lllllilllHIlllliillllllllilmlllllllll!IHHWHIIIHI

3 1293 20154 9254

:1 ,. L, H - ‘. 1’ 3 -
(ll—'
q f? I 7.16. 3
Eire»! J

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
"Follower Acceptance of Variability
of Leadership Style

in Decision-Making."

presented by
Joseph J. Schuller

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph-D- degree in mm

 

~;,{,::¢z_r-f/ - -~\ %/;7\ 44./

 

Major professor

Date July 20, 1982

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
.—;—_

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIAL§z
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

9'5" 0 6 WW1

fat-rs..-
‘%0%E4“

".7

, ’ 1 ~. 0
~ . ~I
"M

£1 a
AUG§§£39
’nov’ $223999
.' g?“

 

 

 

FOLLONER ACCEPTANCE OF VARIABILITY 0F
LEADERSHIP STYLE IN DECISION-MAKING

By
Joseph John Schuller

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

l982

ABSTRACT

FOLLOWER ACCEPTANCE OF VARIABILITY 0F
LEADERSHIP STYLE IN DECISION-MAKING

By
Joseph John Schuller

This study is a comparison of leadership models to test the
hypothesis that models advocating variability of leader action are
less satisfactory to subordinates than models advocating uniformity
of leadership action. Specifically this study is a test of the
Vroom and Yetton normative model of leadership, to explore if it is
superior to authoritarian, consultative, and group-oriented models.

The study used role-playing procedures, in which 280 under-
graduate subjects read descriptions of a series of group decision-
making situations and imagined themselves to be one of several sub-
ordinates to a leader. The decision-making situations given all
subjects were identical, but the leader's behavior varied depending
upon the leadership condition to which the subjects were assigned.
The experimental design for the study was a 5 x 2 x 2 design with
l4 subjects in each cell; the independent variables examined were
leadership style (normative, authoritarian, consultative, group-
oriented, or random), subordinate knowledge of leadership style
(prior knowledge or no prior knowledge), and sex of subject (male

or female).

Joseph John Schuller

Analysis of data indicated that subordinate satisfaction was
influenced by leadership style, but this difference was not between
uniform and variable styles of leadership; rather authoritarian
leadership was found to be less desirable than any of the other four
leadership styles. Moreover, females were more satisfied with leader
behavior than males in all conditions, while prior knowledge of
leader behavior had no effect upon subordinate satisfaction.

Other analyses revealed additional interesting findings.
Subordinates whose expectations of leadership style were met were
more satisfied than those whose expectations were not met. Nearly
50% of subjects preferred to work for a normative style leader, while
25% preferred a group-oriented leader and 25% preferred a consulta-
tive leader. Subjects with aspirations to leadership roles were
more satisfied working for leaders who used participatory or vari-
able leadership styles than for leaders using uniform, non-partici-
patory leadership styles.

This study demonstrated that the Vroom and Yetton normative
model of leadership is no less satisfactory to subordinates than
other leadership models and is a viable model from this standpoint.
However, its superiority to other approaches has yet to be estab-

lished.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance given
to me in writing this dissertation by Professors John Nakeley, John
Hudzik, William Crano, Gary Stollak, and most especially by Lawrence
Messé, the chairman of my dissertation committee, without whose
plentiful encouragement and assistance this dissertation would never

have been written.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Why the Study of Leadership is Important . . 3
Brief History of Leadership Research. . . . . . 4
The Vroom and Yetton Model . . . . . . . . . 8
Ambiguity. . . . . . . . . . . . . l4
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l8

METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Experimental Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 2l

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Leadership Style . . . . . . 23
Subordinate Knowledge of Leadership Style . . . . 24
Sex of Subject. ,, . . . . . 25

Experimental Situations . . . . . .. . . . . 25
Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Covariates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . 32

Preliminary Findings . . . . 32
Equality of five prior knowledge presentations . 32
Relationships among the four dependent variables. 33

5 x 2 x 2 Analysis of Variance. . . . . . 35

5 x 2 x 2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance . . . 41

Testing Hypothesis 4.. . . . . . . . . . 43

Testing Hypothesis 5.. . . . . . . . . . 47

Testing Hypothesis 6.. . . . . . 48

Effect of Experience on Satisfaction. . . . . . 49

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

iii

Page

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Normative Model Decision Tree. . . . 67
APPENDIX B - Five Descriptions of Leader Behavior . 69
APPENDIX C - Prior Knowledge of Leadership Style. . 7l
APPENDIX D - Sample Experimental Booklet . . . . 77

iv

TABLE

acumen-tho.)

LIST OF TABLES

Correlation Matrix of Four Dependent Variables.

Correlation Matrix of Four Dependent Variables with
Five Covariates . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Table

Table of Means of SATIS

Principal Components of Correlation Matrix . .
Eigenvalues and Variation Accounted for by Vectors

Frequency of Choices for Leader Style Preferred .

Frequency of Responses to Group Membership and Group

Leadership Questions . . . . . .

Results of Hypothesis Tests .

Page
34

36
37
38
42

46

52

INTRODUCTION

In their book Leadership and Decision-Making, Vroom and
Yetton (T973) present a model for leader behavior in group decision-
making situations. The Vroom and Yetton model, which they term the
normative model, is a situation-oriented plan of leadership in which
several variables in each decision-making situation determine which
of several possible leadership styles a leader should utilize. This
normative model departs from approaches advocated by other accepted
theories of leadership (e.g. Blake and Mouton, T964; Fiedler, T967;
Likert, 1967). These alternative models identify different styles
of leadership, but they tend to prescribe one leader style that they
assert should be used in a uniform fashion over all situations.
Various writers use different terminology for the leadership styles
examined in this study, but all descriptions fall on a continuum
from those in which the leader alone makes decisions and imposes
them upon subordinates (autocratic) to those in which the leader
and subordinates jointly arrive at decisions (democratic).

Writers such as Likert and Blake and Mouton assert that the
more democratic leadership styles are more effective, and recommend
these styles for all situations. Fiedler uses a different approach
by recommending that leaders be matched to situations. He concludes
that different types of jobs require different types of leadership
styles and that leaders should be matched with jobs.

1

The Vroom and Yetton model specifies that regardless of job,
there are some decision-making situations requiring a democratic
style of leadership, others that require an authoritarian type of
leadership, and yet others that require intermediate leadership
styles between authoritarian and democratic. The Vroom and Yetton
model defines five leadership styles and gives a paradigm for
analyzing decision-making situations to determine which leadership
style should be used in any situation.

Given the complexity and variety of decision-making situa-
tions that most leaders face, it is not surprising that an effective
leader would exhibit different leadership styles in different situa-
tions. In retrospect, most previous leadership theories appear
simplistic in their approach of prescribing one leadership style
for all decision-making situations. Events must be analyzed in
their situational context to be meaningful. Previous theories
failed to do this, taking instead an absolutist, rather than a
relativistic, viewpoint. There are few absolutes in the world, at
least in the area of human behavior, and thus, the attempt of Vroom
and Yetton to construct a relativistic model of leadership and
decision-making appears to be a conceptual advance over the absolut-
ist models of most previous theorists.

Hhile Vroom and Yetton provide supporting empirical evidence
to validate their theory, one major problem in their work is readily
apparent. They did not address the issue of the effectiveness of

their model. Thus, for example, there may be problems with

subordinate acceptance of leaders utilizing this model that they
did not even begin to address.

The remainder of this introduction is devoted to a number
of issues: l) an examination of why the study of leadership is
important; 2) a presentation of a short history of leadership
research; 3) a brief outline of the Vroom and Yetton normative model
that was tested in this experiment; 4) a review of the research
literature in the areas of role conflict and role ambiguity which
led this writer to question subordinate acceptance of a leader
following the normative model; 5) presentation of a list of the
hypotheses to be tested.

Why the Study of Leadership
is Important

The area of leadership is one of the most researched and
wirtten about areas in Industrial/Organizational Psychology (Mitchell,
l979). This extensive attention is undoubtedly a manifestation of
the importance with which the area is viewed.

Vroom and Yetton (l973) indicate that the quality of leader-
ship is a vital component in the effective functioning of society,
as many decisions are made and implemented in group settings. With-
out good leadership, groups will not function as effectively, and
hence society will not function as effectively. Vroom and Yetton
state:

While one can identify many factors influencing organiza-
tional effectiveness, some of which are outside the direct
control of those in positions of leadership, the critical

importance of executive functions and of those persons who
carry them out to the survival and effectiveness of the

organization cannot be denied. Any knowledge that the
behavioral sciences could contribute to the identifica-
tion, development, and enhancement of leadership in
organized human endeavor would be of immense societal
value (p. 3).

Campbell et al. (1970) express a similar view. The first
sentences of their book state, "The key occupational group in an
industrial society is management. Effective direction of human
efforts--whether in the public or private sector of an economy--
is central to the wise and efficient utilization of human and
material resources" (p. 1).

Quality of leadership has become an increasingly important
concern over the past decades, and will probably become more impor- ‘
tant in succeeding decades. As society has become more and more
urbanized, and humans have come into closer physical contact, the
number and size of organizations has grown dramatically. Because
of this growth in the number and size of organizations, the role of
leadership takes on increasing importance, as more leaders are
needed to direct them. Given the increasing interdependence of all
segments of our society, the decisions that a leader of an organi-
zation makes may have a significant impact on society at large.
Therefore, as both Vroom and Yetton and Campbell et al. have stated,
a better knowledge of leadership processes can aid society in
functioning more smoothly and efficiently.

Brief History of Leadership
Research

Fiedler's l967 contingency theory was the first major theory

to discuss leadership from a viewpoint wherein the specific

situation determined what was the most effective leadership style
(Mitchell, T979). Prior to l967, much of the leadership research
had focused on determining whether one type of leadership was more
effective than another. One area of research was concerned with
the effectiveness of leaders high in "structure" versus those high
in "consideration" (see e.g., Argyle et al., 1958; Coch and French,
T948; Johnson, T973; Morse and Reimer, T956; and Shaw, T955).
Structure may be defined as a concern for the task and the organiz-
ing and structuring of the work to accomplish the task, while con-
sideration is a concern for fostering good interpersonal relation-
ships in the work setting. Factor analytic studies undertaken at
both Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in the
early T9505 demonstrated that these two factors accounted for a
large part of the variance in the description of activities carried
out by leaders. While the research cited above added to our knowl-
edge of leadership, it nevertheless produced equivocal results.
Another area of research was concerned with the effective-
ness of participatory or democratic leaders versus non-participatory
or autocratic leaders (see e.g., Bachman et al., T966; French et al.,
T966; Johnson, T973; Lawrence and Smith, T955; Lowin, T968; Maier
and Hoffman, T962; Marrow, T964; Scontrino, T971; Smith and
Tannenbaum, T963; Tosi, 1970; Vroom, T959; and Vroom and Mann, T960).
While this research shows that subordinates usually prefer leaders
who use participative decision-making, the effects of this leader-

ship approach on productivity are less clear cut.

