the EFFECTIVE MANAGER should act toward his immediate subordinates. For questions 1 to 12, mark what is the way the EFFECTIVE MANAGER, other than your boss, in the State Government at your boss‘s level, SHOULD ACT toward his IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATES. NOTE: Look these answer possibilities over carefully. Answer each of the following questions by marking the appropriate space on the separate machine scored answer sheet. To what extent should the effective manager go to the extra trouble to encourage his immediate subordinates to give their best effort? Although it will probably mean a lot of extra work for both the manager and subordinate, to what extent should they together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? To what extent should the manager take extra time to keep his subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though his guess is that this additional information will help their morale more than their performance? If a subordinate‘s performance is adequate, to what extent should the manager work with him to improve it? To what extent should the manager be open to the sug- gestions of a subordinate, even though in the past some of his suggestions have not been too practical? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent A To a very great extent 45 45 4 5 4 5 10. 11. 12. 138 To what extent should the manager offer unrequested help to an immediate subordinate who is having diffi- culty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To what extent should the manager allow an immediate subordinate to choose his work methods, even though the manager does not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent should the manager attempt to build his immediate work group including himself, into a high performance work team? To what extent should the manager use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to his immediate work group? To what extent should the manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comesirito talk to him? To what extent should the manager listen to and counsel a subordinate regarding non-work-related personal difficulties? How friendly and easy to approach should the manager be, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to him personally? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent 45 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 139 Your boss has to manage in a particular job, with sub- ordinates, peers, and superiors each of whom has certain needs, competencies, and expectations. He has to adapt his leadership to the situation. For items 13 to 24, indicate the ACTUAL relationship that exists NOW between your boss and yourself (if you are not a direct subordinate of the person whose leadership is being analyzed, indicate, as best as you can, the actual relationship that exists NOW between this person and his direct subordinates). 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. To what extent does your manager go to what seems like extra trouble to encourage you to give your best effort? Although it probably means extra work for both your manager and yourself, to what extent do the two of you together clearly define your work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? To what extent does your manager take extra time to keep you informed about important matters affecting your work, even though you sometimes feel that he thinks this additional information may help your morale more than your performance? If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent does your manager work with him to improve it? To what extent is your manager Open to the sugges- tions of his subordinates, even though you have a feeling that he thinks some of the suggestions in the past may not have been too practical? To what extent does your manager offer unrequested help to his subordinates when they have difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To what extent does your manager allow you to choose your own work methods, even though you sometimes feel that he may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 140 Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone's part, to what extent does your manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including himself, into a high—performance work team? To what extent does your manager use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to his immediate work group? To what extent does your manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when you come in to talk to him? To what extent does your manager listen to and counsel you regarding non-work—related personal difficulties? How friendly and easy to approach is your manager, even though you have reason to suspect that this may sometimes be uncomfortable or personally dis— tasteful to him? Thank you. Now please answer questions 25 to 36 with another frame of mind. To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent 1 2 3 l l l l 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 To a great extent To a very great extent In your particular situation, what is the way you would like your manager to relate to you and his other immediate subordi- nates? (Again, if you are not a direct subordinate of this person, answer what is the way you would like this person to relate to his direct subordinates.) 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. l4l To what extent would you like your manager to go to the extra trouble to encourage you to give your best effort? Although it would probably mean extra work for both your manager and yourself, to what extent would you like to have the two of you together clearly define your work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? To what extent would you like your manager to take extra time to keep you informed about important matters affecting your work, even though you may sometimes think that he feels this additional infor- mation may help your morale more than your performance? If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent would you like your manager to work with him to improve it? To what extent would you like y0ur manager to be open to the suggestions of his subordinates, even though you may have a feeling that he thinks some of the suggestions in the past may not have been too practical? To what extent would you like to have your manager offer unrequested help to his subordinates when they have difficulty in solving a technical or adminis— trative problem? To what extent would you like to have your manager allow you to choose your own work methods, even though you may sometimes feel that he may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 142 Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone's part, to what extent would you like to have your manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including himself, into a high- performance work team? To what extent would you like to have your manager use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? To what extent would you like to have your manager stop what he is doing. not let himself be interrupted. and really listen when you come in to talk to him? To what extent would you like your manager to listen to and counsel you regarding non-work-related personal difficulties? ' ' How friendly and easy to approach would you like your manager. even though you may have reason to suspect that this may sometimes be uncomfortable or personally distasteful to him? ' Now a question that requires a written answer. To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a very great extent To a great extent 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 What changes has this person actually made, during the last spring and summer. in the way he leads his direct subordinates? Please be as specific as you can; use examples or incidents to illustrate if pos- sible. sheet below your position title. Write your answer in the back of the machine scored answer 143 Finally, please answer the following questions. They are to aid in the analysis of the results. 37. How old are you now? 60 or older. Less than 60. Less than 50. Less than 40. Less than 30. macaw—- 38. How much formal education have you had. Completed doctoral degree. Completed master's degree. Graduated from college. Had some college work. Graduated from high school. m-wa—e o o e o e 39. How long have you been with Michigan State Government? 20 or more years. Less than 20 years. Less than 10 years. Less than 5 years. Less than 1 year. m-thd 40. How long have you been in your present position? 10 or more years. Less than 10 years. Less than 5 years. Less than 3 years. Less than 1 year. m-wa-J o o o o D 41. How much experience have you had in supervisory jobs? 10 or more years. Less than 10 years. Less than 3 years. Less than 1 year. None. 01¢de 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 144 At this time, what is the total number of subordinates who report to you directly? 1. 8 or more. 2. Less than 8. 3. Less than 4. 4. One. 5. None. How many management or supervisory development programs, confer— ences, or seminars have you attended in your whole career? 1. More than 3. 2. Three. 3. Two. 4. One. 5. None. How long have you worked as a direct subordinate for your present manager? 5 or more years. Less than 5 years. Less than 3 years. Less than l8 months. Less than 6 months. UT-PDWN—J o o o o o Are you a direct subordinate of the person on whom you filled out this checklist? l. Yes. 2. No. Did you fill out a checklist similar to this one last spring on this manager? 