2 pages essay

Apply the concepts from the uploaded materials (Avery, 2011, Chapter 4, p. 85-88) to your own experiences in the workplace. Think carefully about Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model and the four leadership styles of Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating. Then consider the styles of one or more of the supervisors you have worked with and reflect upon whether or not their style changed depending on the situation.

After doing some reflecting on your own experiences, and reviewing the uploaded materials, write a 2 full-page paper (excluding title and references pages) addressing the following issues:
Take a look at the four developmental levels D1-D4 discussed in Avery (2011, p.85).

1. Which of these levels best describes the developmental level of your supervisor’s full team?

2. How would you describe the tasks required of your supervisor’s full team? Are they structured or unstructured?

3. Overall, how well does your supervisor’s leadership style match with the developmental level of their team and the characteristics of the team’s tasks? Consider the Situational Leadership model for developmental level and the Path-Goal model for task characteristics in your answer.

4. Conclude with recommendations for how your supervisor could change their leadership style? 

References:

Avery, G. (2011). Contingency theories: Situations matter. In Chapter 4: Micro-level leadership theories of Understanding leadership

Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012). 

Chapter 12.4: What is the role of the context? Contingency approaches to leadership

. In Organizational behavior. Saylor Academy.

Evans, M. G. (2002). Chapter 4: Path-Goal theory of leadership. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership.

Ayman, R. (2002). Chapter 7: Contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Challenges and achievements. In L. L. Neider, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership.

4 Micro-level Leadership Theories

K e y P o i n t s

• Understanding leadership theories and models

• Traits and behaviours of the individual leader

• Influencing skills

• Leader-follower relations

• Situational influences

• Linking theories to the paradigms

How do the paradigms relate to the many leadership theories and concepts? Over
the next three chapters, major leadership theories and ideas are discussed in relation
to the paradigms. This chapter describes the evolution of leadership theories

and

approaches, particularly as they apply to individual leaders and their relationships
with their followers.

Most formal leadership theories were developed in the twentieth century,
although many of the underlying ideas about leadership are much older. These
theories tend to deal with specific facets of leadership or leadership at particular levels
breaking the concept into simpler components for ease of study or in order to develop
particular leadership tools. Few writers address leadership in its complexity or try to
link their theories to one another. None addresses the full range of leadership ideas
and levels, although Bass and Yukl have made major attempts to do so. 1

Most theorists ignore the fact that national and dynamic corporate cultures, dif-
ferent political contexts and multiple stakeholders affect leadership. A comprehen-
sive view of leadership will not just be internally-focused, but will place leadership
in an operating context. This will allow for interactions with the external world,
including with competitors, governments and politicians, suppliers and alliance
partners.

C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

2
0
0
4
.

S
A
G
E

P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

L
t
d
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

M
a
y

n
o
t

b
e

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

i
n

a
n
y

f
o
r
m

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
,

e
x
c
e
p
t

f
a
i
r

u
s
e
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

U
.
S
.

o
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

l
a
w
.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Business Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY
AN: 518901 ; Gayle C Avery.; Understanding Leadership : Paradigms and Cases
Account: s3642728.main.ehost

U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

Thus, the leadership field consists of the writings of groups o f relatively isolated
scholars. Adopting a broad approach to leadership as advocated in this book
requires integrating many theoretical approaches. Any theory or model that
encompassed the full range o f internal and external leadership issues would be very
broad, and so probably not detailed or predictive enough to be useful for empirical
researchers. However, writers and practitioners are calling for a multilevel frame-
work that incorporates leadership effects at individual, group and organizational
levels.2

The question is, at which organizational levels should leadership be discussed? 3

A c o m m o n recommendation is to use different management levels: higher levels
(executive or upper echelon management), middle management and lower levels
(front-line or entry-level). One difficulty with this approach is determining the
comparability of levels in various organizations, especially in networked organi-
zations. Yammarino proposes focusing on four ‘groups’ to understand leadership
theories and models, namely the individual, dyad (two person, one-on-one
interactions), subgroup and whole group levels. 4 However, these levels tend to be
focused internally on the organization and need expanding to include the external
leadership environment.

Ideally, the many facets of leadership should be integrated and viewed holisti-
cally, as part of a dynamic process. However, the linear nature of a book requires this
complex set of issues to be split into smaller elements. Therefore the discussion in
the following chapters is structured around levels of leadership similar to those
defined by Yammarino. The micro-level is covered in this chapter, starting with the
individual and proceeding through dyadic to larger group levels. These theories are
sometimes referred to as ‘supervisory theories’. Chapter 5 bridges the micro- and
organizational-levels by discussing emotion-based approaches to leadership that
typically emphasize the role of a vision, shared values and other emotional bases
underpinning leadership. In Chapter 6, macro-level approaches focused at higher
organizational levels and on the broader external environment are introduced. The
leadership paradigms relevant to each of the theories are also indicated during
the discussion, and each chapter concludes by integrating its content into the
paradigms.