As early as T953, some prominent researchers were advocating
a situational approach to leadership. Fleishman (T953) concluded
that "...leadership is to a great extent situational, and what is
effective leadership in one situation may be ineffective in another"
(p. T). In 1966, Korman wrote that “...what is needed...is not just
recognition of ...'situational determinants' but rather a systema-
tic conceptualization of situational variance as it might relate to
leadership behavior" (p. 355).

Fiedler's contingency theory includes situational factors
by specifying what type of leaders are effective in what situations.
The situational determinants in the theory are leader-subordinate
relations, task structure, and position power. Fiedler's research
findings (1967) indicated that leaders high in structure are more
effective in high or low control situations, while leaders high in
consideration are more effective in intermediate control situations.
The main problem with the utility of Fiedler's theory is that a
leader must be matched with the leadership context in order to be
maximally effective. If this matching cannot take place, which is
likely to be the case in many or most instances, then the only
method by which to increase effectiveness is for the leader to
change the leadership context, so that it matches the style that
he or she uses. Changing a situation or context in which a leader
must operate would seem to be more difficult than altering a leader's
behavior, but Fiedler does not feel that this is the case. The
contingency theory has generated a good deal of research, and while

there is a good deal of evidence supporting its validity, there are

also large numbers of studies with contradictory findings (e.g.,
Utecht and Heier, T976; Vecchio, T977).

Mitchell (T979) reviews a number of studies that investi-
gated leaders who use some type of contingency-based leadership
behavior. Mitchell summarizes the studies by noting that they show
that successful leadership depends on a number of factors, includ-
ing the position of the leader in the organization, the type of
task, leader and subordinate personality attributes, and subordinate
acceptance of the leader. Mitchell notes that most of the reviewed
studies analyze leadership styles as a function of two dimensions,
structure and consideration.

Similarly, in the field of decision research, McAllister
et al. (1979, p. 228) have noted that researchers have recently
"...recognized that decision makers do different things in differ-
ent ways when faced with different decision problems." Previously,
researchers in this area had searched for single and simplistic
descriptions of decision behavior. Decision research is relevant
to leadership, as all leaders are decision makers, at least in
relation to how they deal with subordinates. It is relevant to note
that decision research, as well as leadership research, is moving
away from simplistic theories seeking one solution for all problems,
to more complex, yet more realistic, theories in which each situa-
tion and context must be analyzed comprehensively in order to deter-

mine the most effective behavior.

The Vroom and Yetton Model

As previously noted, recent leadership research has taken
a more complex and realistic view of leadership, by examining the
context or situation in which the leadership occurs. However,
Vroom and Yetton concluded that previous theories of leadership
lacked sufficient "explanatory power", and devised a theory of how
they felt a leader should act in deciding what degree of partici-
pation to allow subordinates in decision-making. Their first step
was to review the literature on leadership. This review of the
literature, comparing autocratic versus participative leadership
styles, led them to conclude that the evidence in support of either
model was not overwhelming, but rather that the effectiveness of a
particular style of leadership varied from situation to situation.
Given this conclusion, Vroom and Yetton decided to focus upon
situational characteristics as a determinant of what leadership
style a leader should use. Some initial theories were developed,
and these became the basis for collection of empirical data to
support their theories. The analysis of empirical data led to the
reformulation of the initial theories into the ones presented in
their book (l973).

While the Vroom and Yetton normative model deals with two
kinds of decision-making situations, those involving only one sub-
ordinate and those involving several subordinates, the present
study dealt only with decision-making situations involving several
subordinates. This was so primarily for two reasons: First, the

experimental design and procedures were manageable, since the scope

of the investigation was limited; and the research cited by Vroom

and Yetton deals only with situations involving several subordinates,

so the present research was directly comparable to this work. All

further discussion of the Vroom and Yetton model refers only to its

application to situations involving several subordinates.

One of the basic assumptions of the Vroom and Yetton model

is that the problem-solving processes of organizations vary accord-

ing to the amount of subordinate participation allowed in problem-

solving.

Using this assumption, their model describes five differ-

ent styles of leader behavior. These five styles, presented below,

range from the autocratic, in which the leader makes decisions alone

without consulting subordinates, to the participative, or group as

Vroom and
consensus.

Al.

All.

CT.

CT].

Yetton term it, in which decisions are arrived at by group

You solve the problem or make the decision yourself,
using information available to you at the time.

You obtain the necessary information from your sub-
ordinates, then decide the solution to the problem
yourself. You may or may not tell your subordinates
what the problem is in getting the information from
them. The role played by your subordinates in
making the decision is clearly one of providing the
necessary information to you, rather than generating
or evaluating alternative solutions.

You share the problem with the relevant subordinates
individually, getting their ideas and suggestions
without bringing them together as a group. Then

you make the decision, which may or may not reflect
your subordinates' influence.

You share the problem with your subordinates, as a
group, obtaining their collective ideas and sugges-
tions. Then you make the decision, which may or
may not reflect your subordinates' influence.

TO

GTT. You share the problem with your subordinates as a

group. Together you generate and evaluate alterna-

tives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on

a solution. Your role is much like that of chair-

man. You do not try to influence the group to

adopt "your" solution, and you are willing to accept

and implement any solution which has the support of

the entire group.
Vroom and Yetton's identification of leadership styles intermediate
to autocratic and participative is not entirely new, as they present
a table showing the similarities between their five styles of
leadership behavior and the styles of leadership behavior delineated
by other writers, for example, Maier (T955), Tannenbaum and Schmidt
(T958), Heller (T971), and Likert (T967).

The Vroom and Yetton model for selection of a leadership
style in a supervisor-subordinate decision-making situation can be
best represented by the decision tree in Appendix A. This figure
is a modification of a decision-process flow chart presented by
Vroom and Yetton. As this decision tree indicates, when a leader
is faced with a decision-making situation involving subordinates
and wishes to determine what leadership style to use, the leader
must answer either yes or no to a sequence of questions. By follow-
ing the branches of the decision tree corresponding to the answers
given, the leader arrives at a set of leadership behaviors that,
according to the Vroom and Yetton model, are permitted in that
situation.

Vroom and Yetton present evidence in their book indicating

that their model is in reasonable congruence with the actual behav-

ior of leaders and managers, and this finding is corroborated by a

ll

study by Hill (1977). A study carried out in several English com-
panies by Hill (1973) found that 86% of subordinates perceived their
leaders as varying in their behavior. Different supervisors are
fairly consistent in their leader behavior for certain types of
problems, though the types of problems for which a leader displays
consistent behavior vary from supervisor to supervisor. The study
found that subordinates are more satisfied with more flexible
leaders.
The Vroom and Yetton model makes intuitive sense to this

experimenter as a pattern of behaviors that a leader should enact
in order to arrive at the highest quality decisions. However, Vroom
and Yetton present no evidence in their book indicating if leaders
who follow their model are more effective than leaders who employ
different tactics. The research involved in developing and validat-
ing the normative model was done upon executives in leadership
training seminars, where leaders from geographically dispersed
organizations came to a central location. Therefore, gathering
data on the effectiveness of the leaders would have been prohibitive
on several counts. However, this experimenter is in agreement with
Stogdill (1974), who has written:

Leadership is defined in terms of interaction and influence

relationships between leader and followers. It is meaning-

less to consider the leader in isolation from the follower

group. Research which demonstrates that it is possible to

change the attitudes and behavior of leaders tells us nothing

at all about the effects of training for leadership. It is

necessary to demonstrate that change in leader behavior is

related to change in group productivity, cohesiveness, esprit,

or satisfaction in order to claim that leadership is improved
or worsened by training (p. 199).

12

Therefore, investigations of whether the Vroom and Yetton model

does produce leaders who are more effective is the next logical

step in the research process. As Vroom and Yetton themselves state,
"It would be useful to know whether decisions that were consistent
with the model turned out 'better' than those which were not" (p.
182). That then was the purpose of the present research.

The measure of effectiveness to be used in this study is
subordinate satisfaction with the leader, which is part of the
general issue of job satisfaction. Locke (1976), in reviewing the
area of job satisfaction, states that job satisfaction is of interest
to industrial psychologists for a number of reasons. Locke states
that happiness is a goal in life, and as job satisfaction is a part
of the overall concept of happiness, it is worth studying for this
reason alone. If this ethical and moral reason alone is not enough,
another reason is that job satisfaction has been found to have an
economic impact upon an organization. While job satisfaction is
not related to productivity, it is highly related to absenteeism
and turnover, as also noted by Porter and Steers (1973). Job satis-
faction has been shown to affect physical health and may be related
to mental health. These factors do not have as direct an economic
impact on an organization as does productivity, but turnover,
absenteeism, employee physical health, and employee mental health
all can have a negative impact on an organization through such
factors as lost productivity due to the training and break-in period

of new employees, absenteeism, or poor physical or mental health.

13

The current study attempted to determine if leadership
behavior dictated by the Vroom and Yetton model with a time con-
straint is less acceptable to subordinates than leadership behav-
iors dictated by other models. The time constraint aspect of the
Vroom and Yetton model means that when the leader goes through the
decision tree and arrives at a set of permissible leadership behav-
iors for that situation, the leader will select the first leadership
behavior style listed. By choosing the first leadership style, the
leader will come to a decision in the least amount of time, while
keeping the quality of the decision and the acceptance of the deci-
sion by subordinates at a maximum. By choosing a leadership style
that takes a minimum of time for arriving at a decision, the leader
will be choosing the most efficient and cost-effective method of
decision-making. Vroom and Yetton do indicate that if the organi—
zational objective is to maximize employee development, the leader-
ship style chosen from a set of permissible styles would be the last
one listed, as this would maximize employee participation in decision-
making, while still keeping the quality of the decision and the
acceptance of the decision by subordinates at a maximum. However,
this aspect of the model is only mentioned very briefly, and the
preponderance of their book deals with a time constraint version of
their model.

The leadership behavior dictated by other models of leader
behavior involves the use of only one style of leader behavior, and
so have less variability than the Vroom and Yetton model. The

question of comparing the impact of leadership models with differing

l4

amounts of variability of leadership behavior upon subordinate

satisfaction is the main focus of this study.

Ambiguity
It is hypothesized that subordinates wish to be able to
predict the future behavior of their leaders, and that the Vroom
and Yetton model introduces greater uncertainty in the situation,
making prediction less reliable. A number of studies in the area
of ambiguity lend support to this position.
Cohen (1959) writes:
When a stimulus situation is relatively ambiguous, a person
can make only certain responses whose effects he cannot
predict. Lack of prediction and control make it difficult
for him to meet his needs adequately, fostering feelings
of worthlessness and threatening the security of the self.
A situation characterized by a high degree of structure,
in contrast, is one which provides the individual with
guidelines so that he has some way of influencing the situa-
tion or of behaving toward it so as to achieve adequate
need satisfaction. As a result the experience is less
threatening....If a person with power arbitrarily changes
the roles of the game or keeps shifting the reference
points, the dependent person will experience a correspond-
ing degree of threat (p. 37).
Cohen found that subjects in ambiguous situations were less attracted
to the interpersonal situation, to the power figure, and to the task.
Kahn et al. (1964) notes that role ambiguity and role con-
flict are related to low satisfaction, low confidence in the organi-
zation, and a high degree of job-related tension. They state that,
"Effective goal-directed behavior is based on predictability of
future events” (p. 72).
Lyons (1971), in a study of nurses, notes that perceived

role clarity is negatively related to turnover, propensity to leave,

15

job tension, and positively related to work satisfaction. He notes
that a number of other studies have shown that role clarity is
positively related to satisfaction and reduced tension.