1. Yes. 2. No. That completes the questionnaire. Would you return just the machine scored answer sheet in the addressed envelope provided? The results, anaonymously of course, will be given to your boss as soon as possible; this depends primarily on how soon the other respondents in the study fill out and return their answer sheets. Thanks. APPENDIX E LETTER TO SUPERIOR 0F TRAINEE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SUBJECT APPENDIX E LETTER TO SUPERIOR 0F TRAINEE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SUBJECT DIVISION OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan Dear Sir: In attending the Executive Development Program at Michigan State University, your subordinate will have a unique opportunity to assess his own leadership and compare it to that of his peers through- out Michigan State Government. However, he needs your help in obtain- ing some information for this exercise. In the opening session of the M.S.U. program, your subordinate was asked to complete a checklist describing his leadership behaviors and judgments; he was also asked to have up to six of his subordinates fill out a similar checklist about him. In less than a month, we will give him general information on the leadership of other managers in State Government at his organizational level and personalized informa- tion on his own leadership style. Later in the year, he will be asked to go through the exercise again. This will give him a better idea of what changes he effected in his leadership in the interim period; it will also provide us with one means of analyzing the Executive Devel- opment Program. WHAT ARE YOU ASKED TO DO? Select another direct subordinate to complete the checklist exercise. Why? A fairly large number of persons, including both course participants and non-participants, should be surveyed to obtain accurate information on the leadership behaviors and judgments of state government managers at your subordinate's organizational level. This information will be used as a guideline against which your subordinate can compare his own leadership information. 145 f.“ "'"‘“—‘l 146 Please select another of your immediate subordinates whom you feel would be next in line to attend a similar executive development program. Give him the envelope materials which are self—explanatory. Ask him to complete the checklist exercise. Because of computer time constraints, we must ask that all checklist answers be sent to us no later than Wednesday, March l5. Of course, the individual whom you select will also get infor- mation on his own leadership and that of other managers. If the individual you select would rather not participate, please select another person. If you have no subordinates who wish to participate, or if you feel the exercise is not appropriate for your work group, simply return the materials to me at M.S.U. through your subordinate who is a participant in the Executive Development Program. Feel free to look through the envelope materials. If you have any questions, please call me at M.S.U., phone (517) 353—0686. Cordially, John R. Mietus APPENDIX F FEEDBACK PACKET FOR TRAINEES, PRETEST RESULTS APPENDIX F FEEDBACK PACKET FOR TRAINEES, PRETEST RESULTS Results of the LEADERSHIP PRACTICES EXERCISE for Spring l973 Division of Organizational Research Department of Psychology MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY "Big fleas have little fleas to plague, perplex and bite ‘em. Little fleas have lesser fleas, and so on ad infinitum." --R. R. Fielder T47 T48 HOW TO USE THE PROFILES AS A DEVELOPMENTAL TOOL "Nearly all men die of their remedies, and not of their illnesses.“ —-Moliere Look at Profile Sheet 1. On the right half of the page is a column of scales, each scale with scores from T to 5. The two zigzag lines (profile lines) running from scale to scale compare the collec- tive judgments of your subordinates to each of the questions. On the left side of the page is (l) a shortened form of the question, (2) the collective judgment (average) of your subordinates regarding that question, (3) and a percentage distribution of responses. The percentage distribution is only provided if five or more subordi- nates responded; its purpose is to give an idea of how concentrated or spread out the judgments were on the question. Next, looking at the profile lines, find the questions where the NOW and LIKE lines are far apart. This reflects the aspects of your leadership where there is a discrepancy between what your sub- ordinates feel you do and what they would like you to do. (If things look not too good, recall the words of Winston Churchill: "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.") Detailed information on the various terms used in the profile sheets can be found in Appendix A. The actual questions used in the survey are listed in Appendix B; please refer to Appendix B before fixing in your mind the meaning of the shortened statements contained on the profile sheets. The other profile sheets are meant to provide additional data which may be of interest to you or your subordinates. These sheets are similar in design to Profile 1, but contain quite different comparisons: --Profile Sheet 3 compares how you lead with how your peers lead. --Profile Sheets 5 and 6 do not show any of your personal data. You might consider showing them to your subordinates or boss even if you don't intend to share your personal profiles with anyone. 149 In September you'll be asked to go through the exercise again. Then you'll be given information on (l) what changes you made in your own leadership style and (2) how your changes compare with those of the other managers, both those executives in the Development Program and those who were not in it. Following are your personal profile sheets: Profile Sheet 1 compares what your subordinates see as how you lead NOW with how they would LIKE to have you lead. Profile Sheet 2 compares what your SUBORDINATES see as how you lead now with ‘ what you YOURSELF see as how you lead now. Profile Sheet 3 compares how YOU lead now with how your PEERS lead now, both as seen by subordinates. Profile Sheet 4 compares how YOU would like to lead with how your PEERS would like to lead. Profile Sheet 5 compares what ALL subordinates see as how their bosses lead NOW with how they would LIKE to have their bosses lead. Profile Sheet 6 compares how your peers and you would LIKE to lead with how your peers and you think the "effective manager“ SHOULD lead. 150 How ____of your subordinates perceive your leadership NOW and how they would LIKE it., (Profile 1) to a very to a very little great i _ Arcade. __ _ _ 24. DJ itci Buy 2."_ extent_ _ _ _ _ extent_ _ Boss encourages best effort 13. Now . l--l--2--l--3--i--4--1--5 25. Like ' Sub's goals defined jointly 14. Now . l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 26. Like Boss informs subordinates 15. Now . l--i--2--l--3--l—-4--l--5 27. Like Boss helps sub. improve 16. Now . l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 28. Like Boss open to suggestions» l7. Now . l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 29. Like Boss offers unrequested help l8. Now . l--i--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 30. Like ._z Sub. chooses work methods 19. Now . l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 3l. Like Boss builds work team 20. Now . l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 32. Like Boss uses staff meetings 21. Now . l-—i--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 33. Like Boss listens to subordinates 22. Now . l--l--2--l--3--l--4--1--5 34. Like Counsels on personal issues 23. Now . l--l--2--l--3--l--44-l--5 35. Like Boss is friendly 24. Now . l--1--2--i--3--l--4--l--5 36. Like 15l How of your subordinates perceive your present leadership compared with‘fifiw you yourself perceive it. (Profile 2) to a very to a very Response or little great if. _ _ _Ax.er.aae_ _ _ 24. 21' 21:51 buy 9."- extent_ _ _ _. __ extent_ _ Boss encourages best effort 13. You ____ .. l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 l3. Sub. . ' Sub's goals defined jointly 14. You ____ l--l--2--l--3--l--4--1--5 14. Sub. Boss informs subordinates 15. You ____ l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 15. Sub. . Boss helps sub. improve l6. You ____ l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 l6. Sub. . Boss open to suggestions l7. You ____ l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 l7. Sub. . Boss offers unrequested help 18. You ____ l--4--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 18. Sub. . Sub. chooses work methods l9. You ____ l--l--2--l--3--l--4--i--5 l9. Sub. . Boss builds work team 20. You ____ l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 20. Sub.‘ . Boss uses staff meetings 21. You ____ l--l--2--l--3-ri--4--l--5 2l. Sub. . Boss listens to subordinates 22. You ____ l--i--2--i--3--l--4--i--5 22. Sub. . Counsels on personal issues 23. You ____ l--l--2--4--3--l--4--l--5 23. Sub., . ‘ Boss is friendly 24. You l--l--2--l--3--i--4--l--5 24. Sub. '7'" 152 How your present leadership compares with that of your peers; both profiles are based on responses of subordinates. (Profile 3) to a very to a very little great it _ _Axecase_ ._ _. _. 24.. 9.1 stci _b_U.t_1‘ 2”. meet. _ _ _ _ giant. _ Boss encourages best effort l3. You . l3. PeerB—I'TTTT'SS'BO'TB' Sub's goals defined jointly 14. You . ___ ___ ___ l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 l4. PeerTT TO l5 37' 29 lo Boss informs subordinates l5. You . ___ ___ l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 l5. Peerfi _B' IO 37' 3—4' l6 Boss helps sub. improve 16. You . l6. PeermTI'ZB'H'I-G'T Boss open to suggestions 17. You . i--L--2--L--3--a--4--a--5 l7.?eer377‘2'136'3'9'T7 1 Boss offers unrequested help 8. You . 18. PeermTTWHTB—B Sub. chooses work methods l9. You . ___ ___ ___ ___ l--L--2--L--3--L--4--L--5 l9. Peer 377' 3 _4’ 29 3 0 Boss builds work team 20., You . 20. Peerfl“? TO 26 34' 24' Boss uses staff meetings 21. You . i--:--2--:--3--:--4--:--5 21. PeerWWTFSO'KTf Boss listens to subordinates 22. You . 1--:--2--a--3--;--4--;--5 22. harm-47134323 Counsels on personal issues 23. 1--a--2--a--3--a--4--a--5 Y . 23. ngrnEWflT-O-T Boss is friendly 24. You . l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 24. PeerUTTWWE 153 How you would LIKE to manage compared with how 82 of your peers would LIKE to manage; both profiles are based on self-reports. (Profile 4) to a very to a very Response or little great if. _ _ _Axecaee_ _ - 2 21 31:19:19 2n- extent_ ._ _ - _ extent_ _ Boss encourages best effort 25. You l--1--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 25. Peersfi l l 10 31 57. Sub's goals defined jointly 26. You 1--L--2--L--3--L--4--L--5 26. Peers 474' O l 7 ‘40 5l Boss informs subordinates 27. You l--l--2--i--3--l--4--i--5 27. Peers 475' 0 O, 9 35 56 Boss helps sub. improve 28. You l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 28. Peers 3.8 O l 35 4] 22 Boss open to suggestions 29. You l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 29. Peers 4.