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

The belief that individuals are distinguished as leaders by virtue of their birth,
traits or behaviours places a strong focus on the leader as a special kind of person.
This section considers the characteristics and behaviours associated with these
individuals.

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s ß

Great men

Great Men ideas, based largely on class and birth, were very popular during the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Great Men views propose that people from
the upper classes inherit desirable leadership qualities and the right to lead. 5 This
applied particularly to men (see Box 4.1 for challenges facing Great Women).

Under the Great Men view, everyone inherited a place in society and expecta-
tions or opportunities rarely change this. Reflecting society at the time, the
nineteenth and early twentieth century business world was also divided into classes,
with leaders considered born to the role, not made. People tended to accept the
world as being divided into leaders and followers. Max Weber’s observations about
the civil service, with his ideal bureaucratic ways, reinforced this class division.
Those who understood how to manage directed the lesser classes.6

Early in the twentieth century, ‘the successful executive was generally pictured as
possessing intelligence, imagination, initiative, the capacity to make rapid (and generally
wise) decisions, and the ability to inspire subordinates.’7 Even today, children from cer-
tain dynasties, family business people and royalty are considered, by some, born to rule.

The belief that birth determines a person’s fitness to lead may have diminished
over time, but the often-related notion of the heroic leader, with a strong focus on
one key person, still pervades leadership theory and practice. Attributing the out-
come of events to actions of heroic leaders is c o m m o n in many cultures, where the
fates of organizations, empires, armies or their followers are attributed to these
leaders. This attribution can become extreme when people hold unrealistic expecta-
tions about a leader’s abilities, and leaders can seldom live up to these high hopes. 8

Where are the great women leaders?

Compared with ‘Great M e n ‘ , the emergence of the ‘Great W o m a n ‘ leader was tra-
ditionally much more difficult unless she was born into a leader role. Alternatively,
she could marry into a family from which leaders traditionally come, or take over
from her husband, like the Ghandis in India.

Mary Kay Ash was an exception. Disappointed at how she was treated by a pre-
vious employer, she resolved to build an organization that provides women with
opportunities to excel. In doing so, she created the largest direct seller of skin care
products and the best-selling brand of colour cosmetics in the U S . 9 Mary Kay Inc.
employs more than 500 000 independent beauty consultants in 29 markets world-
wide, and has been featured among the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America
three times since the list began in 1984 (see URL: http://www.marykay.com/).

Ash is obviously not alone in her success, but even today relatively few women
are in senior leadership positions in business. Various explanations have been
advanced for this, including that men have an advantage over women in leadership
positions because the business context is male-oriented. ‘Concepts of leadership … are

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

ft U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

gendered, embedded inside assumptions, practices, norms, belief systems that
make men normal.’ 1 0 Men define leadership and organizations in terms that are
appropriate to men, so that when women enter the leadership arena, they do so
within men’s cultural norms.1 1 In this context, some people are bemused at Mary
Kay Ash’s extravagant and emotional award ceremonies, at which her top sales-
women receive pink Cadillacs or pink fur coats, where she calls her saleswomen
‘daughter’, and where women’s business suits are colour-coded to indicate rank.

Research into the scarcity of women in leadership roles shows that being a
leader makes men feel masculine, whereas for women being a leader does not
make them feel feminine. Instead, women leaders often try to deny their sexuality
and gender.1 2 These strategies tend to be self-defeating, especially when women
are accused of ‘trying too hard to be one of the boys’. This constant attempt at
concealment deprives women of an important part of their identity and feeling of
self, which men derive from traditional styles of leadership. Thus, given the male
culture in many organizations, and the potential conflict between a woman’s iden-
tity and leadership, it is not surprising that relatively few women are in leadership
positions. Nor is it surprising that Mary Kay Ash ‘feminized’ her organization.

It will become evident that the notion of the heroic leader continues to per-
meate many leadership theories and approaches. In terms of the leadership para-
digms, the ‘Great Man’ approach fits well with the Classical, Transactional and
Visionary leadership ideas, but not with the distributed leadership behind the
Organic paradigm.

Traits

Some researchers argue that regardless of whether leaders are born or made, they are
different from other people. 1 3 Leaders need to have the ‘right stuff, which not every-
one has. Identifying this ‘stuff could help in the search for individuals with leader-
ship potential.

Early attempts to find the essence of leadership were disappointing, as Stogdill’s
famous review of trait studies showed. 1 4 Only two characteristics seemed to help dis-
tinguish leaders from non-leaders with any degree of consistency: leaders were
slightly taller and slightly more intelligent than non-leaders. Of course, Hitler and
Napoleon provide examples of men of short stature who acquired considerable
power, as do the Prime Ministers J o h n Howard (Australia) and Silvio Berlusconi
(Italy).