House (1971, p. 325) finds support for his hypothesis that,
"The more ambiguous the task the more positive the relationship
between leader initiating structure and subordinate satisfaction
and performance."

Stogdill (1974), in his survey book on leadership, reports
several studies dealing with role ambiguity, which is defined as
the role not being clearly defined or an individual not knowing what
he is expected to do. These studies indicate that high ambiguity
is associated with low job satisfaction and role conflict, which
also results in low job satisfaction. A Norwegian management
development study is also cited, which found that trainees from the
best performing firms, when they were compared to trainess from the
poorest firms, were more predictable in behavior and let employees
know what to expect. Stogdill has summarized 37 studies on struc-
ture, which indicate that subordinates desire group structure and
that if the leader does not provide it, the subordinates will.
These studies also indicate that group structure is positively
related to group satisfaction, productivity, and cohesiveness.

Various other researchers have reported that ambiguity has
negative consequences for an organization in a variety of ways,
including subordinate satisfaction. House and Rizzo (1972) found
that role ambiguity is negatively correlated with perceived organi-

zational effectiveness and satisfaction, and is positively

16

correlated with propensity to leave. Gross et al. (1958) report
that the consequences of role ambiguity are anxiety, turnover,
dissatisfaction, and lower performance. Miles (1975) research
demonstrated that role ambiguity causes lower job satisfaction.

Schuler et al. (1977) examined the psychometric properties
of a role ambiguity scale developed by Rizzo et al. (1970), and
concluded that role ambiguity is a viable construct and is associated
with negative consequences, such as low satisfaction and absenteeism.

Miles (1976) cites a number of studies that report the rela-
tionship between role ambiguity and various outcome measures,
including satisfaction. However, Miles is critical of ambiguity
studies because they have not investigated specific types of ambi-
guity, but have focused on the general concept. Miles believes that
for the role ambiguity concept to become more useful, research is
needed to examine specific types of ambiguity. The present study
attempted to investigate one specific area of role ambiguity, by
determining if subordinates perceive leaders using the Vroom and
Yetton model as more ambiguous than leaders using other models of
leadership.

There is some research which indicates that role ambiguity
does not necessarily result in negative consequences. Korman (1970)
reports that ambiguity need not be dissatisfying if a person has
high control of the environment. A study of Johnson and Stinson
(1975) found that the relation between task ambiguity and satisfac-
tion is moderated by need for achievement, with those high in need

for achievement being more dissatisfied with ambiguity than those

17

low in need for achievement. Johnson and Stinson find this result
quite reasonable, as ambiguity would make achievement of their task,
for which they have a high drive, more difficult. The present

study examined several variables that could moderate satisfaction

in ambiguous situations.

If it is true that subordinates do desire to be able to
predict the future behavior of their leader, and that Vroom and
Yetton's model makes prediction less reliable, as has been hypothe-
sized, then the body of literature on expectations is pertinent.
Stogdill (1974) indicates that a number of studies have shown that
when expectations are not met, dissatisfaction and poor performance
result. A few of the other studies that support this position are
Baumgartel (T956), Berkowitz (T953), Likert (T961), and Scontrino
(1971). On this point Likert (1958, p. 327) writes, "Supervision
is therefore, always an adaptive process. A leader, to be effective,
must always adapt his behavior to fit the expectations, values, and
interpersonal skills of those with whom he is interacting."

If it is true that subordinates desire to be able to predict
leader behavior, and their leader adopts the Vroom and Yetton model,
and makes subordinates aware of the variables used in determining
leadership style, this situation may still introduce greater uncer-
tainty, as subordinate and leader perceptions will not always
coincide. For example, theoretically, subordinates should be able
to predict leader behavior by looking at the same variables that
the leader looks at in determining what leadership style to adopt.

However, subordinates will not always arrive at the same decision

18

as the leader. Misperceptions can take place either by leader or
subordinate, and in addition to misperception, there is also the

problem of lack of data on the part of subordinates in many cases.

Hypotheses

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of
leader behavior upon subordinate satisfaction in group decision-
making situations. Specifically, the issue explored was whether a
leader using a variable style of leadership, such as the Vroom and
Yetton normative model or a random model, would have less satisfied
subordinates than a leader using a uniform style of leader behavior,
such as the authoritarian, consultative, or group-oriented models.
As indicated in the Introduction, this experimenter believed that
subordinates wish to predict leader behavior, and leadership models
such as the Vroom and Yetton normative model, which advocate using
different leadership styles by the same leader, decrease the ability
of subordinates to predict leader behavior. Therefore, subordinates
would be more satisfied with leadership models in which the leader
only uses one leadership style.

Hypothesis 1. Subordinates will be more satisfied with
leaders who use a uniform style of leader-
ship (authoritarian, consultative, or
group-oriented) than with leaders who use
a variable style of leadership (normative
or random).

The random model is one in which the leader uses all five

of the leadership styles advocated by the Vroom and Yetton model,

but uses them randomly rather than according to a set of rules as

in the Vroom and Yetton model. The variability of the leadership

19

style in the random model was constructed to be equivalent to the
variability in the Vroom and Yetton model.

Hypothesis 2. Subordinates will prefer a leader who
acts in accordance with the Vroom and
Yetton model rather than a leader who
acts in a random fashion.

While the variability of leadership style is the same in
both the normative model and the random model, subordinates should.
perceive that the leader in the normative model is acting in a con-
sistent fashion, as the leader is exhibiting the same leadership
style in similar situations. However, a leader acting under a
random model should appear to subordinates to be acting in an illogi-
cal and inconsistent fashion, as the leader would exhibit different
leadership styles for similar situations. This should result in
lower subordinate satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3. Subordinates will be more satisfied with
leaders who indicate beforehand how they
will act in decision-making s1tuations
than with leaders who do not indicate
beforehand how they will act.

Hypothesis 4. If subordinates' expectations of style of
leadership behavior are not met, subordi-
nates will be less satisfied than if
expectations are met.

Hypothesis 5. For subordinates who indicate a desire to
predict leader behavior, those who are not
able to do so because their leader uses a
variable style of leadership behavior
(normative or random) will be less satisfied
than those subordinates who are able to
predict leader behavior because their
leader uses a uniform style of leadership.

Hypothesis 6. Subordinates who aspire to leadership roles
as part of their career goals will be more
satisfied with leadership styles that enable
them to participate in decision-making.

20

There is a large body of literature relating job satisfaction
and productivity to participative decision-making; Argyle et al.
(1958), Bachman et al. (1966), Coch and French (1948), French at al.
(1966), Johnson (1973), Lawrence and Smith (1955), Lowin (T968),
Maier and Hoffman (1962), Marrow, (1964), Morse and Reimer (1956),
Scontrino (1971), Shaw (1955), Smith and Tannenbaum (T963), T051
(T970), Vroom (T959), and Vroom and Mann (1960). However, none of
these articles indicates if subordinates aspiring to leadership
roles have a greater desire for participation than those with
less aspiration, as is stated in hypothesis 6. This study attempted
to gather data on this question, as well.

While no prediction was made concerning the effect of amount
of prior group membership and group leadership experience on satis-
faction with Teadership style, these variables also were examined

to determine if such relationships exist.

METHODOLOGY

Experimental Procedures

This study was conducted using a role-playing technique in
which subjects were asked to imagine themselves as one of a number
of subordinates of a described leader. Each of the subjects was
given a booklet with a standardized set of 13 decision-making situa-
tions that were described in terms of the seven variables of the
Vroom and Yetton model presented in Appendix A. In each of the 13
decision-making situations subjects were presented the same infor-
mation that the leader would evaluate in order to decide which
leadership style to use for each situation. Immediately following
each of the T3 decision-making situations, subjects were given a
description of how the leader acted in that situation in terms of
which of the five Vroom and Yetton leadership styles the leader
used. The description of leader behavior following each situation
varied depending upon which condition of the experiment the subject
was in. See Appendix B for the five descriptions of leader behavior
used in this experiment.

Subjects in this experiment were responding to a part of
the decision-making process, namely the leadership style chosen by
the leader in each experimental situation, rather than to the actual
decisions a leader made in response to the problem being faced. In

this manner, the issue of whether the decision reached was an

21

22

effective, good, or correct one, or whether it was ineffective, bad,
or incorrect was avoided. While the effectiveness or ineffective-
ness of a decision no doubt affects the subordinates' satisfaction
with the decisions, the main concern in this study was with the
subordinates' reactions to the part of the decision-making process
that concerns the leadership style chosen by the leader, rather

than the final problem-solving decision that is reached.

Other points considered here were that often the effective-
ness or ineffectiveness of decisions is not known immediately, and
also that external events can and frequently do affect the results
of a decision, making a potentially effective decision ineffective
and vice-versa. The concern here was with a subordinate's immediate
reaction to decision-making processes rather than the subordinate's
reaction to the decision itself, whose effectiveness may not be
known for some time, and which may be affected by unforseeable

external events.

Subjects

Subjects in this study were 280 undergraduate students in

introductory psychology courses.

Experimental Design

The experimental design of this study was a 5 x 2 x 2 design,
involving the factors of leadership style (normative, authoritarian,
consultative, group-oriented, random), subordinate knowledge of
leadership style (prior knowledge versus no prior knowledge), and

sex of subject (male versus female). The figure below illustrates

23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the design pictorally and also indicates the number of subjects in
each condition of the experiment.
LEADERSHIP STYLE a;
Norma- Author- Consul- -g
tive itarian tative Group Random h-
Prior Male l4 l4 l4 l4 14 70
Knowledge
Female l4 l4 l4 l4 14 70
No Prior Male l4 T4 T4 T4 14 70
Knowledge
Female l4 T4 .14 T4 14 70
Total 56 56 '56 56 56 280
Leadership Style
As previously noted, the factor of leadership style was
comprised of five separate styles, which are listed below:

Normative leadership style.--Subjects in this condition of
the experiment received a test booklet in which the leader
acted in accordance with the Vroom and Yetton normative
model for each decision-making situation in the booklet.
The leader described in this condition exhibited each of
the five normative model leadership styles (A1, All, C1,
C11, 611), depending upon the particular decision-making
situation. As the major part of the Vroom and Yetton

book presenting this model focuses on the normative model
with a time constraint, this model also was followed here.
This model means that when more than one leadership style
is acceptable for a given situation, the first leadership
style given for each situation was the one the leader used.

Authoritarian leadership style.--Subjects in this condition
of the experiment received a test booklet in which the
leader acted in the authoritarian leadership style (Al)

for each of the decision-making situations. This means
that the leader always made the decision alone, using
information available at the time.

24

Consultative leadership style.--Subjects in this condition
of the experiment received a test booklet in which the
leader acted in the consultative leadership style (CT) for
each of the decision-making situations. This means that
the leader always shared the problem with subordinates
individually and then made the decision alone.