| O O 23 41 35 Boss offers unrequested help 30. You l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 30. Peersfi 5 9 48 26 13 Sub. chooses work methods 31. You l--1--2--1--3--l--4--l--5 3]. Peers 374' 5 4 44 37 ll Boss builds work team 32. You 1--L--2--a--3--a--4--a--5 32 . Peers 47 O O 6 l6 78 Boss uses staff meetings 33. You l--l--2--l--3--l--4--1--5 33. Peers 3.5 2 6 27 34 32 Boss listens to subordinates 34. You l--l--2--l--3--l—-4--l--5 34. Peers 472' O 2 20 34 44 Counsels on personal issues 35. You l--l--2--l--3--l--4--i--5 35. Peers 2.7' l6 22 41 15 6 Boss is friendly 36. You 1--L--2--a--3--a--4--a-_5 36. Peersfi o l 18 51 29 154 How your peers manage NOW compared with the way their subordinates would LIKE them to manage; both profiles are based on responses of 379 subordinates. (Profile 5) to a very to a very little great i. __ _Axecage_ _ _ ._ E 215111 2313.1 2"- extent_. _ _. .. _ giant... _ Boss encourages best effort 13. Now 3.2 11 11 35 30 13 l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 25. Like 3.5 4 6 40 36 14 Sub's goals defined jointly 14. Now 3.1 10 15 37 29 10 1--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 26. Like 4.0 1 2 21 46 30 Boss informs subordinates is. Now 3.4 8 10 32‘ 34 16 --l-- --l-- --l-- --£-- 27. Like 4.1 0 2 16 47 35 Boss helps sub. improve 16. Now 2.7 14 23 43 16 3 --l-- --l-- --i-- --l-- 28. Like 3.2 3 10 56 25 7 Boss open to suggestions '17._ Now 3.7 2 6 36 39 17 --l-- --l-- --l-- --l-- 29.. Like 3.8 1 l 35 47 17 Boss offers unrequested help 18. Now 2.9 11 19 44 18 8 --1-- --l-- --l-- --i-- 30. Like 3.2 4 14 51 24 7 Sub. chooses work methods 19. Now 3.7 3 4 29 43 20 --l-- --l-- --l-- --l-- 31. Like 3.7 2 6 32 44 16 Boss builds work team 20. Now 3.6 6 10 26 34 24 --l-- --l-- --l-- --l-- 32. Like 4.3 0 1 12 40 47 Boss uses staff meetings 21. Now 3.0 16 16 30 26 12 --l-- --i-- --l-- --l-- 33. Like 3.6 4 9 31 34 21 Boss listens to subordinates 22. Now 3.8 4 6 19 43 28 --l-- --l-- --l—- --l-- 34. Like 3.8 2 4 25 44 24 Counsels on personal issues 23. Now 2.3 39 19 24 10 8 --l-- --i-- --l-- --l-- 35. Like 2.0- 40 27 24 8 1 Boss is friendly 24. Now 4.1 l 4 17 39 39 --l-- --l-- --l-- --l-- 36. Like 3.8 2 5 30 42 21 155 How your peers would LIKE to manage compared with how they think the "EFFECTIVE manager" should manage; profiles based on responses of 82 managers. (Profile 6) to a very to a very little great i. _ _Axecaae_ _. _ _ 24. 9.134511 9.0924. extent_ _ _ _ _ extent_ _ Boss encourages best effort 25. Like 4.4 1 1 10 31 57 .l--l--2--l--3-—l--4--l--5 l. Efct 4.3 o l 16 37 46 . Sub's goals defined jointly 26. Like 4.4 O 1 7 4O 51 l--l--2--i--3--l--4--i--5 2. Efct 4.4 0 O 7 49 44 Boss informs subordinates 27. Like 4.5 0 ‘0 9 35 56 l--l--2--l--3--i--4--l--5 3. Efct 4.4 0 0 10 44 46 Boss helps sub. improve 28. Like 3.8 O l 35 41 22 l--l--2--l--3--i--4--l--5 4. Efct 3.6 1 l 46 38 13 Boss open to suggestions 29. Like 4.1 0 0 23 41 35 l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 5. Efct 4.0 0 0 26 44 31 Boss offers unrequested help 30. Like 3.3 5 9 48 26 13 1--l--2--l--3--1--4--l--5 6. Efct 3.2 6 6 57 21 10 Sub. chooses work methods 31. Like 3.4 5 4 44 37 ll l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 7. Efct 3.1 6 11 55 26 2 Boss builds work team 32. Like 4.7 O 0 6 16 78 l--l--2--l--3--l--4--l--5 8. Efct 4.7 0 0 5 23 72 Boss uses staff meetings 33. Like 3.9 2 6 27 34 32 l--l--2--1--3--l--4--l--5 9. Efct 3.9 1 4 28 39 28 Boss listens to subordinates 34. Like 4.2 0 2 20 34 44 l--l--2--i--3--l--4--l--5 10. Efct 4.1 0 l 22 45 32 Counsels on personal issues 35. Like 2.7 16 22 41 15 6 l--i--2--l--3--i--4—-l--5 ll. Efct 2.9 10 17 53 13 6 Boss is friendly 36. Like 4.3 O l 16 35 48 1--l--2--l--3--l--4--4--5 12. Efct 4.1 O 1 18 51 29 156 APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF SOME ITEMS AND TERMS ON THE PROFILE SHEETS PROFILE LINE: a line connecting all the plotted average values or individual responses. Its purpose is to give the reader a quick visual impression of the data and to allow him to make comparisons. AVERAGE: The average value of the selections of the five re- sponse options for each question. It is calculated in the following manner: Response Number of persons Option times selecting that option quals Values 1 X 1 = 1 2 X 1 = 2 3 X 3 = 9 4 X 0 = 0 5 x _l_ = .2 Total = 6 Total = 17 The Average equals the Total Value divided by the Total Number of Persons, or 17 + 6 = 2.8. RESPONSE: This is your own response to a particular question. In Profile Sheets 2 and 4 your individual response is compared with that of some group. SHORTENED STATEMENTS of the original questions: these are to save you the trouble of frequently referring to the complete question. It is important to remember that these shortened statements do not adequately reflect the full meaning of the original questions. Refer -to Appendix 8 before fixing in your mind the meaning of the shortened statements. Also recall that there are variations in meaning which persons attach to the same set of words; the meaning which you see in a question may not be the same meaning others attached to the question. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION: the percentage of persons who selected each of the five optional responses for each question. The information is given only when there were five or more respondents. Sometimes the percents will not add to 100%. If they do not, it is either the result of rounding percents to a whole number or because some individuals did not answer the question. 157 THE SAMPLE: eightyvtwo upper level executives in Michigan state government and 379 of their immediate subordinates. In some instances, rather than immediate subordinates, co—workers who knew the executive well responded to the questionnaire. Approximately two-thirds of the executives were enrolled in a development program at Michigan State University; the other third were executives who re- ported to the same boss as the enrollees, and thus were at about the same organizational level. A wide variety of departments and func- tions of state government are represented in the sample. 158 APPENDIX B QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE EXERCISE These are the questions which were asked of managers and their subordinates. Also, the shortened statements which are used in the profiles are included. All questions have the same answer possibilities. To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent **‘k********************************* (”#de THE EFFECTIVE MANAGER SCALE This scale contains questions which asked judgments about the way the effective manager, in Michigan state government and at a high organizational level, SHOULD act toward or with immediate subordinates. A11 responding managers were asked to make these particular judgments without including themselves in their thoughts, and all responding sub— ordinates were asked to not include their boss in the judgments. The exact same questions were put to both managers and sub- ordinates. 1. Boss encourages best effort 1. To what extent should the effective manager go to the extra trouble to encourage his immediate subordinates to give their best effort? 2. Sub‘s goals defined jointly 2. Although it will probably mean a lot of extra work for both the manager and subordinate, to what extent should they together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? 159 3. Boss informs subs 3. To what extent should the manager take extra time to keep his sub— ordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though his guess is that this additional information will help their morale more than their performance? 4. Boss helps sub. improve If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent should the manager work with him to improve it? 5. Boss open to suggestions 5. To what extent should the manager be Open to the suggestions of a subordinate, even though in the past some of his suggestions have not been too practical? 6. Boss offers unrequested help To what extent should the manager offer unrequested help to an immediate subordinate who is having difficulty in solving a tech- nical or administrative problem? 7. Sub. chooses work methods 7. To what extent should the manager allow an immediate subordinate to choose his work methods, even though the manager does not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Boss builds work team Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone's part, to what extent should the manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including himself, into a high performance work team? 9. Boss uses staff meetings 9. To what extent should the manager use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to his immediate work group? 160 10. Boss listens to subs. 10. To what extent should the manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to him? 11. Counsels on personal issues 11. To what extent should the manager listen to and counsel a subord- inate regarding non—work-related personal difficulties? 12. Boss is friendly 12. How friendly and easy to approach should the manager be, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to him personally? ************************************ THE MANAGER NOW SCALE This scale asks the same questions as asked above, but in a different frame of reference. Here the respondent is asked to indicate the actual present relationship that exists between the manager and subordinate in the respondent‘s own work group. Although the same question meaning was put to both manager and subordinate, slight changes in wording were necessary. Both versions of the question are listed below, first the manager's version, then the subordinate's. 13. Boss encourages best effort 13. To what extent do you go to the extra trouble to encourage your subordinates to give their best effort? 