Nearly half a century later, researchers resumed the search for leader traits using
improved measures and looking for traits linked more closely to leadership activities
than height. 1 5 While exceptions can always be found, the six traits described in
Table 4.1 have been found to distinguish leaders from non-leaders, at least under the
US business model:

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

Six leader traits

Drive

Leaders exhibit achievement,
motivation, ambition, energy, initiative
and tenacity.

Being honest/having integrity

This characteristic enables leaders to form
trusting relationships with followers, and
not violate promises or confidences.

Knowing the business

Knowledge of the business enables
informed decisions to be made and
promotes understanding of the
implications of those decisions.

Source: Adapted from Kirkpatrick and Locke1

Desire to lead

Leaders want to lead, and are willing to
exercise some power over, and to discipline,
others

Self-confidence

Others’ perceptions of the leader’s
self-confidence are important, as is
displaying emtional stability, being
even-tempered and able to deal with stress.

High-level intelligence

Leaders need to be able to gather and
process considerable information,
formulate strategies, and solve problems.
A high *g (general intelligence) level is
important.

• drive,
• honesty and integrity,
• knowing the business,
• wanting to lead,
• having self-confidence, and
• being intelligent. 1 7

A more complex approach to understanding and measuring leader traits comes
from the competency movement begun by David McClelland. 1 8 The competency
approach searches for the underlying characteristic(s) of an individual related to
effective or superior performance. 1 9 Clearly, what constitutes superior performance
can be difficult to define, especially for senior executives, but researchers are
attempting to develop appropriate measures. 2 0

Many organizations are seeking leaders able to function globally. Increasingly,
senior managers are agreeing that tomorrow’s leaders will operate in a global con-
text, and that different capabilities will be required of global leaders.2 1 In research
into effective global leaders, Gregersen and his colleagues identified the necessary
characteristics as being partly specific to the global context, and partly generic to
leaders generally. 2 2 They concluded that about one-third of a global leader’s success
comes from having the knowledge and skills for specific contexts, such as industry
knowledge and understanding the corporate culture. The remaining characteristics
apply to leaders generally, including:

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

• being able to affect others emotionally
• being ethical and inquisitive
• managing uncertainty, and
• developing ‘savvy’.

Being inquisitive, adventuresome, curious and open-minded were considered parti-
cularly important in successful global leaders.

However, even if currently-known traits and competencies were accepted as
those necessary for leadership, especially for the single leader-based Classical,
Transactional and Visionary paradigms, it is still not clear how much of each trait is
needed in particular leadership situations. It is also hard to accept that possessing
special traits propels so many people into leadership roles in organizations where
leadership is widely distributed.

Further, merely possessing certain traits is probably not sufficient to distinguish
leaders from non-leaders. Leaders also need to display evidence of their traits by
behaving ‘appropriately’, as discussed below.

Leader behaviour

Focusing on leader behaviours broadens the concept of leadership beyond birth or
personality. Leadership becomes increasingly democratic, being seen as a more gen-
eral capability that many people could potentially achieve. If leaders can be identi-
fied by their actions, then more people could be trained to act like leaders.

Researchers, disappointed in the results of the search for leader traits, began to
look at the behaviours leaders display. Their observations resulted in two broad
categories of leader behaviours: task-related behaviours (concerned with the job to be
done), and relationship behaviours (people-oriented behaviours, such as being sup-
portive and providing feedback).

Studying relationship behaviours was an important development in leadership
theory, because until this time, most of the focus in organizations had been on
making tasks as efficient as possible, with individual workers being considered rather
irrelevant. For instance, Taylor’s scientific management and engineering model had
looked at ways of making work more efficient through his famous time-and-motion
studies.2 3 Although Taylor’s approach started to focus a little more on workers and
followers, as well as the context in which people were operating, the emphasis was
primarily on improving processes and systems. It has long been known that a focus
on people enhances productivity.2 4 Henry Ford was one of the earliest industrialists
to recognize this, when he stemmed the tide of worker attrition by introducing the
then generous $5 per day minimum wage, profit sharing, and reducing the working
day from nine to eight hours. 2 5

In more recent research, a leader’s focus on relationships has been found to be
effective in the workplace.2 6 Good relationships result in more satisfied workers.2 7

Increasingly, social science research indicated that leaders should also consider human

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

relations among the members of workgroups, and the image of an effective leader
began to change from that of an autoaat to someone who was more demoaatic.

Identifying appropriate leader behaviours led to the production of management
guidelines. Yukl, for example, provides guidelines for a range of managerial practices
significant to effective leadership. 2 8 These practices include familiar management
actions with an emphasis on getting the job done, such as planning, organizing,
problem solving, monitoring and setting objectives.

Other guidelines cover behaviours often associated with managing relation-
ships, such as motivating, inspiring, consulting, delegating, supporting, developing
and mentoring staff, rewarding, managing conflict, networking and team building.
Behavioural guidelines like these can be of great assistance to Transactional leaders
seeking to enhance their interpersonal and influence skills. See Box 4.2 for some
guidelines on influencing.