Group-oriented leadership,style.--Subjects in this condition
of’the experiment received a test booklet in which the
leader acted in a group-oriented leadership style (611) for
each of the decision-making situations. This means that

the leader always shared the problem with subordinates as a
group, and the entire group then attempted to reach a con-
sensus on a solution to the problem. In this leadership
style the leader acted as a moderator or chairperson,

rather than as a directive leader as in the authoritarian

or consultative leadership styles.

Random leadership style.--Subjects in this condition of the
experiment received a test booklet in which the leader used
all five of the leadership styles in the Vroom and Yetton
normative model, and with the same frequency. However, the
leadership style chosen for each particular situation was
randomly chosen from those leadership styles that are not
appropriate for that particular situation according to the
Vroom and Yetton model. In two of the T3 decision-making
situations, any of the five leadership styles is appropriate
according to the normative model. For these two situations
then, the leadership style is appropriate according to the
Vroom and Yetton model, but in both situations, the randomly
chosen leadership style was not the one most appropriate
under the time constraint model that is being used in this

study.

Subordinate Knowledge of
Leadership Style

The factor of subordinate knowledge of leadership style con-
sisted of two levels. One-half of all subjects in each leadership
style condition were given prior knowledge of the leadership style
that the leader would use in the 13 decision-making situations.

This prior knowledge of leadership style was achieved by including
a short written presentation at the beginning of each test booklet,

describing what leadership styles the leader would be using in each

25

of the T3 decision-making situations, and giving several reasons
for the benefits of that leadership style. See Appendix C for the
five written presentations giving prior knowledge to subjects.

The remaining subjects in each leadership style condition
were given no prior knowledge of leadership style. This was achieved
by deleting the written presentation (provided in the other test
booklets) that described what leadership style the leader would be

using.

Sex of Subject

Within each of the cells of the experimental design repre-
senting the 10 possible combinations of the factors of leadership
style and subordinate knowledge of leadership style, one-half of
the subjects were male and one-half female. No prediction was made
regarding the effect of sex of subject on satisfaction with leader-
ship style. However, sex of subject is frequently used as a vari-
able in social science experiments, and as sufficient numbers of
both male and female subjects were available for random assignment
to each experimental condition, the decision was made to include

sex as a factor in the experimental design.

Experimental Situations

The test booklet presented to each subject contained a
standardized set of 13 decision-making situations. These 13 deci-
sion-making situations were chosen from a larger set of 30 decision-
making situations obtained from Kepner-Tregoe, Incorporated, which

has purchased the rights to material developed by Vroom and Yetton.

26

The set of 30 decision-making situations provided by Kepner-Tregoe
does not intend to reflect the actual incidence in the real world
of these types of decision-making situations or the leadership
styles that these situations dictate according to the normative
model. Rather, these 30 situations represent various possibilities
of combinations of situational factors to be evaluated by a leader
in decision-making situations.

The T3 decision-making situations used in this study were
chosen from the larger set of 30 by dividing the set of 30 into
similar situations that resulted in the same leadership style.

This division into similar situations resulted in 13 categories
with from one to four situations in each. One decision-making
situation was then randomly chosen from each of the 13 categories,
resulting in the standardized set of 13 decision-making situations
used in this study. Appendix D, Sample Experimental Booklet, pre-
sents two examples of the T3 decision-making situations for illus-
trative purposes. .

The decision was made to use the 13 decision-making situa-
tions rather than the full set of 30, as it was felt that the set
of 13 situations gave a good representation of the various types of
situations. Also, it was felt that if all 30 decision-making situa-
tions had been presented to subjects, this would have resulted in
boredom and loss of interest.

The T3 decision-making situations were presented to subjects
in seven randomly chosen orders, such that each order was presented

to two of the 14 subjects within each of the 20 cells of the

27

experiment. Different orders were used to negate any possible
effects of order of presentation.

The set of 30 decision-making situations obtained from
Kepner-Tregoe, from which the T3 decision-making situations in this
experiment were chosen, are written in the second person pronoun
form. These 30 situations are used to train supervisors, who are
asked to place themselves in the role of the supervisor described
in the situations. However, for this experiment, involved with
subordinate satisfaction with leader behavior, the T3 decision-making
situations were reworded and the leader in each situation was given
the name of Smith, in order not to identify the described leader as
being male or female. No reference to the sex of the leader was

made at any point in these decision-making situations.

Dependent Variables
The dependent variables in this experiment were satisfaction
with the leader, satisfaction with leader behavior, perception of
quality of problem solution, and desire to work for the leader.
These variables were measured via five-point Likert type questions,
that were asked at the end of the experimental booklet after the
subject had read all 13 situations. The four questions were:
Considering all of the different situations you have read,
how satisfied are you, overall, with the way in which
Smith decided how decisions would be made?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Makes no difference
4.
5.

Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

28

Although no solutions to these problems are given, what
is your overall feeling of how good or poor the solutions
finally arrived at for these problems would be, taking
into consideration the way Smith is acting in these situa-

tions?
1. Very good
2. Good
3. Average
4. Poor
5. Very poor

How satisfied would you be working for Smith, as described
in these situations?

Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Makes no difference

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

mth—d
o o o o 0

Based on the behavior of Smith as described in these situa-
tions, what are your feelings about working for such a

leader?

1. Definitely like to remain working for such a
leader
Probably like to remain working for such a
leader

3. Makes no difference.

4. Probably like to quit working for such a leader

5. Definitely like to quite working for such a leader

The question dealing with perception of quality of problem
solution has a drawback in that no solutions to the problems were
given. What this item attempted to assess in the subjects was their
feeling of how good or poor the solution finally arrived at for the
problem would be. The assumption made here was that subjects would
be able to form impressions of how good the solution arrived at for
a problem situation is likely to be, given the manner in which the
leader acted in that problem situation. It seemed reasonable to
assume that subjects could form these impressions. For instance,
if the leader decides to arrive at a problem solution without con-

sulting subordinates, but the subject feels that subordinate input

29

is necessary for a good solution, then the subject is likely to feel
that a poor solution will result. Similarly, if the leader decides
to call a group meeting and let the entire group arrive at a problem
solution, but the subject feels that the problem is one better
solved by the leader alone, then the subject is likely to feel that
a poor problem solution will result.

The results of a pilot study indicated that subjects did
form such impressions and were able to answer this question meaning-
fully. After being administered the experimental booklet, subjects
were asked a number of questions to determine if the experimental
instructions were clear and if they had any problems with the experi—
mental booklet or questions.

One of the questions asked was whether the fact that no
actual decision or solution is given caused a problem in responding
to the dependent variables. Four of the 40 subjects in the pilot
study did indicate that they would have been more comfortable answer-
ing the questions if an actual problem solution had been given;
however, these four subjects did indicate that they were able to
adequately respond to the questions without a problem solution being
given. The remaining 36 subjects indicated that they had no problem
responding to the dependent variables.

In addition to the four questions asked of subjects at the
end of the experimental booklet, two questions were asked after each
of the T3 decision-making situations:

How satisfied are you with Smith's action in deciding
how the decision would be made in this situation?

30

Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Makes no difference
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

m-th-d
o o o o 0

Although no solution to this problem is given, do you:
feel that the solution finally arrived at for this
problem would be good or poor, considering the way Smith
is acting in this situation?

1. Very good

2. Good

3. Average
4. Poor

5. Very poor

As can be seen, these two questions are the same as the first
two questions at the end of the experimental booklet, with the excep-
tion that they are asked only for that situation, rather than for
all situations. In the original conception of this experiment, the
two questions after each of the 13 decision-making situations were
not asked, as the main concern of this experiment was with the
responses to the final four questions. However, after some delibera-
tion, it was decided that subject interest might wane if the T3
decision-making situations were all read before the subject was
called upon to make a response. In addition, the two questions
after each situation should have served to orient the subject to the
kinds of questions that were asked for all the situations, hopefully

eliciting more accurate responses to the final four questions.

Covariates
In addition to the experimental manipulation of subjects,

subjects were measured on several variables that may have influenced

31

the answers to the dependent variables. These variables, which were
previously mentioned in the Hypotheses section, are:

1) Amount of previous and current participation in group
situations;

2) Amount of previous and current group leadership experi-
ence;

3) Preferred style of leader behavior (authoritarian,
consultative, group-oriented, mixture, or no preference
as long as leader is consistent);

4) Desire to be able to predict leader behavior;

5) Desire to become a group leader in chosen career.

Since no scales to measure these variables were found in
the literature, and since the experimenter visualized them as rela-
tively simple and straightforward variables, each variable was
measured by a single question. See the experimental booklet in

Appendix D for the wording of these questions.

RESULTS

Preliminary Findings

Equality of five prior knowledge presentations.--The first
step taken in the analysis of the data was to determine if subjects
in the prior knowledge half of the experiment were influenced by the
short presentations given at the beginning of their booklets. While
the intent of the five presentations was merely to alert subjects
to the type of leadership style that the leader would be using, and
to give several reasons for the leader using that style, it was
possible that the five presentations may have differed in their
persuasiveness or sincerity. To test this possibility, a sample of
10 subjects was given the five prior knowledge presentations (Vroom
and Yetton normative leader, authoritarian leader, consultative
leader, group-oriented leader, random leader) using a paired-
comparison technique of presentation, in which each presentation
was paired with every other presentation. This resulted in TO paired-
comparisons in which the subject chose the presentation thought to
be more persuasive or convincing. The results of each subject's
paired-comparisons were used to create a rank-ordering of the five
presentations for their persuasiveness. The rank orderings were
then used to compute Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Hays,
1963) in order to ascertain if there was a consistent manner in
which subjects viewed the five presentations. The w for this sample

32

33

was .1584, X2 = 6.3371, df = 4, which was not significant, p = .1753,
indicating that there was no consistent pattern in the manner in
which subjects view the persuasiveness of the presentations. There-
fore, the possibility that the persuasiveness of the five presenta-
tions may have affected the scores on the dependent variable can be

ruled out.

Relationships among,the four dependent variables.--The origi-
nal intent of the experiment was to use questions 27, 28, 29, and 30
of the experimental booklet as separate dependent variables in the
analysis of the data (see Appendix D). These four questions asked
about:

1) Satisfaction with the way the leader made decisions;

2) Perception of quality of solutions to problems;

3) Satisfaction with working for the leader;

4) Desire to remain or quit working for the leader.

It was thought that each of these four questions was measur-
ing a different type of satisfaction and should therefore each be
considered as a separate dependent variable. However, inspection
of a correlation matrix of these four variables, presented in Table
1, indicates a moderate degree of overlap among the variables.

To determine the reliability of a scale consisting of all
four items, a standardized coefficient alpha was computed and was
found to be .85, thus indicating high reliability of the four-item

scale.

34

TABLE T.--Correlation Matrix of 4 Dependent Variables

 

 

Dependent Dependent- Dependent
Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3

Dependent

Variable 2 .58

Dependent

Variable 3 .63 .54

Dependent

Variable 4 .58 .51 .73

 

35

Because of these results, the main analysis was carried out
by computing a new variable called SATIS, which is the sum of the
four original dependent variables. As a subsidiary analysis, multi-
variate analysis of variance was carried out using the four separate
dependent variables as a univariate, and the results are virtually
identical to the results of the main analysis performed with analy-
sis of variance on SATIS. Both these analyses are discussed in the

following sections.