13. To what extent does your manager go to what seems like extra trouble to encourage you to give your best effort? 14. 14. 14. 15. 161 Sub's goals defined jointly Although it probably means extra work for both yourself and your subordinate, to what extent do the two of you together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? Although it probably means extra work for both your manager and yourself, to what extent do the two of you together clearly define your work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? Boss informs subs. To what extent do you take extra time to keep your subordinates in- formed about important matters affecting their work, even though your guess is that this additional iinformation may help their morale more than their performance? To what extent does your manager take extra time to keep you in- formed about important matters affecting your work, even though you sometimes feel that he thinks this additional information may help your morale more than your performance? Boss helps sub. improve If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent do you work with him to improve it? If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent does your manager work with him to improve it? Boss open to suggestions To what extent are you open to the suggestions of your subordinates, even though in the past some suggestions may not have been too practical? To what extent is your manager open to the suggestions of his sub- ordinates, even though you have a feeling that he thinks some of the suggestions in the past may not have been too practical? 18. 18. 20. 22. 162 Boss offers unrequested help To what extent do you offer unrequested help to an immediate sub- ordinate who is having difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To what extent does your manager offer unrequested help to his subordinates when they have difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? Sub. chooses work methods To what extent do you allow your immediate subordinates to choose their work methods, even though you may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? To what extent does your manager allow you to choose your own work methods, even though you sometimes feel that he may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Boss builds work team Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent do you attempt to build your immed- iate work group, including yourself, into a high-performance work team? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone's part, to what extent does your manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including himself, into a high-performance work team? Boss uses staff meetings To what extent do you use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? To what extent does your manager use staff meetings to solve prob- lems of vital concern to his immediate work group? Boss listens to subs To what extent do you stop what you are doing, not let yourself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to you? To what extent does your manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when you come in to talk to him? 24. 163 Counsels on personal issues To what extent do you listen to and counsel subordinates regarding their non—work-related personal difficulties? To what extent does your manager listen to and counsel you re- garding non-work-related personal difficulties? Boss is friendly How friendly and easy to approach are you, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to you? How friendly and easy to approach is your manager, even though you have reason to suspect that this may sometimes be uncomfortable or personally distasteful to him? ************************************ THE LIKE MANAGER TO BE SCALE This scale asks the same questions as before, but again in a different frame of reference. Here the respondent is asked to indicate the relationship he would like to have exist between the manager and the subordinate in the respondent's own work group. In addition to the shortened statement, both the manager‘s and the subordinate's versions of the questions are listed below, the manager's again being listed first. Boss encourages best effort To what extent would you like to go to the extra trouble to en- courage your subordinates to give their best effort? To what extent would you like your manager to go to the extra trouble to encourage you to give your best effort? 26. 26. 26. 27. 29. 164 Sub's goals defined jointly Although it would probably mean extra work for both yourself and your subordinate, to what extent would you like to have the two of you together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and ob- jectively measure the degree to which they are attained? Although it would probably mean extra work for both your manager and yourself, to what extent would you like to have the two of you together clearly define your work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? Boss informs subs. To what extent would you like to take the extra time to keep your subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though your guess is that this additional information may help their morale more than their performance? To what extent would you like your manager to take extra time to keep you informed about important matters affecting your work, even though you may sometimes think that he feels this additional information may help your morale more than your performance? Boss helps sub. improve If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent would you like to work with him to improve it? If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent would you like your manager to work with him to improve it? Boss open to suggestions To what extent would you like to be open to the suggestions of your subordinates, even though in the past some suggestions may not have been too practical? ' To what extent would you like your manager to be open to the sug- gestions of his subordinates, even though you may have a feeling that he thinks some of the suggestions in the past may not have been too practical? 30. 30. 30. 31. 32. 165 Boss offers unrequested help To what extent would you like to offer unrequested help to an im- mediate subordinate who is having difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To what extent would you like to have your manager offer unrequested help to his subordinates when they have difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? Sub. chooses work methods To what extent would you like to allow your immediate subordinates to choose their work methods, even though you may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? To what extent would you like to have your manager allow you to choose your own work methods, even though you may sometimes feel that he may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Boss builds work team Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent would you like to attempt to build your immediate work group, including yourself, into a high- performance work team? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone's part, to what extent would you like to have your manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including yourself, into a high-performance work team? Boss uses staff meeting To what extent would you like to use staff meetings to solve prob- lems of vital concern to your immediate work group? To what extent would you like to have your manager use staff meet- ings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? 34. 34. 34. 36. 166 Boss listens to subs. To what extent would you like to stop what you are doing, not let yourself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to you? To what extent would you like to have your manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when you come in to talk to him? Counsels on personal issues To what extent would you like to listen to and counsel subordinates regarding their non—work-related personal difficulties? To what extent would you like your manager to listen to and counsel you regarding non-work-related personal difficulties? Boss is friendly How friendly and easy to approach would you like to be, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to you? How friendly and easy to approach would you like your manager, even though you may have reason to suspect that this may sometimes be uncomfortable or personally distasteful to him? ************************************ APPENDIX G INFORMATION USED TO STANDARDIZE FEEDBACK BETWEEN COMPARISON GROUPS, PRETEST FEEDBACK APPENDIX G INFORMATION USED TO STANDARDIZE FEEDBACK BETWEEN COMPARISON GROUPS, PRETEST FEEDBACK During the return of the feedback packages to your peers in the Executive Development Program the following questions were discussed. 1. How accurate or valid are the personal profiles? The accuracy increases as the number of subordinates who re- sponded about you goes from three to six. With five or six subordinates responding, you can be quite certain that you have a true reflection of the way they see you as leading. With three or four, you have a good approximation. 2. What interpretations might be made of Profile Sheet 5, which gives an overall impression of the way all managers at your level in Michigan state government lead? Upward communication from subordinates to boss is excellent (questions 17, 29; 22, 34). Downward communication from boss to subordinate could be im- proved (question 15, 27). Staff meetings are not being used as effectively as subordinates think they could be used (question 21, 33). Human relations (friendliness, consideration) is excellent (questions 22, 34; 23, 35; 24, 36). Management-by-objectives has not been incorporated sufficiently 435 seen by more than 25% of the subordinates responding (question 14, 26). You might wish to look at your own Profile Sheet 1 in this way. 3. What value is Profile Sheet 6? For you as a practicing manager, not much. All it shows is that you and your peers want to lead in the way you believe the effec- tive manager should lead. It is of important theoretical interest. We iruzluded it in your feedback to be sure you got your money's worth. 