Yukl proposes that modern leader behaviours should encompass a third category
in addition to task and relationship behaviours, namely behaviours related to change.29
Change-oriented behaviour includes activities such as improving decisions, innovat-
ing, adapting strategy to suit the environment and making major transformations.

Clearly, the appropriate blend of task, relationship and change-oriented behav-
iours will depend on environmental factors, such as how stable or dynamic the
organization’s marketplace, industry and operating environment are. In stable
environments, change can be incremental, with most emphasis on managing the
task and relationships. In times of turbulence, more radical change-oriented behav-
iour is often needed, accompanied by a shift to more Visionary leadership. 3 0

Guidelines for influencing

The following tactics for influencing others are based on Yukl’s recommendations:3 1

• Rational persuasion: use logical arguments and factual evidence to persuade
the target person to your position.

• Inspiration: make a request or proposal that excites the target person by appeal-
ing to that person’s values, ideals or aspirations, or by increasing the target’s
self-confidence.

• Consultation: seek the target person’s participation, for example, in planning
a strategy, activity or change, or be willing to modify your proposal to address
the other person’s suggestions and concerns.

• Ingratiation: use praise, flattery, friendly or helpful behaviour to put the target
person in a good mood or think favourably about you before asking for some-
thing. For example, compliment them on past achievements, or be sympathetic
about problems your request may cause.

• Personal appeals: appeal to the target’s feelings of loyalty and friendship
toward you when asking for something, for example, by appealing to friend-
ship, explaining why the request is important to you, beginning the requests
with Ί need a favour…’ before stating what it is.

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

» U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

• Exchange: offer an exchange of favours, indicate your willingness to recipro-
cate later, or promise a share of benefits if the target person helps you accom-
plish the task.

• Coalition tactics: seek others’ aid to persuade the target person to do some-
thing, or use the support of others as a reason for the target to agree. For exam-
ple, mention credible people who support the proposal; bring someone along
to help influence the target; provide evidence or an endorsement; or solicit the
help of someone with higher authority.

• Legitimating tactics: try to establish the legitimacy of a request by claiming
the authority or right to make it, verifying that it is consistent with organiza-
tional policies, rules, practices or traditions, or refer to some precedent.

• Pressure: use demands, threats, frequent checking, or persistent reminders to
influence the target person to do what you want them to do.

One of the strengths of behaviour-based approaches is that leaders can develop
their skills by identifying effective behaviours, for instance:

• Classical leaders can acquire monitoring and controlling behaviour;

• Transactional leaders can learn to influence others;

• Visionary leaders can adopt techniques for honing and communicating visions;

and

• Organic leadership can enhance team and communication skills.

Where leader behaviours can be learned, the base of leadership can be broad-
ened as more people acquire the desired behaviours.

While the behavioural approach has provided valuable guidelines for enhancing
some leader behaviours, it has been criticized for a variety of reasons. Some authors
regard the fundamental division into relationship and task behaviours as too broad
and unspecific. Further, the categories are not mutually exclusive. 3 2 W h a t is the
difference between the two categories, especially when a task-related action like
monitoring also includes communication, feedback and elements of supportive
behaviour? Similarly, an informal chat can be about job-related issues as well as
making the employee feel good. Change-oriented behaviour may involve both task
and relationship elements in implementing a vision.

Finally, in behavioural theories, the person being managed is usually assigned a
passive role in the leadership process, although some writers also provide guidelines
for followers.3 3

Evaluating individual approaches
Clearly, leadership approaches that focus on an individual’s leadership characteristics,
whether traits or behaviours, reflect the view that the leader is central to understanding

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

leadership. Sometimes leaders are born to their role, but often they are appointed or
achieve leadership in some other way.

Understanding the traits and behaviours that distinguish better from worse
leaders would enhance the quality of leadership appointments. It would also al

low

appropriate leadership development. Unfortunately, the traits and behaviours that
differentiate between effective and less effective leaders mostly elude researchers.
This is n o doubt partly due to the difficulties of identifying effective leadership, and
possibly because researchers have focused on narrow populations rather than taking
broad examples.

Probably the biggest shortcoming of all the theories to date is that they focus on
the individual leader and do not take very much account of the follower or the con-
text in which leadership takes place. An exception is Yukl’s inclusion of change-
oriented behaviours. The next section presents approaches that investigate the
follower’s role as well.

DYADIC AND GROUP LEVEL: INTERACTING WITH OTHERS

The notion of a leader without followers is a contradiction in terms. Leadership
implies some relationship between leader and followers. This relationship can occur
between a leader and a single follower (known as a dyad), or between leaders and
multiple followers (groups or teams). This section discusses some theories relating to
a leader’s relationship with individuals and groups.