5 x 2 x 2 Analysis of Variance

As mentioned previously, the main dependent variable in this
study was a composite variable, called SATIS, that was the sum of
the four dependent variables. As the correlations among the five
covariates and the four questions comprising SATIS were all extremely
low, between .13 and -.10, the method of analysis chosen was analy-
sis of variance rather than analysis of covariance (see Table 2).
The analysis of variance utilized a 5 x 2 x 2 design with 14 subjects
in each condition. The results of the analysis, summarized in Table
3, revealed that the three-way interaction and the three two-way
interactions did not reach significance, p > .05.

0f the three main effects, only two reached significance.
SEX, Fl,260 = 8.865, p = .003, and LDRSTYLE, F4:250 = 5.277, p =
.001, reached significance, while KNWLDG was not significant, Fl,260
= .000, p = .99. Table 4 presents the means of each level of the '
three main effects of the model. (Note that the higher the mean

SATIS score, the less the subjects were satisfied with the leader.)

36

TABLE 2.--Correlation Matrix of 4 Dependent Variables with 5
Covariates.

 

Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent
Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3 Variable 4

 

Covariate 11 .oo -.02 -.03 .02
Covariate 22 -.02 -.07 -.03 -.02
Covariate 33 .13 -.08 -.TO -.06
‘Covariate 44 -.04 .01 -.01 -.04
Covariate 55 -.02 .01 -.1o -.04

 

1Amount of previous and current participation in group situations.
2Amount of previous and current group leadership experience.

Preferred style of leader behavior (authoritarian, consultative,
group-oriented, mixture, or no preference as long as leader is
consistent.)

4Desire to be able to predict leader behavior.
5Desire to become a group leader in chosen career.

TABLE 3.--Analysis of Variance Table.

37

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
SEX 62.229 1 62.229 8.865 .003
LDRSTYLE 148.164 4 37.041 5.277 .001
KNWLDG .000 l .000 .000 .999
SEX x LDRSTYLE 23.164 4 5.791 .825 .510
SEX x KNWLDG 2.800 1 2.800 .399 .528
LDRSTYLE x KNWLDG 65.107 4 16.277 2.319 .057
SEX x LDRSTYLE x KNWLDG 7.307 4 1.827 .260 .903
ERROR 1,825.000 260 7.019

 

38

TABLE 4.--Tab1e of Means of SATIS.

 

 

 

 

 

Source Level x
Grand Mean --- 8.97
Sex Male 9.44

Female 8.50
Leader Style Normative 8.46
Authoritarian 10.30
Consultative 9.16
Group-oriented 8.28
Random 8.64
Knowledge Prior 8.97
No Prior 8.97

 

39

Hypotheses l and 2 were tested by using planned comparisons,
but as the two planned comparisons are not independent, the normally
used .05 level of significance was divided by 2, thereby requiring
p in each comparison to exceed .025 to reach significance.

Hypothesis 1, that subordinates would be more satisfied with
leaders who use a uniform style of leadership (authoritarian, consul-
tative, or group-oriented) than with leaders who use a variable
style of leadership (normative or random), was not supported, as
t26o = -1.875, which is not significant at the .025 level for a
directional test.

Hypothesis 2, that subordinates would prefer a leader who
acts in accordance with the Vroom and Yetton model rather than a
leader who acts in a random fashion, also was not supported as t260
= .36, which is not significant at the .025 level for a directional
test.

As the analysis of variance indicated that the effect of
LDRSTYLE was significant (see Table 3), a post hoc analysis using
the Newman-Keuls test was done to determine if there were any signi-
ficant differences among the five leadership styles. This analysis
found that the only significant difference was that subordinates in
the authoritarian leadership condition were less satisfied than
subordinates in any of the other four conditions (consultative,
group-oriented, normative, random).

Hypothesis 3 states that subordinates would be more satisfied
with leaders who indicate beforehand how they will act in decision-

making situations than with leaders who do not indicate beforehand

40

how they will act. The main effect of KNWLDG, which tested this
hypothesis, was not significant. Therefore, in this experiment,
prior knowledge of the manner in which the leader would act has no
effect on subordinate satisfaction. Even though there is no main
effect of KNWLDG upon SATIS, the two-way interaction of KNWLDG and
LDRSTYLE did approach significance, p = .057. Therefore, a simple
main effects test (Kirk, 1968) was computed to determine if there
were any significant differences due to KNWLDG within any condition
of LDRSTYLE. Following Kirk's recommendation, the overall a level,
.05, was divided by the number of simple main effects tests being
calculated, which in this case was five, as there were five condi-
tions of LDRSTYLE. The a level of each simple main effects test
was then .05/5 = .01. To reach significance at the .01 level with
1 and 260 degrees of freedom, an F of 6.63 is needed, but this F
was not reached in any of the five tests. Therefore, there did not
appear to be any reliable effect of KNWLDG within any of the five
conditions of LDRSTYLE.

The effect of sex of subject upon subordinate satisfaction
with leadership style was tested by examining the significance of
the main effect of the variable SEX. This comparison was signifi-
cant (see Table 3). In this experiment then, sex of the subordinate
has an effect upon subordinate satisfaction. Female subordinates
were more satisfied with the leader behavior than were male subor-
dinates. The mean satisfaction score for all subjects was 8.97 on
a scale from 5 to 20, with 5 being the greatest satisfaction and 20

the least satisfaction. For males the mean score was 9.44, while

41

for females the mean score was 8.50 (see Table 4). Though signifi-
cant, sex of subordinate was of little importance in explaining
subordinate satisfaction, as eta for SEX equaled .17. As eta2 is
the proportion of variation in the dependent variable explained by
the independent variable, SEX explained only 3% of the variation in
subordinate satisfaction with the leader.

5 x 2 x 2 Multivariate

Analysis of Variance

As previously noted, examination of the correlation matrix
of the four dependent variable items and examination of coefficient
alpha for a new variable named SATIS, which is the sum of the four
dependent variable items, led to the decision to use SATIS as the
dependent variable in this experiment. However, a multivariate
analysis of variance was performed on the data, using each of the
four dependent variable items as a separate dependent variable to
determine if any additional information might be gained from this
alternative approach. This analysis was carried out using the Finn
program available through the College of Education at Michigan State
University.

A principal components analysis of the correlation matrix
of the four dependent variables provides further evidence that the
variable SATIS was a reasonable dependent variable to examine in
this study. The first vector of the principal components analysis
is weighted nearly identically on each of the four dependent vari-

able items (see Table 5), indicating that the items can be summed

42

TABLE 5.--Principal Components of Correlation Matrix.

 

 

 

Vectors
l 2 3* 4
Dependent Variable l -.82 -.14 .54 .08
Dependent Variable 2 -.76 -.58 -.29 -.Ol
Dependent Variable 3 -.87 .29 -.06 -.40
Dependent Variable 4 -.84 .36 -.21 .34

 

43

without weighting, and this vector accounts for 68% of the variation
(see Table 6).

The results of the Finn MANOVA analysis indicated that there
- was no three-way interaction nor were there any significant two-way
interactions, as none of the multivariate F's for these effects
reached statistical significance.

For the three main effects, SEX has a significant effect for
each of the dependent variables except for dependent variable 2;
LDRSTYLE has a significant effect on all four dependent variables;
and KNWLDG has no significant effect on any of the four dependent
variables.

These results are nearly identical with the results of the
5 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance discussed in the previous section,

so no further attention is given them.

Testing Hypothesis 4

As part of the experimental booklet, subjects were asked to
choose which of five types of leaders they would like to work under.
(See question 33 in Appendix D for the actual wording of the ques-
tion.) Four of these choices corresponded to the normative, authori-
tarian, consultative, and group-oriented conditions of the variable
LDRSTYLE. The fifth choice was that the subject would not care if
the leader were authoritarian, consultative, or group-oriented, as
long as only one of these was used consistently. No choice was
given for the random condition of LDRSTYLE, as it did not seem

reasonable to believe that subjects would select the choice of a

44

TABLE 6.--Eigenvalues and Variation Accounted for by Vectors.

 

 

Vector Eigenvalue Percent of Variation
1 2.72 68.11%
2 .56 14.10%
3 .43 10.66%
4 .29 7.13%

 

45

leader who is inconsistent for the sake of being inconsistent (the
essence of the random condition). The choices of the subjects on
this question are presented in Table 7.

The distribution of subject choices for this question also
served to refute Hypothesis 1 (subordinates will be more satisfied
with leaders who use a uniform style of leadership than with leaders
who use a variable style of leadership), as 47.5% of the subjects
indicated they would choose to work for a normative style leader,
whereas the other 52.5% chose some form of uniform style of leader-
ship. As might be expected, most subjects choosing the uniform
style of leader chose the more democratic or participatory styles
of leader behavior, 25% choosing to work for a group-oriented leader
and 25% choosing to work for a consultative leader.

In order to test Hypothesis 4 (if subordinates' expectations
of style of leadership behavior are not met, subordinates will be
less satisfied than if expectations are met), each subject's choice
on this question was compared with the condition of LDRSTYLE that
the subject was in. As no choice was allowed for the random condi-
tion of LDRSTYLE, these 56 subjects were not part of the analysis.
The 224 subjects in this analysis resulted in 148 subjects whose
expectations of leadership style were met and 76 whose expectations
were not met. The unequal numbers occurred as this was a measured
variable rather than an assigned variable.

The analysis of variance of SATIS by subordinate expectation
(EXPECT) shows that subordinate expectation does have a statistically

significant effect upon subordinate satisfaction, F1 222 = 9.36,

TABLE 7.--Frequency of Choices for Leader Style Preferred.

46

 

 

Leader Style Frequency Percent
Authoritarian 6 2.1%
Consultative 70 25.0%
Group-oriented 70 25.0%
Normative 133 47.5%
Consistent l .4%

 

47

p = .002. Those subjects whose expectations were met had a mean
SATIS score of 8.64, while those subjects whose expectations were
not met had a mean SATIS score of 9.85, thus indicating that those
subjects whose expectations were not met were less satisfied than
those whose expectations were met (the lower the score on satisfac-
tion, the greater the subordinate satisfaction). Thus, Hypothesis

2

4 was confirmed, but eta for EXPECT was .04.

Testing Hypothesis 5

To test Hypothesis 5 (if subordinates desire to be able to
predict leader behavior, but are not able to do so, then subordi-
nates will not be as satisfied if they had been able to predict
leader behavior), subjects were asked if they would be more satis-
fied if they could predict how the leader will make decisions (see
question 34 in Appendix D for the exact wording.)

0f the 280 subjects, 228, or 81%, indicated that they would
be more satisfied if they could predict leader behavior. For these
228 subjects, an analysis of variance was carried out to determine
if satisfaction is greater for those subjects who were in the experi-
mental conditions that enabled them to predict leader behavior
(which were the authoritarian, consultative, and group-oriented
conditions). This resulted in 138 subjects being able to predict
leader behavior, while 90 subjects were in conditions where they
were not able to predict leader behavior. However, the analysis

showed that there is no statistically significant difference between

48

the two groups, F1 226 = 1.684, p = .631. Hypothesis 5 therefore

was not supported.