167 168 4. Finally, if you have any questions about your feedback package, please call John Mietus, 353-0686, in the Psychology Department at M.S.U. APPENDIX H GOALSETTING EXERCISE, MAY 1973 1111111111.I APPENDIX H GOALSETTING EXERCISE, MAY 1973 It often helps to set definite goals for changes one wishes to make in one's leadership behavior. Therefore this little exercise. Use Profile Sheet 1 as a reference. Select the question(s) relating to those aspects of your leadership in which you would like to make changes. For these questions set numerical goals. Base these goals on the average responses you would like your subordinates to give when the questionnaire is administered again next September. For example, if you would like to increase the joint goalsetting that you do with your subordinates, and if your NOW score is 3.2, your LIKE score is 4.3, and you think 3.8 would be an appropriate NOW score to get next September, write, on the back of this sheet, 3.8 on the line next to "Sub‘s goals defined jointly.” Then. if you would, please return the form to John Mietus in the envelope provided. Do this either by dropping it off at a subse- quent program session or through the mail. The reason we are asking ,you to return the form to M.S.U. is so that we can better evaluate how the Executive Development Program helped you decide on changes to effect in your management practices. 169 170 Boss encourages best effort Sub's goals defined jointly Boss informs subordinates Boss helps sub. improve .8055 open to suggestions Boss offers unrequested help Sub. chooses work methods Boss builds work team Boss uses staff meetings Boss listens to subordinates Counsels on personal issues Boss is friendly APPENDIX I GOALSETTING EXERCISE, JULY 1973 APPENDIX I GOALSETTING EXERCISE, JULY 1973 Division of Organizational Research Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 July 26. 1973 PERSONAL As hard as it is for you to do now that you are enjoying summer weather, think back to last Spring and the Executive Development Pro- gram you were in. It was demonstrated to you then how powerful a tool setting goals for your personal improvement was for developing and sharpening your leadership skills. When your Leadership Practices Exercise feedback packet came back to you, you will remember that you not only got feedback on how you lead, but that built into the packet was practice in setting new goals. Looking ahead to this Fall, it . should be possible for us to put a number of pieces of information together about your ability to lead the work of others and see what changes you and the others in your group achieved. We need to have .you tell us, however, what goals, if any, you have set for yourself. So take just a moment now. Fill out the familiar very short form on the back of this letter and send it to me at M.S.U. As before, any information you provide is kept confidential. Sincerely, John R. Mietus 171 172 The information contained here is the same as was on Profile Sheet 1 in your Leadership Practices Exercise feedback packet. The red un- broken line shows how your subordinates or coworkers, on the average, saw you as presently leading. The green dashed line shows how they, on the average, would have liked to have seen you lead. The statements to the left are shortened versions of the questions to which they re- sponded. For any statement in which you are trying, or intend to try, to make a change in the way you lead, think of a numerical goal. Base this goal on how you would like your subordinates, on the average, to see you as leading when they answer the questions in the Leadership Practices Exercise again in late September. Mark an ‘X‘ on the line at that numerical point. 00 this for as many statement areas in which you really intend to try to change yourself. Under your particular circum- stances, you may decide it is not necessary or even in your best in- terests to make any changes; for those items you are not going to change, make no marks. If you have questions, call me at 353—6422 after August 6. Please mail this form back to me, even if you have decided not to set any goals now. EXAMPLE: If you would like to increase the joint goal setting that you do with your subordinates, and if your NOW score (red unbroken line) is 3.2, your LIKE score (green dashed line) is 4.3, and you think 3.8 would be an appropriate NOW score to try to get from your subordinates or coworkers late next September mark an ‘X' at 3.8 on the line next to "Sub's goals defined jointly." Sub's goals defined jointly l--—1---2--—1---3---1---4--—1—--5 173 ___—__——.—_———————_c——-—_-‘—__—————-—-—— 4.: C +4 (I) C: +4 a: 33 ._. :2 cu 5 *5 °’ 1_- +-’ a) 44 33 a: *E “:2 8 ‘I— (D Q) S- !— QJ 4" U) >. :3 5 1; >4 5 :3. cu 8 ‘- > r- E D? g 0 f6 «5 U1 f6 CO 0 O O O O I- l— I— l— I— Boss encourages best effort l-——&———2--—l---3—--l---4---i---5 Sub's goals defined jointly l---l---2--—l—--3—-—i--—4--—4—--5 Boss informs subordinates l--—l———2---1---3--—l——-4--—4—--5 Boss helps sub. improve l---l---2---&---3---l---4-—-1---5 Boss open to suggestions l---l---2---1---3---1---4---1---5 Boss offers unrequested help l---l---2---l---3---l---4---4---5 Sub. chooses work methods l---l---2---1---3---l---4---1---5 Boss builds work team l~--4---2---¥---3---1---4---4---5 Boss uses staff meetings l---4---2---l---3---1--14---l---5 Boss listens to subs. l---1--—2---&---3---l---4---l---5 Counsels on personal issues l---l---2—--l---3-—-l---4---4---5 Boss is friendly l---1---2-—-4---3---I---4---a---5 APPENDIX J FEEDBACK PACKET FOR TRAINEES, POSTTEST RESULTS APPENDIX J FEEDBACK PACKET FOR TRAINEES, POSTTEST RESULTS Results of the LEADERSHIP PRACTICES EXERCISE for Fall 1973 Division of Organizational Research Department of Psychology MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 174 175 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing - Michigan 48823 Department of Psychology - Olds Hall March 29, 1974 Dear Here are the results of our analyses of the information you provided by filling out the Leadership Practices Exercise last year. You and the other upper-level state government executives involved were considered subjects in an experiment to determine the short run impact of various kinds of leadership development programs or treatments. There were four different treatments, and each execu- tive was in only one treatment. (1) Some executives received feedback last spring, in the form of profiles, about how their subordinates saw them leading, how they saw themselves leading, and how other state executives are seen as leading. (2) Some executives received feedback as above, and also Michigan State University's Executive Development Program last spring. (3) Some executives received feedback and the university program, as above, and also were asked last summer whether they would set leadership improvement goals for themselves. (4) Fi- nally, some executives received no treatment at all; they simply filled out the Leadership Practices Exercise last fall. We were studying what short-term changes, if any, occurred in the executives' leadership attitudes and behaviors as measured by the Leadership Practices Exercise. The results were pretty much as ex- pected. No single treatment had any more or less impact than any other treatment. That is, there were no practical changes in atti- tudes or behaviors when all executives involved in a treatment are considered as a group. (Of course, there was great variability in changes of individual executives). However, those executives who thought their bosses wanted them to change their style of leading also reported that they did change, and vice versa. Of those who changed, the ones who changed most were the ones who set goals for themselves. 176 In interpreting this you might look at it this way. Execu— tives, who have achieved high level positions as have these persons, have done so because they are very good at doing certain things, one of which is managing people. As a group, these executives are already doing the right things in leading and should not be expected to change quickly or easily patterns of leading that they have developed over the years. The main value of the university course is in reinforcing the attitudes and behaviors these executives now have, and in helping them to make slow long—term changes. The practical point for you here is that if you want someone to change fairly rapidly, a subordinate, for example, it is not enough just to send him off to a training course. You have to make your ex- pectations known to him, and, ideally, jointly set goals for his new behaviors. This sounds like a lot, but that is what it takes. Thanks again for your cooperation. Cordially, John R. Mietus 177 HOW TO USE THE PROFILES Look at Profile Sheet 1. On the right half of the page is a column of scales, each scale with scores from 1 to 5. The zigzag lines (profile lines) running up and down the page and from scale to scale compare the collective judgments (average response) of your subordinates to each of the questions. 0n the left side of the page are shortened forms of the questions. Profile 1 is designed to be used for the following purposes: 1. It reflects those aspects of the way you lead where there is a discrepancy between what your subordinates feel you do and what they wou1d like to see you do. On each question, the less the distance between the two red lines, the more your leadership practices are "tuned" to the needs and expectations of your subordinates. 