Leader-member exchange theory

The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) approach is based on the observation that fol-
lowers form relationships of varying intensity and quality with their leader,3 4 and
that leaders do not treat all followers equally, but establish close relationships with
subordinates regarded as part of the in-group.

Members of the in-group experience a rich exchange, enjoying relationships
with their leader that are characterized by trust, loyalty and a sense of c o m m o n fate.
In-group members tend to receive better assignments, more freedom and greater
opportunities to work with the leader, and come to function as the leader’s assistants
or advisers. Members of the out-group do not have such close relationships with the
leader, are likely to be assigned less desirable jobs, have few opportunities to interact
with the leader, and are often excluded from important decisions or activities.

Many factors influence the leader-member exchange relationship, including
similarity in values between leader and followers, demographic characteristics
and follower c o m p e t e n c e . 3 5 National cultural factors may also impact in-group and

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

ρ U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

out-group membership. From Hofstede’s work showing that cultures differ in how
individualistic or collective they are, it is evident that individualist cultures such as
the US and Australia value individual performance. 3 6 In these countries, leaders are
expected to select their own in-groups based on the members’ competence and contri-
bution to the organization. Appointing family and friends would be regarded as
exhibiting favouritism or nepotism.

On the other hand, leaders in many Asian countries would be reluctant to allow
strangers into the in-group. In Japan and certain other parts of Asia, leaders gener-
ally prefer to surround themselves with family members because family is considered
a comfortable and loyal c h o i c e . 3 7 Outsiders are hired to help the organization, but
access to the in-group is based on community factors in collectivist societies. In
Hong Kong and Malaysia, what others might regard as nepotism and showing
favouritism would seem very normal, because loyalty to one’s village, clan or family
is of primary c o n c e r n . 3 8 In these countries, managers prefer to employ people whom
they know and/or who are referred to them by people they know.

Irrespective of how in- and out-groups are formed, relationships between
leaders and individual workers have traditionally been at the core of many organi-
zations, although the nature of the leader-follower relationship may be changing as
more global enterprises organize around teams, particularly virtual teams. The LMX
model has been extensively researched, but many questions remain unanswered,
such as how in- and out-groups form and whether people can move from one group
to another. LMX theory also does not prescribe which patterns of exchange enhance
the leader’s effectiveness. Further, the long-term relationships between supervisor-
subordinates upon which the LMX theory has been based are becoming less prevalent
in an increasingly mobile workforce.3 9

Since the LMX theory focuses on leadership emerging from the relationships
between people in an organization, the theory could apply to all four leadership para-
digms. Given the emphasis on the leader’s relationship with individual followers
who form the in- and out-groups, the theory is particularly applicable to Classical,
Transactional and Visionary leadership. The LMX theory seems less applicable to
Organic leadership, where more fluid in- and out-groups shift as the leadership or
project changes, and the membership of groups continually changes.

Socio-cognitive approach

According to the socio-cognitive view, leadership is in the eye of the beholder.
Leader actions and behaviours, and not hierarchical positions, underlie whether
people attribute leadership to them. Follower perceptions are thus central to
acknowledging leadership under this approach, rather than the characteristics or
actions of the leader per se.

Socio-cognitive researchers explain perceptions of leadership using one of two
different processes: recognition or inference.*0 People form leadership perceptions by
observing someone’s daily interactions with others. Observers may well conclude

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

that leaders are intelligent, decisive individuals who can communicate effectively.
This recognition stems from the observer’s past experience with leaders, and whether
the current person matches the leader criteria the observer has developed from those
past experiences. Recognition-based perception is assumed to be largely automatic,
that is, it can happen without being consciously thought about. 4 1 Clearly, what indi-
vidual observers recognize as leader behaviour will depend on their past experiences
and cultural background. For example, those who regard leadership as a shared
group experience may well not recognize Classical or Transformational acts as ‘leader-
ship’, classifying them as non-leadership behaviour instead.

Inference is the second process through which leadership can be identified.
Attributing leadership to someone is inferred from the outcomes of significant
events, such as enhanced performance or someone’s promotion. Although inferred
leadership is frequently a controlled mental process, it can be influenced by the
stereotypes or prototypes individuals hold about leadership. 4 2 For example, improve-
ments in profits or share prices might be attributed to the collective efforts o f fol-
lowers under Organic leadership, or to the leader’s personal efforts in the Classical
paradigm.

Recognition and inferential perception processes probably dominate at different
levels of an organization. 4 3 At lower levels, where direct relationships between leader
and followers play an important role, leadership perceptions will tend to be more
automatic and recognition-based. Rewards and sanctions can be used directly and
immediately to influence followers, and it is relatively easy to note some link
between leader behaviour and performance. For example, people can recognize that
in rewarding high performance, a leader directly influences how followers behave.