Testing Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 6 (subordinates who aspire to leadership roles
as part of their career goals will be more satisfied with leadership
styles that enable them to participate in decision-making) was tested
by asking subjects if they hoped to be a leader of decision-making
groups in their career (see question 35 in Appendix D for the exact
wording.)

As might be expected, the great majority of subjects, 86%,
or 241, of 280, replied that they wished to be leaders. For the
241 subjects, an analysis of variance was computed to examine
whether satisfaction was greater for subjects who were in experi-
mental conditions that allowed them to participate in decision-
making (i.e., the normative, group-oriented, and random conditions).
This resulted in 141 subjects who were in these conditions and who
were thus able to participate in decision-making, while the other
100 subjects were in the authoritarian or consultative conditions,
where they were not able to participate in decision-making. The
analysis of variance indicates that aspirations to leadership had a
statistically significant effect on subordinate satisfaction, F],239
= 12.610, p = .001. Those subjects who aspired to leadership and
who were in conditions that enabled them to participate in decision-
making were more satisfied (XSATIS = 8.49) than subjects who were

in conditions where they were not able to participate in

49

decision-making (XSATIS = 9.79). Hypothesis 6 thus was supported
with eta2 = .05.

An analysis of the 39 subjects that did not aspire to future
career leadership roles found that 13 (9.3%) were males and 26
(18.6%) were females. A X2 test of this difference was significant,
X2] = 4.29, df = l, p < .05.

Effect of Experience on
Satisfaction

As part of the experimental booklet, subjects were asked to
indicate the amount of experience they had had as members of groups
and as leaders of groups that met together and acted together (see
questions 31 and 32 in Appendix D.) The distributions of subject
responses to these two questions are given in Table 8.

While no hypothesis was made concerning a relationship
between group membership or leadership experience and subordinate
satisfaction, a regression analysis was performed to determine if
there was a relationship. Neither group membership nor group leader-
ship experience was shown to be useful in determining subordinate
satisfaction, as neither F-test was significant. For group member-
ship, F1,278 = .22, p = .642, while for group leadership, F1,278 =
.45, p = .505, thereby indicating no relationship between group

membership experience or group leadership experience and subordinate

satisfaction.

50

TABLE 8.--Frequency of Responses to Group Membership and Group
Leadership Questions.

 

 

Group Membership Group Leadership
Number Frequency Frequency
0 28 81
l 20 71
2 26 50
3 44 27
4 42 23
5 25 13
6 28 8
7 17 3
8 12 2
9+ 38 2

 

DISCUSSION

Table 9 summarizes the results of the six hypotheses tested
in this experiment. It indicates that two were confirmed. However,
the results of these hypothesis tests lead to several interesting
conclusions.

While Hypothesis 1, that subordinates will prefer a uniform
style of leadership to a variable style, and Hypothesis 2, that
subordinates will prefer a normative style of leadership to a random
style, were not confirmed, the results of the analysis revealed
that leadership style does have a significant effect on subordinate
satisfaction. The significant difference was found to occur between
the authoritarian leadership style and the other four leadership
, styles, consultative, group-oriented, normative, and random; the
subjects in the authoritarian leadership style were less satisfied
than subjects in the other four groups.

One conclusion that might be drawn from this finding is
that subordinate satisfaction is dependent upon their being able to
provide input to superiors. With the exception of the authoritarian
leadership style, all the leadership styles provide some degree of
subordinate input to superiors. The normative and random leadership
styles provide intermittent opportunities for subordinate input,

the group-oriented leadership style provides for continuous

51

52

TABLE 9.--Results of Hypothesis Tests.

 

Hypothesis

Result

 

Subordinates will be more satisfied with
leaders who use a uniform style of leader-
ship (authoritarian, consultative, or group-
oriented) than with leaders who use a vari-
able style of leadership (normative or
random).

Subordinates will prefer a leader who acts
in accordance with the Vroom and Yetton
model rather than a leader who acts in a
random fashionr

Subordinates will be more satisifed with
leaders who indicate beforehand how they
will act in decision-making situations than
with leaders who do not indicate beforehand
how they will act.

If subordinates' expectations of style of
leadership are not met, subordinates will be
less satisfied than if expectations are met.

For subordinates who indicate a desire to
predict leader behavior, those who are not
able to do so because their leader uses a
variable style of leadership behavior
(normative or random) will be less satisfied
than those subordinates who are able to pre-
dict leader behavior because their leader
uses a uniform style of leadership.

Subordinates who aspire to leadership roles
as part of their career goals will be more
satisfied with leadership styles that enable
them to participate in decision-making.

Not confirmed

Not confirmed

Not confirmed

Confirmed

Not confirmed

Confirmed

 

53

subordinate input, and the consultative leadership style provides
for limited subordinate input. The limitation inherent in this
last style is that though subordinates are continually being asked
for information, they are not included in the actual decision-making,
as they are in the group-oriented, normative, and random leadership
styles. If we look to learning theory, it is not surprising that
the normative and random leadership styles, with intermittent
opportunities for subordinate input, are as satisfied as the group-
oriented leadership styles, since variable-interval reinforcement
schedules are in many cases as effective as a continual reinforce-
ment schedule.

An experiment to test the hypothesis that subordinate satis-
faction is dependent upon the subordinate being allowed to provide
input to the leader would be to set up several groups with different
styles of leadership for the same decision-making situations. As
control groups, one group would have a leader who is always authori-
tarian, one group would have a leader who is always consultative,
and a third control group would have a leader who is always group-
oriented. There would be two types of experimental groups. The
first type would be groups in which the leader was authoritarian for
some situations and group-oriented for other situations, the choice
being made randomly; the second type would be groups in which the
leader was authoritarian for some situations and consultative for
other situations, the choice again being made randomly. For example,
there might be four experimental groups with the leader in each

group acting as follows; 1) the leader is authoritarian 75% of the

54

time and consultative 25% of the time; 2) the leader is authoritarian
50% of the time and consultative 50% of the time; 3) the leader is
authoritarian 75% of the time and group-oriented 25% of the time;

4) the leader is authoritarian 50% of the time and group-oriented

50% of the time. Other percentage splits of leader behavior could

be used, but the purpose would be to have several levels of each of
the two combinations. By having the two combinations of leader
behavior, authoritarian/consultative and authoritarian/group-oriented,
it can be determined if subordinate satisfaction is due to subordi-
nate participation in decision-making or merely to subordinate input
to the leader. By having several levels of each combination, it can
be determined if there is a certain percent of the time that a sub-
ordinate must be able to input to the leader or participate in
decision-making in order to be satisfied, or if with increasing
percents of input or participation that subordinates become more
satisfied.

Another possible explanation of this finding that subordi-
nates of authoritarian leaders are less satisifed than subordinates
of other types of leaders is that it supports the findings of pre-
vious research, that subordinates are more satisfied when they are'
allowed to participate in decision-making. However, if this were
the case, the group experiencing the consultative leadership style,'
which did not actually participate in decision-making, but rather
merely provided input to the leader, should have been less satisfied
than the group-oriented, normative, or random leadership groups.

This was not the case though, as the consultative leadership group

55

did not significantly differ in subordinate satisfaction from these
three groups. It is possible that providing input to the leader
does serve the same purpose as allowing subordinates to participate
in decision-making, but this position does not seem tenable. The
aforementioned experiment would also test this hypothesis. At the
moment, though, these results are not fully consistent with partici-
pative decision-making theory.

The lack of support for Hypothesis 3, that subordinates will
be more satisfied with leaders who indicate beforehand how they will
act, is at variance with the fact that 81% of subjects said they
would be more satisfied with a leader whose behavior they were able
to predict.

One possible explanation for the lack of support for Hypothe-
sis 3 is that subjects in the no prior knowledge condition may have
quickly become aware of the manner in which the leader was acting.
It is possible that after the first few pages in the experimental
booklet, subjects in the authoritarian, consultative, and group-
oriented conditions realized that the leader would be exclusively
using that style, and that likewise the subjects in the normative
and random conditions realized that the leader would be acting in
a variable style of leadership. If this is the case, then subjects
in the no prior knowledge condition would be able to predict leader
behavior, as were the subjects in the prior knowledge condition.

While Hypothesis 4, that subjects whose expectations of
leadership style are met will be more satisfied than those subjects

whose expectations are not met, was confirmed, the frequency of

56

choices for leader style preferred was surprising. Though not stated
as a hypothesis, it was expected that the great majority of subjects
would prefer to work for a group-oriented leader, and that few would
prefer to work for normative leaders. This expectation is basically
an extension of Hypothesis l. However, 47.5% of subjects preferred
to work for a normative type of leader and only 25% preferred work-
ing for a group-oriented leader. This preference may indicate a
realization on the part of many subjects that some decisions are too
trivial for group decision-making, that subordinates may not have
meaningful input on some decisions, and that in some decisions sub-
ordinates will be in conflict and a decision must be made by the
leader. In other words, they may be aware of some or all of the
factors that Vroom and Yetton considered in their normative model

to indicate that leadership style should vary.

Another possible explanation for the large percent of sub-
jects expressing a preference for a normative style leader may be
that they have had experience in working for a normative style
leader and have been satisfied in doing so. ”Vroom and Yetton (l973)
and Hill (1977) found that many real-life leaders do vary their
style of leadership, though not necessarily in accordance with the
normative model.

The frequency of subject choices for leader style preferred
also supports the findings reported for Hypothesis 2, that the only
difference among satisfaction with leadership styles is that the
authoritarian style was less preferred than the other four. Only

2.1% of subjects indicated a preference for an authoritarian leader,

57

while 25% each chose consultative and group-oriented, and 47.5%
chose normative. With percents like these, it is not surprising
that the only difference in satisfaction with leadership styles is
between authoritarian and the other four.

The lack of support for Hypothesis 5, that satisfaction will
be less for subordinates desiring to be able to predict leader
behavior, but who are not able to do so, may indicate that predic-
tion of leader behavior for normative and random conditions does A
not mean that the subordinate has to know what the leader will do
in every situation, but that prediction merely means knowing that
the leader will use different leadership styles. As previously dis-
cussed in explaining the findings of Hypothesis 3, subjects may
quickly discover whether a leader is using one style consistently
or is using a variety of leader styles, and this discovery will then
enable subordinates to predict leader behavior. If this explanation
is true, this would mean that categorizing subjects in the normative
and random conditions as not being able to predict leader behavior
was incorrect.

The confirmation of Hypothesis 6, that subordinates aspiring
to leadership roles will be more satisfied with participatory leader-
ship styles, can be explained by positing that participation in
decision-making is seen as preparation for leadership. Many of the
duties of a leader are to make decisions and therefore participation
in decision-making can be viewed as experience in leadership duties.
Leaders also have more control over their work, and by participating

in decision-making, subordinates can also gain a measure of control

58

over their work. In this manner, subordinates may be emulating the
characteristics of leaders.