2. Profile 1 also reflects changes that you have made in the way you lead between March and October 1973. On each question, compare the red and green continuous profile lines; these show the way your subordinates saw you as presently leading when they filled out the checklist about you in March and October. However just as you change, so do the needs and expectations of your subordinates also change. So to determine if you, as a leader, were meeting the needs of your subordinates better in October than in March, look at a question that is important to you. Measure the dis- tance between the red lines (October). Measure the distance between the green lines (March). If the "October distance" is less than the "March distance," you have improved your leadership in that question area. Notice, at the top of Profile Sheet 1, how many of your subord- inates filled out the checklist about you. If the judgments of 5 or 6 subordinates who work with you daily are included, you may trust to some extent that the profiles reflect quite accurately your leadership. At the other extreme, if 3 persons responded, and 2 of these may have been subordinates at remote posts within the state, or 2 of the re- spondents may have been co-workers, consider the profiles as only rough approximations of your true leadership style. 178 The actual questions used in the survey are listed in the appendix. Please refer to these actual questions before fixing in your mind the meaning of the shortened statements contained on the profile sheets. On items that show important discrepancies, it could be worthwhile checking the actual question wording in the appendix for those items. The other profile sheets are meant to provide additional data which may be of interest to you or your subordinates. These sheets are similar in design to Profile Sheet 1, but contain quite different com- parisons: —-Profile Sheet 2 helps you determine any improvements you have made (in becoming more understanding of) the way you lead. --Profile Sheet 3 compares how you lead with the leadership of other executives in state government at your level. -~Profile Sheet 4 compares the effectiveness of different manage- ment development programs, one of which you were in. It is through research like this that more effective programs can be designed. This is the last feedback package you'll be getting. We hope that it will prove to be a useful and significant part of your devel- opment. If you have questions, please call John Mietus, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, leaving a message at (517) 353-0686. 179 PROFILE SHEET 1 How of your subordinates perceived you leading in October ( RED ) andlmw they would LIKE you to lead (- — - . - RED— — — — — — - -) COMPARED WITH How of your subordinates perceived you leading in March 1973 (_—-—-—-—--—GREEN ) and how they would have LIKED you to lead (- - - GREEN ------ ) QUESTION NUMBERS AND RELATED SHORTENED STATEMENTS Boss encourages best effort l3. 25 Sub's goals defined jointly 14, 26 Boss informs subordinates 15, 27 Boss helps sub. improve 16, 28 Boss open to suggestions 17, 29 Boss offers unrequested help TEL. 30 Sub. chooses work methods 19, :31 Boss builds work team 20. 32 Boss uses staff meetings 21, 33 Boss listens to subordinates 22, 34 Counsels on personal issues 2.3. 35 Boss is friendly 24, 36 to a very great extent to a very little extent 1---a--_2---a----3--;l;-s-4---a----5 1_--I---2.--I----3---I----4---1----5 i---4---2---4----3---4----4---4----5 i---4---2—--4----3---4----4---4----5 i---4---2---4----3---4----4---4----5 i---1---2---4----3---4----4---4----5 i---1---2---4---—3---&----4---4----5 l---1---2---l----3---l----4---l----5 i—--s---2-—-x----3-—-1---—4---4--——s PROFILE SHEET 2 In October 1973 180 how your subordinates perceived you leading ( — — — - RED ----- ) and how you yourself perceived your leading ( RED ) COMPARED WITH In March 1973 how your subordinates perceived you leading ( - - - - GREEN - - - - ) and how you yourself perceived your leading ( ----GREEN QUESTION NUMBERS AND RELATED SHORTENED STATEMENTS Boss encourages best effort l3. l3 Sub's goals defined jointly l4, 14 Boss informs subordinates 15, 15 Boss helps sub. improve l6, 16 Boss open to suggestions 17. 17 Boss offers unrequested help 18, 18 Sub. chooses work methods 19. 19 Boss builds work team 20, 20 Boss uses staff meetings 21. 21 Boss listens to subordinates 22, 22 Counsels on personal issues 23, 23 Boss is friendly 24. 24 ) to a very great extent to a very little extent i---1---2---4----3---&----4---4--—-5 i---4---2---4----3---L----4---1----5 i---4---2---4----3---&----4---4----5 l---1---2---l----3---1----4---4----5 1---l---2---1---—3-«-&----4---l----5 i---I---2---I----3---I----4---1.---5 i---I---z---I----3-.-I----4---a---.5 PROFILE SHEET 3 181 In October, how YOU were seen as leading (-Y-——Y-——Y~——Y-) how YOUR PEERS were seen as leading COMPARED WITH (-p- -P- -P- -P-) Both profiles are based on the responses of subordinates. There are subordinates responding about you, and 379 subordinates responding about 82 peers. QUESTION NUMBERS AND RELATED SHORTENED STATEMENTS Boss encourages best effort l3, l3 Sub's goals defined jointly l4, 14 Boss informs subordinates 15, 15 Boss helps sub. improve l6, 16 Boss open to suggestions 17. 17 Boss offers unrequested help 18, 18 Sub. chooses work methods 19. 19 Boss builds work team 20. 20 Boss uses staff meetings 21. 21 Boss listens to subordinates 22, 22 Counsels on personal issues 23. 23 Boss is friendly 24, 24 to a very great extent to a very little extent i---4---2-—-&----3---4----4---4----5 i---4---2---L----3---4----4---4----5 l---l---2---l----3-—-1----4---4----5 i---4---2---4----3---&----4---4----5 i---4---2---L----3---4----4---4----5 i---4---2---s----3---&----4---&----5 i---4---2---x----3---s----4---4----5 i---4---2---4----3---4----4---4----5 i---4---2---4----3---t----4---&----5 l---1---2---1----3---l----4-—-1---—5 182 APPENDIX QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE EXERCISE, THE RESULTS OF WHICH ARE REPORTED ON THE PROFILE SHEETS These are pertinent questions which were asked of managers and their direct subordinates (or coworkers who knew them well). Also, the shortened statements which are used in the profiles are included. All questions have the same answer possibilities. To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent m-wa—a O .0 o o ************************************ THE MANAGER NOW SCALE This scale asks the respondent to indicate the actual present relationship that exists between the manager and subordinate. Although the same question meaning was put to both manager and subordinate, slight changes in wording were necessary. Both versions of the question are listed below, first the manager's version, then the subordinate's. 13. Boss encourages best effort 13. To what extent do you go to the extra trouble to encourage your subordinates to give their best effort? 13. To what extent does your manager go to what seems like extra trouble to encourage you to give your best effort? 14. 14. 14. 15. 17. 183 Sub's goals defined jointly Although it probably means extra work for both yourself and your subordinate, to what extent do the two of you together clearly define the subordinate's work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? Although it probably means extra work for both your manager and yourself, to what extent do the two of you together clearly define your work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? Boss informs subs. To what extent do you take extra time to keep your subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though your guess is that this additional information may help their morale more than their performance? To what extent does your manager take extra time to keep you in- formed about important matters affecting your work, even though you sometimes feel that he thinks this additional information may help your morale more than your performance? Boss helps sub. improve If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent do you work with him to improve it? If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent does your manager work with him to improve it? Boss open to suggestions To what extent are you open to the suggestions of your subordi- nates, even though in the past some suggestions may not have been too practical? To what extent is your manager Open to the suggestions of his subordinates, even though you have a feeling that he thinks some of the suggestions in the past may not have been too practical? 18. 18. 18. 19. 20. 184 Boss offers unrequested help To what extent do you offer unrequested help to an immediate subordinate who is having difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? To what extent does your manager offer unrequested help to his subordinates when they have difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? Sub. chooses work methods To what extent do you allow your immediate subordinates to choose their work methods, even though you may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? To what extent does your manager allow you to choose your own work methods, even though you sometimes feel that he may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Boss builds work team Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent do you attempt to build your immediate work group, including yourself, into a high-performance work team? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone's part, to what extent does your manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including himself, into a high- performance work team? Boss uses staff meetings To what extent do you use staff meetings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? To what extent does your manager use staff meetings to solve prob- lems of vital concern to his immediate work group? 185 22. Boss listens to subs. 22. To what extent do you stop what you are doing. not let yourself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to you? 22. To what extent does your manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when you come in to talk to him? 23. Counsels on personal issues 23. To what extent do you listen to and counsel subordinates regarding their non-work-related personal difficulties? 23. To what extent does your manager listen to and counsel you regard- ing non—work-related personal difficulties? - 24. Boss is friendly 24. How friendly and easy to approach are you, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to you? 24. How friendly and easy to approach is your manager, even though you have reason to suspect that this may sometimes be uncomfortable or personally distasteful to him? ************************************ THE LIKE MANAGER TO BE SCALE This scale asks the same questions as before, but in a different frame of reference. Here the respondent is asked to indicate the rela- tionship he would like to have exist between the manager and the sub- ordinate in the respondent's own work group. In addition to the shortened statement, both the manager's and the subordinate's versions of the questions are listed below, the man- ager's again being listed first. 