Most employees do not experience a senior executive’s influence directly, and so
draw conclusions about top leadership from indirect evidence. Observers outside the
top team may have trouble accurately assessing what the leader does and establish-
ing links between those actions and organizational performance. Exceptions arise
where senior management’s actions directly affect the organization, such as intro-
ducing new technology or downsizing. However, in general, top-level executives
operate through indirect influence on the organization. These people may experi-
ence difficulty in being perceived as leaders because they do not fit the prototypical
ideas of leadership that individuals h o l d . 4 4

If they do not directly experience the effects of a leader’s actions, people tend to
rely on cultural stereotypes or beliefs to form perceptions of leadership.4 5 For example,
the comforting myth that leaders should be able to control everything that affects
an organization’s performance can form the basis for leader perceptions. Using this
belief, when an organization is performing well, the leader is accorded the credit for
the success, but when organizations are performing poorly, responsibility for the
failure is also attributed to the leader.

Socio-cognitive approaches are well linked to extensive research into cogni-
tion. However, focusing on the follower’s mental processes to determine leader-
ship represents a major departure from conventional approaches that emphasize
the characteristics and role of the leader. The socio-cognitive approach also

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

contributes a valuable distinction between perceptions of leadership at different
organizational levels.

Since perceiving leadership depends on the stereotypes or beliefs that a person
holds about the concept, the socio-cognitive approach applies to each leadership
paradigm.

Evaluating dyadic approaches
A major contribution of the dyadic and group approaches is that they recognize that
leadership emerges from interactions between leaders and followers. The LMX
theory acknowledges that these interactions are not all equal, and that this impacts
leadership relationships. The socio-cognitive approach attributes the major role in
leadership to followers and their perceptions of leadership.

However, the theories considered so far tend to be acontextual, that is, they do
not focus on the context in which leadership is occurring. The socio-cognitive
approach does recognize that leadership can differ at various levels within an organi-
zation, depending on how close the attributing follower is to the leader concerned.
However, the focus of the dyadic approaches tends to be at the micro-level, inde-
pendent of the broader situation. The next section considers theories that involve
the context very strongly.

CONTINGENCY THEORIES: SITUATIONS MATTER

Most of the approaches covered so far have dealt only peripherally, if at all, with the
context in which leader-follower relationships take place. This section introduces
views that focus more on the situation. These approaches, which trace their origins
back to the two-dimensional behaviour theories, are often called ‘contingency’
theories because they prescribe that leader behaviour should depend, or be contin-
gent, on the situation.

Situational leadership

Hersey and Blanchard made a major contribution to leadership theory by extending
the early two-dimensional behavioural models based on task and relationship
behaviours to include a third dimension. 4 6 This dimension, akin to individual or
group psychological maturity or follower development level, attempts to take into
account the human environment in which a manager operates. This model evolved
into a highly popular approach known as Situational Leadership (SL), of which there
are now several versions in use in addition to those developed by the original pro-
ponents. 4 7 This book adopts Blanchard’s terminology in describing SL.

SL models propose that effective managers provide individual followers with dif-
fering amounts of direction and support on performing tasks and achieving goals.

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

depending on each person’s developmental level48 The combination of a person’s
commitment and competence constitutes that individual’s developmental level on a
given task or goal. 4 9 Competence refers to the person’s knowledge and skills relating
to the task, as well as to their transferable skills. Commitment refers to an individual’s
motivation and confidence for undertaking that task or goal.

Effective SL derives from an appropriate combination of Supporting (‘relationship
behaviours’, such as listening, recognizing, communicating and encouraging) and
Directing (‘task-related behaviours’ such as providing instructions and monitoring
how closely they are followed). Combining Supporting and Directing behaviours
forms four key SL behaviour categories or styles:

• S I Directing (high directing, low supporting);
• S2 Coaching (high directing, high supporting);
• S3 Supporting (low directing, high supporting); and
• S4 Delegating (low directing, low supporting).

The idea is that managers should begin with Directing, move to Coaching, then on
to Supporting and finally to Delegating as the follower develops on a given task.

Corresponding to the S I to S4 styles are team member developmental levels of
D l to D4 respectively.5 0 Blanchard describes the four developmental levels as: 5 1

• D l – enthusiastic beginner, low on competence and high on commitment;
• D2 – disillusioned learner, with increasing competence and low

commitment;
• D3 – capable but cautious contributor, with moderate-to-high competence and

variable commitment; and
• D4 – self-reliant achiever, high on both competence and commitment.

SL prescribes that leaders should match the style they use to an individual
follower’s developmental level, striving to develop staff as they move through
Directing, Coaching, Supporting to Delegating (see Figure 4 . 1 ) . The model can also
be applied to developing and managing teams, with the SL style related to the team’s
developmental level.