While this study supports the effectiveness of the Vroom
and Yetton normative model in terms of subordinate satisfaction,
future research should utilize other measures of effectiveness to
compare the normative model to more traditional models. These other
measures could be the effectiveness or quality of the decisions
reached by different types of leaders, or the commitment and adher-
ence by subordinates to the decisions actually made. These vari-
ables will not be as easily measurable as subordinate satisfaction,
but factors of this type must be examined in order to test conclu-
sively the effectiveness of the Vroom and Yetton model.

Two aspects of this study are subject to some criticism and
could have been improved if resources of the experimenter had per-
mitted. Major shortcomings involved the use of role-playing techni-
que and the use of college students as subjects. While these are
accepted practices in many research studies, and particularly in
graduate research, more confidence could be given to the results if
actual decision-making situations with different leadership styles
had been devised, and if the subjects had been chosen from people
with appreciable work experience in decision-making groups. Any
replications of this study should attempt to utilize these sugges-
tions,-though the present experimenter was not able to do so.

The overall intent of this study was to examine the effect

of different styles of leadership upon subordinate satisfaction.

59

It was believed that subjects would be less satisfied with normative
leaders and would prefer to work for leaders with a consistent
leadership style. As previously noted, the results do not support
this belief. Rather, subordinate satisfaction with the normative
leadership style was comparable with subordinate satisfaction in
consistent leadership styles, though authoritarian leadership style
resulted in significantly lower subordinate satisfaction. Also,
nearly half of the subjects indicated a preference to work for a
normative leader who varies leadership style according to the situa-
tion.

This study then lends further support to the Vroom and Yetton
normative model of leadership. Subordinates are as satisfied with
the normative model as with other leadership models, and nearly half
of subordinates prefer to work for normative leaders. As Vroom and
Yetton (l973) and Hill (1977) have found, many leaders of decision-
making groups do vary their style of leadership, though not neces-
sarily in accordance with the normative model. From the standpoint
of subordinate satisfaction, the normative model is no less satis-
factory a model than a number of other models. However, further
research needs to be conducted to determine if the normative model,

compared to other models, results in superior decisions or outcomes.

60

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Argyle, M., Gardner, 6., and Cioffi, F. Supervisory methods related
to productivity, absenteeism, and labor turnover. Human
Relations, 1958, 11, 23-40.

Bachman, J., Smith, C., and Slesinger, J. Control, performance, and
satisfaction: an analysis of structural and individual
effects. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1966,
4, 127-136.

Baumgartel, H. Leadership, motivations, and attitudes in research
laboratories. Journal of Social Issues, 1956, 12, 24-31.

Berkowitz, L. Sharing leadership in small, decision-making groups.
Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 231-238.

Blake, R. and Mouton, J. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf, 1964.

Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, E., and Weick, K. Managerial
Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1970.

Coch, L. and French, J. Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Relations, 1948, 1, 512-532.

Cohen, A. Situational structure, self esteem, and threat-oriented
reactions to power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
Social Power. 35-52. Ann Arbor: ISR, University of
Michigan,1959.

Fiedler, F. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Fleishman, E. The description of supervisory behavior. Journal
of Applied Psghology, 1953, 37, 1-6.

French, J., Kay, E., and Meyer, M. Participation and the appraisal
system. Human Relations, 1966, 19, 3-20.

Gross, M., Mason, W., and McEachern, A. Explorations in Role Analy-
s_i_s;. New York: Wiley, 1958.

61

62

Hays, W. Statistics for the Social Sciences. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.

Heller, F. Managerial Decision Making, London: Tavistock, 1971.

Hill, W. Leadership style flexibility, satisfaction, and perfor-
mance. In E. Fleishman and J. Hunt (Ed.), Current Develpp-
ments in the Study of Leadershi . 62-85. Carbondale,
Southern Illinois University ress, 1973.

Hill, T. A test of the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model of leader-
ship decision-making. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1977.

House, R. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 321-338.

House, R. and Rizzo, J. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical
variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 467-505.

Johnson, R. Initiating structure, consideration, and participative
decision making. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1973.

Johnson, T. and Stinson, J. Role ambiguity, role conflict, and
satisfaction: moderating effects of individual differences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 329-333.

Kahn, R., Wolfe, 0., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., and Rosenthal, R.
Organizational Stress: Studies in Rolegonflict and Ambi-
guity. New York: Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., 1964.

Kirk, R. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral
Sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Pub., 1968.

Korman, A. Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational
criteria: A review. Personnel Psychology, 1966, 19, 349-
361.

Korman, A. Environmental ambiguity and locus of control as inter-
active influences on satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1970, 55, 339-342.

Lawrence, L. and Smith, R. Group.decision and employee participa-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 39, 334-337.

Likert, R. Effective supervision: An adaptive and relative process.
Personnel Psychology, 1958, 11, 317-332.

Likert, R. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

63

Likert, R. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Locke, E. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette,
M. (Ed.), Handbgok of Industrial and Organizational Psycho-
logy, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1976, 297-1349.

Lowin, A. Participative decision-making: a model, literature cri-
tique, and prescriptions for research. .Qrganizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 68-106.

Lyons, T. Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension,
and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,
1971, 6, 99-110.

Maier, N. Ps cholo in Industry,,2nd edition. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1955*

Maier, N. and Hoffiman, L. Group decision in England and the United
States. Personnel Psychology, 1962, 15, 75-87.

Marrow, A. 'Risk and uncertainties in action research. Journal of.
Social Issues, 1964, 20, 5-20.

McAllister, 0., Mitchell, T., and Beach, L. The contingency model
for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical
test of the effects of significance, accountability, and
reversibility. Or anizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 1979, 24, 2 8-244.

Miles, R. An empirical test of causal inference between role per-
ceptions of conflict and ambiguity and various personal
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 334-339.

Miles, R. Role requirements as sources of organizational stress.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 172-179.

Mitchell, T. Organizational behavior. In M. Rosenzweig and L.
Porter (Ed.), Annual Review of_£§ychology, 243-281. Palo
Alto: Annual Reviews Inc., 1979.

Morse, N. and Reimer, E. The experimental change of a major organi-
zational variable. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psycholggy,
1956, 52, 120-129.

Porter, L. and Steers, R. Organizational, work, and personal factors
in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 1973, 80, 151-176.

Rizzo, J., House, R., and Lirtzman, S. Role conflict and ambiguity
in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
1970, 15, 150-1630

64

Schuler, R., Aldag, R., and Brief, A. Role conflict and ambiguity:
A scale analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 1977, 20, 111-128.

Scontrino, M. The effects of fulfilling and violating group members'
expectations about leadership style. Unpublished Ph.D. dis
sertation, Michigan State University, 1971. ~

Shaw, M. A comparison of two types of leadership in various communi-
cation nets. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1955,
50, 127-134.

Smith, C. and Tannenbaum, A. Organizational control structure: a
comparative analysis. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 299-316.

Stogdill, R. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and
ResearChZ New YOrk: The Free Press, 1974.

Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. How to choose a leadership pattern.
Harvard Business Review, 1958, 36, 95-101.

Tosi, H. A re-examination of personality as a determinant of the
effects of participation. Personal Psychology, 1970, 23,
91-99.

Utecht, R. and Heier, W. The contingency model and successful mili-
tary leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19,
606-618.

Vecchio, R. An empirical examination of the validity of Fiedler's
model of leadership effectiveness. Or anizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 1977, 19, 180- 06.

Vroom, V. Some personality determinants of the effects of partici-
pation. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1959, 59,
322-327.

Vroom, V. and Mann, F. Leader authoritarianism and employee atti-
tudes. Personnel Psycholggy, 1960, 13, 125-140.

Vroom, V. and Yetton, P. Leadership and Decision;Making. Pitts-
burgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.

65

APPENDICES

66

APPENDIX A

Normative Model Decision Tree

67

ppo.pu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:o 5 :8
:o .2 :o
5.5 .: 5.5.5.2
. :8 a. 5.55:2.2
2 5.5.8.5 a :o
2 e. 5.8;: a :o.._u.s.__<.2
mw>
: m> mmr I am;
11 mm; 2 oz oz
a a. u m .
m omovmwe, .e
e oz 3 I .5393
1 2: 3.3
m. m;
N11 02
o a m o o o q.

wmco_u:pom oogsopogq c? z—ox_F mmpmcpugoazm meosm ao_choo mm
~so_noea m_=u m:_>pom cw uo:_muum on o» mpmom Pmcowpm~_cmmco as» ocean moumcvogonzm oo
wmopmcwuconam as

An umpqooum on o_:oz aw pogo :_opcmo arnmcomaoe Be my .epmmzs an :o_m_omo one axes op «cm: H eH

~=o_uou:osopasw o>vuuomwo o» qupp_go moum:_ocon=m an cowm_oou mo oocmpomouo mu
Nomcauoacum smpaoca mg» mm
«covmwoou zap—ozo saw; a axes op owe? pcowopmmam m>as H on

Neoguoco :msu pa:o_pme egos an op a—mx_p m_ cowuapom oco peg» seam ucosocvzcme zuwpozo a mean» mu

FNMQ'LDLDIN

<MUDLIJ LLQ'J

68

APPENDIX B

Five Descriptions of Leader Behavior

69

Al Leader Behavior

IN THIS SITUATION, SMITH MAKES THE DECISION OF WHAT ACTION
TO TAKE, USING THE ABOVE INFORMATION, WITHOUT TALKING TO
SUBORDINATES.

A11 Leader Behavior

IN THIS SITUATION, SMITH GATHERS INFORMATION FROM SUBORDI-
NATES, THEN SMITH MAKES THE DECISION OF WHAT ACTION TO TAKE.

Cl Leader Behavior

IN THIS SITUATION, SMITH SHARES THE PROBLEM WITH SUBORDINATES
INDIVIDUALLY, GATHERING INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS, AND
THEN SMITH MAKES THE DECISION OF WHAT ACTION TO TAKE.

C11 Leader BehaVior

IN THIS SITUATION, SMITH SHARES THE PROBLEM WITH SUBORDINATES
AS A GROUP, GATHERING INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS, AND THEN
SMITH MAKES THE DECISION OF WHAT ACTION TO TAKE.

Gll Leader Behavior

IN THIS SITUATION, SMITH SHARES THE PROBLEM WITH SUBORDINATES
AS A GROUP, AND THE GROUP, INCLUDING SMITH, EVALUATES INFOR-
MATION AND ALTERNATIVES IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT A GROUP DECI-
SION OF WHAT ACTION TO TAKE.

70

APPENDIX C
Prior Knowledge of Leadership Style

71

In the situation descriptions you are to read, the leader
of the group will use several different styles of leader behavior
to make decisions. While the theory of leadership on which this
leader behavior is based is too complex to explain in detail in
this experiment, the basic ideas will be briefly outlined.

This theory states that for each group decision-making situa-
tion a leader is faced with, there are a number of questions to be
answered about the situation. These questions are:

1.
2.
3.

4
5.
6

7.

Is the guality of the decision im ortant, such that
some so utions are better than at ers?

Does the leader have sufficient information to make
the decision?

Is the problem structured, in that it is similar to
problems often encountered and for which there are
procedures for handling these types of problems?

. Is commitment of subordinates necessary for effective

implementation?
If the leader makes the decision alone, will subordinates
accept and implement the decision?