25. Boss encourages best effort 25. To what extent would you like to go to the extra trouble to en- courage your subordinates to give their best effort? 25. To what extent would you like your manager to go to the extra trouble to encourage you to give your best effort? ---------- . 26. 26. 26. 27. 29. 186 Sub's goals defined jointly Although it would probably mean extra work for both yourself and your subordinate, to what extent would you like to have the two of you together clearly define the subordinate‘s work goals and ob- jectively measure the degree to which they are attained? Although it would probably mean extra work for both your manager and yourself, to what extent would you like to have the two of you together clearly define your work goals and objectively measure the degree to which they are attained? Boss informs subs. To what extent would you like to take the extra time to keep your subordinates informed about important matters affecting their work, even though your guess is that this additional information may help their morale more than their performance? To what extent would you like your manager to take extra time to keep you informed about important matters affecting your work, even though you may sometimes think that he feels this additional infor- mation may help your morale more than your performance? Boss helps sub. improve If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent would you like to work with him to improve it? If a subordinate's performance is adequate, to what extent would you like your manager to work with him to improve it? Boss open to suggestions To what extent would you like to be open to the suggestions of your subordinates, even though in the past some suggestions may not have been too practical? To what extent would you like your manager to be open to the sug- gestions of his subordinates, even though you may have a feeling that he thinks some of the suggestions in the past may not have been too practical? 30. 30. 31. 32. 33. 187 Boss offers unrequested help To what extent would you like to offer unrequested help to an immediate subordinate who is having difficulty in solving a tech— nical or administrative problem? To what extent would you like to have your manager offer unre- quested help to his subordinates when they have difficulty in solving a technical or administrative problem? Sub. chooses work methods To what extent would you like to allow your immediate subordinates to choose their work methods, even though you may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? To what extent would you like to have your manager allow you to choose your own work methods, even though you may sometimes feel that he may not think the chosen methods are going to work very well? Boss builds work team Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent would you like to attempt to build your immediate work group, including yourself, into a high- performance work team? Although this involves a lot of extra time, effort, and patience on everyone‘s part, to what extent would you like to have your manager attempt to build his immediate work group, including himself, into a high-performance work team? Boss uses staff meeting To what extent would you like to use staff meetings to solve prob- lems of vital concern to your immediate work group? To what extent would you like to have your manager use staff meet- ings to solve problems of vital concern to your immediate work group? 34. 34. 188 Boss listens to subs. To what extent would you like to stop what you are doing, not let yourself be interrupted, and really listen when a subordinate comes in to talk to you? To what extent would you like to have your manager stop what he is doing, not let himself be interrupted, and really listen when you come in to talk to him? Counsels on personal issues To what extent would you like to listen to and counsel subordinates regarding their non-work-related personal difficulties? To what extent would you like your manager to listen to and counsel you regarding non-work-related personal difficulties? Boss is friendly How friendly and easy to approach would you like to be, even though this may sometimes be uncomfortable or distasteful to you? How friendly and easy to approach would you like your manager, even though you may have reason to suspect that this may sometimes be uncomfortable or personally distasteful to him? ************************************ APPENDIX K ITEM-SCALE CORRELATIONS, INITIAL SCALES APPENDIX K ITEM-SCALE CORRELATIONS. INITIAL SCALES Tables Al to A4 present the entire item-scale correlation matrices for subordinates and for trainees. Those coefficients which lie within the solid rectangles are the item-scale coefficients which were computed for the items designated for the specified scale on an a priori basis during questionnaire construction. They have not been corrected for inclusion of the item in the scale. Scales are coded as follows: BIS: Items 1 to 6 measuring Beliefs about effective leadership in the Initiating §tructure dimension. BCN: Items 7 to 12 measuring Beliefs about effective leadership in IonsideratioN_dimension. NIS: Items 13 to 18 measuring behavior (Now) of the trainee in the Initiating §tructure dimension. NCN: Items 19 to 24 measuring behaviors (Now) of the trainee in the gonsideratiofl_dimension. LIS: Items 25 to 30 measuring motivational structures (Ijke) of the respondent for the trainee's behavior in the Initiating §tructure dimension. LCN: Items 31 to 36 measuring motivational structures (Like) of the respondent for the trainee's behavior in the Qonsideratiofl_ dimension. 189 190 TABLE A1.--Item-sca1e correlations, pretest, subordinates, N = 371. 01 02 03 04 05 05 BIS 50 51 59 54 45 50 BCN 14 24 32 24 31 O8 NIS 1o 09 08 1o 11 20 NCN 05 09 05 09 10 13 LIS 38 42 34 43 37 35 LCN 19 25 24 32 34 10 07 08 09 10 11 12 BIS 03 30 23 20 29 19 BCN 57 4o 45 58 54 55 NIS -01 07 05 05 18 15 NCN 09 09 14 09 28 21 LIS O8 25 21 17 21 18 LCN 34 24 29 34 32 35 13 14 15 15 17 18 BIS 20 10 13 20 oo 25 BCN 12 08' 11 09 14 14 ’ NIS __oo 80 72 80 92+. 52 NCN _ 54 55 52 45 47 38 LIS 22 15 20 23 10 30 LCN 15 05 21 13 20 .14 . 19 20 21 22 23 24 BIS 03 02 17 05 15 10 BCN 21 05 15 15 25 21 NIS 15 55 41 35 39 43 NCN 42 51 52 54 50 55 LIS -oz 05 17 05 18 13 LCN 19 03 25 17 29 24 25 25 27‘ 28 29 30 8:5 45 39 48 38 30 42 BCN 15 19 35 13 35 1o NIS 24 19 15 13 13 18 NCN 10 15 11 05 15 05 LIS 55 53 51 55 54 55 LCN 27 28 4o 20 49 if' TABLE Al.--continued. 191 31 32 33 34 35 36 BIS 14 32 23 31 25 18 BCN 36 33 33 42 27 31 NIS -06 15 05 O9 26 14 NCN 08 l6 14 13 40 18 LIS 10 40 31 32 29 22 LCN 49 45 48 67 55 60 TABLE A2.--Item-sca1e correlations, pretest, trainees, N = 85. 01 02 O3 04 05 06 BIS 68 51 56 6O 58 55 BCN 22 25 44 23 47 26 NIS 32 12 26 27 27 14 NCN O9 O9 26 -06 17 14 LIS 51 35 39 42 35 37 LCN 14 26 28 19 33 27 O7 08 09 10 ll 12 BIS 03 44 31 33 36 28 BCN 40 51 53 56 65 54 NIS -03 22 27 01 10 -06 NCN -05 18 32 06 38 15 LIS 09 45 32 4O 32 40 LCN 17 21 32 45 ' 45 43 13 14 15 16 17 18 BIS 26 20 32 34 10 26 BCN __I9 13 24 01 14 e11_ NIS 71 74 GQAI 63 58 47 NCN 43 45 43 20 52 16 LIS 24 10 27 22 07 07 LCN 10 -03 23 -07." 12 -09 TABLE A2.--continued. 192 BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN 19 2o 21 22 23 24 -02 18 23 01 02 14 27 19 3o -05 18 14 09 58 so 30 18 11 37 54 72 44 51 45 10 19 09 -07 -07 18 34 1o 21 05 15 20 25 25 27 28 29 30 48 48 42 49 42 44 41 32 41 31 52 29 17 15 14 14 15 24 09 04 15 -1o 21 13 73 75 54 55 51 50 47 38 41 35 57 35 31 32 33 34 35 35 07 35 28 25 22 22 32 33 32 41 38 29 05 17 19 -01 03 -2o 15 05 28 04 40 oo 13 48 35 42 34 4o 47 38 49 7o 59 55 TABLE A3.--Item-scale correlations, posttest, subordinates, N = 262. BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN O1 02 O3 O4 05 06 63 67 59 67 57 64 ' 26 32 36 35 38 18 21 17 O7 20 O4 21 15 1O 05 18 08 16 46 51 36 45 34 37 33 38 33 35 32 21 ‘—:— :— TABLE A3.--continued. 193 BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN O7 08 O9 10 11 12 21 44 27 28 25 21 51 53 52 60 56 50 -01 13 O6 11 O9 O4 13 17 14 21 26 15 25 41 19 29 26 13 29 46 31 50 44 34 13 14 15 16 17 18 17 11 15 24 17 26 08 O6 O4 13 12 11 80 76 7O 76 62 64 48" ’44 ~47; ' 44 49 39 22 12 16 27 17 28 O7 05 15 16 18 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 10 08 19 O9 06 16 23 05 27 20 21 15 05 65 33 37 28 41 4O 64 56 64 49 63 14 18 15 11 10 13 22 12 22 18 23 19 25 26 27 28 29 3O 39 46 46 52 42 41 24 27 44 33 35 19 20 20 O9 23 08 25 12 13 11 19 16 18 66 13 66 64 55 59 34 42 52 38 48 26 31 32 33 34 35 36 25 45 30 39 16 31 37 43 42 46 38 44 -03 17 O4 05 18 18 11 21 12 21 28 25 29 56 33 39. 26 32 51 65 48 67 52 64 194 TABLE A4.--Item-scale correlations, posttest, trainees, N = 64. 01 02 O3 O4 ‘ O5 O6 BIS 59 59 58 64 61 50 BCN 31 27 42 35 43 20 NIS 46 43 37 46 31 27 NCN 25 15 19 31 O9 13 LIS 41 31 50 48 35 27 LCN 23 O9 43 32 18 24 O7 08 O9 10 11 12 BIS 21 37 20 43 42 23 BCN 6O 45 45 64 54 6O NIS O7 51 19 48 O9 25 NCN 24 4O 36 44 -Ol 29 LIS 27 32 21 58 30 38 LCN 34 36 37 56 26 39 13 14 15 16 17 18 BIS 49 19 42 61 45 33 BCN 38 18 36 38 30 O9 NIS 7O 58 71 76 63 44 NCN 47 41 57 42 41 16 LIS 27 08 41 59 45 23 LCN 24 19 43 41 24 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 BIS 23 28 22 12 18 12 BCN 46 41 31 21 24 17 NIS 20 57 36 43 37 46 NCN 46 7O 68 65 58 63 LIS 26 37 21 36 13 17 LCN 34 53 37 42 26 29 25 26 27 28 29 30 BIS 44 52 39 53 44 45 BCN 44 48 6O 45 42 24 NIS 31 36 34 41 36 42 NCN 24 35 39 28 24 22 LIS 76 6O 80 81 71 53 LCN 63 58 69 6O 50 32 TABLE A4.--continued. 195 BIS BCN NIS NCN LIS LCN 31 32 33 34 35 36 3O 44 24 3O 21 30 53 52 31 44 44 34 30 45 22 33 24 32 41 50 46 34 43 26 50 63 44 61 42 53 61 7O 67 75 62 62 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Ayers, A. W. Effect of knowledge of results on supervisor‘s post- training test scores. Personnel Psychology. 