An intuitively appealing leadership model for practitioners, particularly
Transactional leaders, SL emphasizes the importance of adjusting leader behaviour
to follower needs. Upon closer evaluation, many theoretical and consistency flaws
have been identified in SL theory and the accompanying questionnaires. For example,
how to define and assess development levels is unclear, and how to match leader
behaviours is not defined consistently from one situation to the n e x t . 5 2

The model has received relatively little academic and research attention. 5 3 Some
see this as rather alarming, given SL’s extensive use as a training t o o l . 5 4 Since several
SL models exist that vary in definitions, terminology and even fundamental con-
cepts, it is not surprising that the little research conducted into SL has failed to
produce clear-cut outcomes. 5 5

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

™ U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

Reconceptualized relationship between leader styles and follower development

levels in Situational Leadership56

Source: ©H. Bergsteiner

Despite its theoretical shortcomings, SL has impacted practice probably more than
any other management tool, with over three million managers trained in it. 5 7 Research
among practitioners suggests that SL is popular for a variety of reasons. Its concepts are
intuitively appealing, the model is easy to understand and apply, SL fits comfortably
with the role of the Transactional leader/manager, and has a wide range of uses
on-the-job. 5 8 How much managers actually apply the model is questioned in Box 4.3.

Avoiding being directive

Managers are advised to use one of four SL styles, depending on the developmen-
tal level of a given follower on a particular task or goal. Research among Australian
managers has found that managers prefer to use highly supportive SL styles,
particularly S3 (Supporting), and avoid being directive.5 9

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

These preferences persist even after training.6 0 In interviews with practising man-
agers trained in SL who claimed to apply the model at work, some managers
expressed shame because they did not follow the model and apply all four styles.
Respondents often acknowledged their preferences for supportive styles and that they
struggle to use the low-supporting S1 (Directing) and S4 (Delegating) styles. The
researchers cite a respondent who, after using SL for two years, said: Ί prefer the
coaching and supporting styles. But since the course, I’ve been more of a delegator.’
Another manager reported: ‘My comfort zone is coaching and my non-comfort zone
is directing, but I’m having to use all four because it’s required now.’

Such was the general dislike for directing that one person described it as ‘tire-
some and boring’, another as Ί hate having to stand there and … get forceful’.
Respondents described strategies that they had developed to avoid being directive,
such as trying to employ people who do not need directing or delegating any
directing tasks to others. As one manager said: Ά lot of the work – the S1 stuff, I
actually delegate that. W h e n w e get new employees in who are … D 1s, raw … I
really don’t have the time to go up there and S1 them. So I get guys like my equip-
ment manager (to undertake the directing role) . . . ‘ 6 1

This bias towards relationship behaviour has been attributed partly to a strong
‘mateship’ culture in Australia, where telling another person what to do is consid-
ered unfriendly. Certainly, to increase worker satisfaction and leadership ‘success’,
research indicates that Australian managers need to relate more individually to their
followers compared with managers elsewhere.6 2 However, research generally sug-
gests that establishing and maintaining harmonious relationships with supporters
is advantageous for leaders.6 3 Researchers have found that subordinates generally
need large amounts of supportive behaviour, regardless of their developmental
level, and some argue that if one element of SL behaviour were to be perceived as
‘best’, that element would involve high supportive behaviour.6 4

Thus, the extent to which SL is actually applied, in that all four styles are used
as prescribed, remains doubtful, at least among Australian managers. This may well
be different among managers from other cultures.

Fiedler’s contingency model

Fiedler’s model proposes that leadership effectiveness is a function of the match

between a leader’s style and the leadership situation. 6 5 If the style matches the

situation, the leader will be effective; if not, the leader will not be effective.

Fiedler distinguishes between task-motivated leaders and relationship-motivated lead-

ers. He proposes that task-motivated leaders draw their self-esteem from accomplishing

tasks, whereas relationship-motivated leaders draw their self-esteem from interpersonal

relations. To a relationship-oriented person, relationships appear more important than

accomplishing a task. The opposite is true for those who are task-motivated.

Fiedler describes a leadership situation in terms of three factors:

• the relationship between leader and followers;

• how structured the task is; and

• the leader’s position power.

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

h i g h FIEDLER’S h j g h
EFFECTIVE

DOMAIN

O A S ζ
E g S 8
ο “§ I g
α. c C Ω£

, _ ^ t LU

S 3
FIEDLER’S

INEFFECTIVE
low DOMAIN

low moderate high

STRUCTURE

Fielder’s contingency model showing effective and ineffective domains
© H. Bergsteiner

low

Combining these three elements describes the amount of control the leader has
over a particular situation (see Figure 4.2). A good leader-follower(s) relationship, a
highly structured task and a leader with high position power form one end of the
control continuum. This provides the leader with high control over the situation.
Conditions like these appear to favour the Classical and Transactional paradigms.

In the middle of the continuum lie situations where the task is unstructured or
the leader and followers do not get along very well. Here, the leader cannot exert full
control over the situation, which makes the leadership environment difficult for the
task-oriented leader. At the lower end of the situational control continuum, the task is
highly unstructured, leader-follower relations are poor and the leader has very little
power. This creates challenging conditions for Classical and Transactional leadership.