. Do subordinates share the same organizational goals as

the leader?
Is conflict about solutions likely among subordinates?

After evaluating the situation in terms of these 7 questions,
the leader is able to decide which of 5 leadership behaviors to use
in that particular situation. The 5 leadership behaviors that the
leader may use are:

1.
2.
3.
4.
s.

The leader makes the decision alone, without talking

to subordinates.

The leader obtains information from subordinates, then
makes the decision.

The leader shares the problem with subordinates indivi-
dually and then makes the decision.

The leader shares the problem with subordinates as a

group and then makes the decision.

The leader shares the problem with subordinates as a
group, and the group then reaches consensus on a solution.

The situation descriptions that follow will have information
to answer the questions a leader should ask, and the behavior of the
leader in a situation will be one of the 5 behaviors listed above.

If this leadership model is followed, the best decision should
be reached in the shortest time.

72

In the situation descriptions you are to read, the leader
of the group will be sharing the problem with subordinates as a
group, and the entire group, including the leader, will discuss the
problem and arrive at a group decision of what action to take.

This style of leader behavior in problem-solving and decision-
making situations is gaining increasing acceptance in all types of
organizations. This type of leadership usually results in higher
quality decisions than other types of leadership, as available infor-
mation pertaining to the problem is gathered from subordinates
during the group session and is used in deciding upon the best deci-
sion. Also, by involving subordinates in the decision-making pro-
cess, subordinates feel a greater sense of commitment to the decision
made and will carry out the decision more effectively. Finally, by
involving subordinates in the decision-making process, better com-
munication among subordinates will be fostered through use of the
group meetings in which decisions are made. This increased communi-
cation among subordinates will usually carry over from decision-
making meetings to the everyday contacts among subordinates. This
increased communication means increased sharing of information which
results in more satisfied and productive subordinates.

73

In the situation descriptions you are to read, the leader
of the group will be sharing the problem with subordinates indi-
vidually, and then making the decision from the information gathered
from subordinates. This style of leadership behavior in problem-
solving and decision-making situations is a middle ground between
the more traditional style of the leader making all decisions and
the more recent style of the leader and subordinates making deci-
sions together as a group.

This style of leader behavior has the advantage over group
decision-making in that lengthy group meetings are eliminated and
decisions can be made more quickly, thereby increasing efficiency
by saving time and money. It also eliminates the conflict among
subordinates that may arise when group meetings are held to discuss
the solution of problems.

This style of leader behavior has the advantage over leaders
who make decisions themselves, without consulting subordinates, in
that higher quality decisions will be made, as all available infor-
mation on the problem is gathered from subordinates. Also, subor-
dinates will feel more committed to carrying out the decisions that
have been made, as they will have had input into the solving of the
problem.

74

In the situation descriptions you are to read, the leader
of the group will use several different styles of leader behavior
to make decisions. There are 5 styles of leadership that the leader
may use. They are:

l. The leader makes the decision alone, without talking
to subordinates.

. The leader obtains information from subordinates, then

makes the decision.

The leader shares the problem with subordinates indi-

vidually and then makes the decision.

. The leader shares the problem with subordinates as a

group and then makes the decision.

. The leader shares the problem with subordinates as a
group, and the group then reaches consensus on a
solution.

01th

This leadership theory contends that by using this variety
of leadership styles, the leader will prevent boredom and lack of
attention in his subordinates. If only one leadership style is used
constantly by the leader, subordinates will become complacent, and
their efficiency and output will not be as high as it might be.
However, by use of the different styles of leadership, subordinates
will function at a higher efficiency and will find their work more
stimulating.

There is more to this theory than can be covered in this
experiment, but the basic premise is that the leader should not
always use one style of leadership, but should rather use different
styles at different times to prevent boredom and increase efficiency.

75

In the situation descriptions you are to read, the leader of
the group will be making decisions concerning the solution of problem
alone, without consulting subordinates. This is the style of leader-
ship that most people have had experience with and is the type of
leadership that they usually expect. It is also the most saving of
time, and therefore money, as there is no need to call together com-
mittees of people, who are likely to spend a good deal of time
meeting and discussing a problem before a decision is reached.

Another benefit of this type of leadership is that there is
less conflict among subordinates. With more group-oriented styles
of leadership, personalities and viewpoints of competing subordinates
may clash, resulting in increased time to reach decisions, and fre-
quently leading to lack of co-operation among subordinates in carry-
ing out the decisions. With the leader making decisions, this
problem of conflict among subordinates is greatly reduced.

76

APPENDIX D
Sample Experimental Booklet

77

In this experiment, you are to role-play or imagine yourself
as one of several subordinates of a leader who is confronted with
13 different group problem-solving and decision-making situations.
Even though the 13 situations you will read are quite diverse, com-
ing from a variety of business, academic, and research settings,
try to build an image of one leader for all the different situations.

After reading each situation description and the way the
leader dealt with the situation, you are to answer 2 questions about
your reaction to the leader's behavior in that situation. After you
have gone through all 13 of the situations, there are several ques-
tions regarding your overall reaction to the way the leader dealt
with all the situations. Your responses to these questions should
reflect the role you are playing of a subordinate to the leader.
REMEMBER TO TRY TO BUILD AN IMAGE OF THE SAME LEADER IN THE 13 DIF-
FERENT SITUATIONS.

Before you continue with the rest of the booklet, please fill
in the blanks for your student number and sex on the accompanying
answer sheet. Mark the answers to all the questions in this booklet
on the accompanying answer sheet.

78

Smith has been given authorization to take two subordinates
to a planning conference on Wednesday of next week. This conference
will take place at the Hilton Hotel downtown and has a deserved
reputation for providing excellent food and other refreshments.

Smith's organization will pay the $25 fee, and the conference
is considered one of the best of a number of fringe benefits which
are shared among six subordinates. Selection means little in terms
of opportunities to make useful contacts, and has in the past not
been used as a mechanism for rewarding good performance. It is
obvious that all six subordinates would like to go.

IN THIS SITUATION, SMITH GATHERS INFORMATION FROM SUBORDINATES, THEN
SMITH MAKES THE DECISION OF WHAT ACTION TO TAKE.

How satisfied are you with Smith’s action in deciding how the
decision would be made in this situation?

Very satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied

. Makes no difference
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

(”#de
O C 0

Although no solution to this problem is given, do you feel
that the solution finally arrived at for this problem would
be good or poor, considering the way Smith is acting in this

situation?

1. Very good
2. Good

3. Average
4. Poor

5. Very poor

79

Smith's group has recently been merged with a larger organiza-
tion and Smith's boss has been replaced. The larger organization
has moved in a manager to whom Smith now reports, but has little
respect for, as the new manager has little management experience.

The new boss has sent Smith, who is head of the applied research
department, a directive to the effect that some changes must be made
in general work habits--primarily in the area of dress and office
etiquette. A major point in this directive is that a few individuals
do not present a business-like appearance;shaggy hair and no ties are
of particular concern because of the possibility that outsiders might
get the wrong image of the organization. Smith has argued in defense
of the present practices and has said that the nature of the changes
requested may well cause resentment and a fall in morale, and could
even result in some of the best junior staff leaving.

Smith's boss is willing to concede the fact that the research
department has an excellent performance record and that.these changes
are not likely to result in any improved performance, but says that
the decision regarding appearance will not be reversed, whatever the
outcome. Exactly what rules are adopted are apparently not impor-
tant, as long as business-like appearance results. Smith has a
month, after which the results of this directive must be apparent.

In the event that Smith does not introduce the necessary changes, a
detailed set of rules and regulations will be issued to all personnel
in the department. A decision has to be made as to what rules to
adopt to bring behavior into line with the general directive.

Nearly all the personnel in the research department are under
thirty and have graduate degrees. These common factors of age and
training, plus the department's success, have resulted in a highly
cohesive group with some strongly held group norms. These norms
sanction the dress and office etiquette behavior now under review.
For instance, no one in the department goes to the extremes that
might be seen on a campus, but department personnel believe that
such matters as hair style, length of hem, tie width and shoe style
should be left to an individual's personal taste.

IN THIS SITUATION, SMITH GATHERS INFORMATION FROM SUBORDINATES, THEN
SMITH MAKES THE DECISION OF WHAT ACTION TO TAKE.

27.

28.

29.

80

How satisfied are you with Smith's action in deciding how the
decision would be made in this situation?

album—1
0 o o o 0

Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Makes no difference
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

Although no solution to this problem is given, do you feel
that the solution finally arrived at for this problem would
be good or poor, considering the way Smith is acting in this

situation?

1. Very good
2. Good

3 Average
4. Poor

5 Very poor

Considering all of the different situations you have read, how
satisfied are you with the overall way in which Smith decided
how decisions would be made?

01-9de
0 o o o 0

Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Makes no difference
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

Although no solutions to these problems have been given, what
is your overall feeling of how good or poor the solutions
finally arrived at for these problems would be, taking into
consideration the way Smith is acting in these situations?

m-th-d
o o o o 0

Very good
Good
Average
Poor

Very poor

How satisfied would you be working for Smith, as described
in these situations?

mth—I
I O 0

Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Makes no difference
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied.

81

30. Based on the behavior of Smith as described in these situations,
what are your feelings about working for such a leader?

Definitely like to remain working for such a leader
Probably like to remain working for such a leader
Makes no difference

Probably like to quit working for such a leader
Definitely like to quit working for such a leader

mth-a
o o o o o

On the back of the answer sheet, please list any groups of
which you were or are currently an active member or leader. Include
only groups which actually met together and acted together. Do not
include honorary groups that did not actually meet. Include groups
such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, school organizations, athletic
teams, church organizations, etc. For those groups in which you
held a leadership position, indicate below the group name what the
title was and what your duties were.

After listing the groups and leadership positions, count the
number of groups listed and enter this number for question 31 on the
answer sheet. If the number of groups is 9 or more, enter a 9. If
you were not a member of any such group, mark 10 for question 31.

Now count the number of groups in which you held a leadership posi-
tion, and enter this number for question 32. If the number of groups
is 9 or more, enter a 9. If you were not in a leadership position

in any group, mark 10 for question 32.

33. If you are a member of a work group that has an officially
appointed leader, how would you prefer the leader to act?

1. The leader makes all decisions without prior consultation
with group members and then tells group members what the
decisions are so that members may implement them.

2. The leader makes all decisions, but consults with group
members first to gather information and ideas. After
making the decisions, the leader then tells group members
what they are so that they may be implemented.

3. The leader does not make decisions alone, but rather
holds group meetings where problems are discussed and
decisions are made by group consensus, which the group
then implements.

4. The leader employs all 3 of the above methods at different
times, depending upon the decision to be made and imple-
mented.

5. It would make no difference if the leader used 1, 2, or
3 abgve, as long as the leader used one of them consis-
tent y.

34.

35.

82

If you are a member of a work group that has an officially
appointed leader, do you feel more satisfied with the group
leader if you can predict how the leader will make decisions?

1. Yes, more satisfied if I can predict
2. No, no difference if I can predict or not.

When you become established in a career, would you hope to be
a leader of decision-making groups, or would you prefer to
remain a member of the group and let others lead?

1. Hope to be a leader
2. Have little or no desire to be a leader