1964, 11, 189-192. Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. 0., Chin, R. Theyplanning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Bilodeau, F. A. 8 Bilodeau, I. Motor—skill learning. In Annual Review of Psychology. 1961, II, Bowers, D., & Seashore, S. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Scienceyguarterly. 1966, II) 238-263. Bowers, 0. OD techniques and their results in 23 organizations: The Michigan ICLS Study. Jrnl. of Applied Behavioral Science, 1973. 21-43. Butterfield, D. An integrative approach to the study of leadership. Ph.D. thesis, the U. of Michigan, 1968, as reported in Mott, P., The characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Campbell, D. & Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56’ 81-105. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. 0., Lawler, E. E., III, & Weick, K. E. Managerial behavior,yperformance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1970. Campbell, J. P. Personnel training and development. In Annual Review of Psychology, 1971, go, Canter, R. R. A human relations training program. Journal of Applied 196 197 Cartwright, 0. Some principles of mass persuasion: Selected findings of research on the sale of U.S. War Bonds. Human Relations, 1949, 2, 253-267. Cartwright, D. 8 Zander, A. Group dynamics research. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson 8 Co., 1960. Chin, R., 8 Benne, R. General strategies for effecting change in human systems, in Bennis, W., Benne, K., 8 Chin, R. The_p1anning_of change. New York: Holt, 1969. Cronbach, L. 8 Furby, L. How should we measure "change,"--or should we? Psych. Bulletin, 1970 (1), 68-80. Cummings, L., Schwab, D. 8 Rosen, M. Performance and knowledge of results as determinants of goal setting. Jrnl. of Applied Psychol., 1971, 55, 525-530. Daw, W. 8 Gage, N. Effect of feedback from teachers to principals. Jrnl. Educ. Psych., 1967, §§_(3), 181-188. Dulany, D. E. Hypotheses and habits in verbal Operant conditioning. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 251-263. Fishbein, M. A. A consideration of beliefs, attitudes, and their re- lationships. In Stiener, I. E. 8 Fishbein, M. A. (Eds.). Current studies in socialypsychology. New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston, 1965, 107-120. Fishbein, M. Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In Fishbein, M. (Ed.). Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Fishbein, M. 8 Ajzen, I. Attitudes and opinions, in Annual Review of Psychology, 1972, 23, 487-543. Fleishman, E. A. Leadership climate, human relations training, and supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 1953, 6, 205-222. Fleishman, E. A., Harris, E. F., 8 Burtt, H. E. Leadership and super- vision in industry: An evaluation of a supervisory training program. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1955. 198 Frohman, M. A. An empirical study of a model and strategies for planned organizational change. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1970. Goodacre, D. Stimulating improved man management. Personnel Psyr chology, 1963, 16 (2), 133-143. Graham, W. K. 8 Oleno, T. Perceptions of leader behavior and evalua- tion of leaders across organizational levels. Experimental Publications System, Issue No. 4, Ms. no. 144A, Feb. 1970. Halpin, A. 8 Winer, J. A factorial study of the leader behavior de- scription questionnaire, in Stogdil, R. 8 Coons, A. Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (Research Mono- graph No. 88), Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957. Hand, H. 8 Slocum, J. A longitudinal study of the effects of a human relations training program on managerial effectiveness. Jrnl. of Applied Psych., 1972. 412-417. Hand, H. H., Richards, M. D., 8 Slocum, J. W. Organizational climate and the effectiveness of a human relations training program. Acad. of Management Jrnl., 1973, I§.(2). Hariton, T. Conditions influencing the effects of training foremen in new human relationsoprinciples. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1951. Harris, E. F. 8 Fleishman, E. A. Human relations training and the stability of leadership patterns. Jrnl. of Applied Psychol., 1955. 32, 20-25. Havelock, R. G. Planningofor Innovation. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, July 1969. Hemphill. J. K. Leader behavior description. Columbus: Ohio State University Personnel Research Board, 1950. Hemphill, J. 8 Coons, A. Development of the leader behavior descrip- tion questionnaire, in Stogdill, R. 8 Coons, A. Leader be- havior: Its description and measurement (Research Monograph No. 88), Columbus. Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957. 199 House, R. J. Management development: Design, evaluation, and imple- Hummel, Ilgren, Kahn, R. Katz, 0. Katz, 0. Katz, 0. Katz, 0. Kolb, D. Lawler, Likert, Likert, mentation. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan, 1967. T. 8 Sligo, J. Empirical comparisons of univariate and multi- variate analysis of variance procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, Z6, 49-57. D. Satisfaction with performance as a function of the initial level of expected performance and the deviation from expecta- tions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 345-361. Human relations on the shop floor, in E. M. Hugh-Jones (Ed.). Human relations and modern management. Amsterdam, Holland: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1958. 8 Kahn, R. Human organization and worker motivation, in Tripp, L. (Ed.). Industrial productivity,’ Madison, Wisc.: The Industrial Relations Research Association, 1951. , Maccoby, N. 8 Morse, N. Productivity, supervision, and morale in an office situation. Detroit: The Darel Press, 1950. , Maccoby, N. 8 Floor, L. Productivity, supervision,oand morale among railroad workers. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The Survey Research Center, 1951. The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Publ. Opin. Quart., 1960, 66, 163-204. A., Winter, S. K., 8 Berlew, D. E. Self-directed change: Two studies. Jrnl. of Applied Behavioral Science, 1968, 6.(4), 453-472. E. E. Job attitudes and employee motivation: Theory, research, and practice. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 66, 223-237. R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961. R. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. ZOO Lippitt, R., Watson, J., 8 Westley, B. The dynamics of planned change: A comparative study of principles and techniques. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1958. Locke, E., 8 Bryan, J. The directing function of goals in task per- formance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969. A, 35-42. Locke, E., 8 Bryan, J. Knowledge of score and goal level as determi- nants of work rate. Jrnl. of Applied Psychol., 1969, 66, 59-65. Locke, E., Cartledge, N., 8 Knerr, C. Studies of the relationship be- tween satisfaction, goal-setting, and performance. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 6, 135-158. Lowen, A., Hrapchak, W., 8 Kavanagh, M. Consideration and initiating structure: an experimental investigation of leadership traits. Administrative Scienceyguarterly, 1969, 16, 238-253. Mann, F. C. Changing superior-subordinate relationships. J. Soc. Issues, 1951, I, 56-63. Mann, F. C. Studying and creating change: A means to understanding social organization. In Arensberg, C. (Ed.), Research in industrial human relations. New York: Harper, 1957, 11, 146-167. Mann, F. C. 8 Neff, F. W. Managingymajor change in organizations. Ann Arbor: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, Insti- tute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1961. Mann, F. C. Toward an understanding of the leadership role in formal organization. In Dubin, R., Homans, G., Mann, F., 8 Miller, D. Leadership_and productivity. San Francisco, Calif.: Chandler Publishing Company, 1965. Meyer, H., Kay, E., 8 French. Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 1965, 66_(1), 123-129. Miner, J. B. 8 Dachler, H. P. Personnel attitudes and motivation. In Annual Review of Psychology, 1973, 24. Moon, C. 8 Hariton, T. Evaluating an appraisal and feedback training program. Personnel, 1958, 66_(3), 37-41. 201 Mosvick, R. Human relations training for scientists, technicians, and engineers: A review of relevant experimental evaluations of human relations training. Personnel Psychol., 1971, 26, 275- 292. "Par effects study," Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 1968. In Vogels, D. 5., Jr. The personnel assessment center: Study of effects upon assessees. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1973. Rosenberg, M. J. A structural theory of attitude dynamics. Publ. Opin. Quart., 1960, 26, 319-340. Schwartz, F. C., Stilwell, W. P., 8 Scanlan, B. K. Effects of manage- ment develOpment on manager behavior and subordinate perception. Training_and Development Journal, 1968, 22 (4), 38-50 and (5), 24-30. Taylor, J. 8 Bowers, D. The survey of organizations: A machine-scored standardized questionnaire instrument. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1972. Thurstone, L. L. The measurement of social attitudes. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1931, 26, 249-269. Triandis, H. C. Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley, 1971. Tyler, 8. B. A study of factors contributing to employee morale. Un- published Master's Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1949. Vogels, D. S. Jr. The personnel assessment center: A study of effects opon assessees. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, E. Lansing, 1973. Weisenberg, P. 8 Kavanagh, J. The independence of initiating structure and consideration: A review of the evidence. Personnel Pay- chology, 1972, 26_(l), 119-130. Wicker, A. W. Attitudes vs. actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. J. Soc. Issues, 1969, 26, 41-78. Winer, B. Statistica1_princip1es in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. rucwrcnw Sim: uwxv. LIBRARIES 1111111 11 11111111111111”11111111111111 11111 31293103770206