Central to Fiedler’s contingency model is the match between the leader’s style
and the situation. As the situation changes, so does the leader’s effectiveness,
because the leader finds himself or herself in and out of match. Overall, the model
predicts that task-motivated leaders will be more effective than relationship-oriented
leaders where there is either high or low control over the situation. Relationship-
motivated leaders will be effective under conditions of moderate situational control.

Looking at each of these situations in turn:

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

1 High control situations: According to Fiedler’s model, task-motivated leaders
perform well in high control situations. Here, their self-esteem is not threat-
ened, so they can provide resources to help the group perform. In the same sit-
uation, relationship-motivated leaders are likely to be bored, as leaders, and may
feel that there is nothing for them to do. If the group is cohesive and the task is
clear, the leader’s role becomes taking care of details and removing obstacles.
This tends not to appeal to relationship-oriented leaders, who prefer to work
with people.

2 Moderate-control situations: Moderate control can arise where either group cohe-
siveness or task structure is lacking. Here, the situation becomes ambiguous, and
completing the task is uncertain. The relationship-motivated leader’s interper-
sonal skills and participative style suit this situation, because this leader can rally
the group to work together to define and clarify the unclear task. Under these
conditions, the relationship-motivated leader feels comfortable, and helps the
group be productive by using the group as a resource.

Moderate-control conditions can threaten the task-motivated leader, who may
become concerned that lack of group support or ambiguity in the task could
jeopardize completing the j o b . Striving to get the j o b done, a task-
oriented leader will probably attempt to hurry things along, and may become
autocratic in order to gain a sense of accomplishment. Typically, task-
motivated leaders do not use their groups well, preferring to rely on their own
skills and experience, and so the task-motivated leader’s group performs poorly
under moderate control conditions.

3 Low-control situations: Low-control situations can become chaotic and reach a cri-
sis point at which they offer no group cohesion, no task structure and n o strong
position power. Neither task nor relationship leaders function particularly well
under these conditions. The task-motivated leader’s focus on completing the task
tends to lead to an attempt at taking over, controlling the group, and making
autocratic decisions without worrying about the group members. Although the
resulting performance is not high, task-motivated leaders can achieve some out-
comes in low-control situations.

The same low-control situation tends to reduce the relationship-motivated
leader’s effectiveness when the group’s lack of cohesion prevents it from pro-
gressing on the task, and the group’s disarray interferes with efforts at reconcil-
ing the members. Relationship-motivated leaders often withdraw from these
situations ceasing to prove any leadership.

A major assumption behind Fiedler’s model is that the leader’s style is long last-
ing and stable. Another is that although everyone can exhibit behaviours typically

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

9 U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

associated with the other style, people’s fundamental motivational basis does not
change quickly. However, in practice, the situations that leaders face are often
dynamic, making a leader move rapidly from in-match to out-of-match. Fiedler does
not advocate changing the leader’s style to match the situation. Rather, the leader
should learn how to diagnose and modify situational control. This should allow an
optimal match between leadership style and the changing situation to be maintained.

Several extensive research reviews support Fiedler’s hypotheses, including in
applied settings. 6 6 Overall, in-match leaders perform better than out-of-match leaders.
Despite this being one of the more reliable and predictive leadership models, strong
criticisms have been voiced about i t . 6 7 Criticisms relate to the distinction between
task- and relationship-motivated leaders and whether the model can predict suc-
cessful leadership.

Being able to control a situation is probably a vain hope in today’s turbulent
environments, making the Fiedler theory less relevant in dynamic organizations
than under stable conditions. Therefore, Fiedler’s theory would be more applicable
to Classical and Transactional leadership than to Organic and Visionary paradigms.
In chaotic or low control situations, where Visionary and Organic leadership prevail,
neither task- nor relationship-oriented leadership is likely to be very effective. As
already discussed, the New Science advice is for leadership to let go of control in
chaotic times.

House’s path-goal theory

House and his associates propose a third contingency approach in which the key role
of a leader is to clear the way for others to accomplish goals. 6 8 The leader reaches per-
sonal goals by allowing followers to fulfil their needs. At the heart of the model is
the idea of an implicit or explicit exchange between leaders and followers. Leaders
and followers establish a transactional relationship that revolves around the
exchange of the leader’s guidance or support for the followers’ productivity and
satisfaction.

Path-goal theory is based on the Porter-Lawler expectancy model of motiva-
t i o n . 6 9 This model assumes that people make rational choices about their behaviour,
based on individuals’ perceptions of the extent to which their own effort and per-
formance produce outcomes that they value. Under expectancy theory, the key to
motivation is to remove obstacles that may weaken follower perceptions of the link-
ages between effort and performance. Similarly, under path-goal theory, the role of
the leader is to help strengthen linkages between effort, performance and outcome,
and to remove obstacles to followers’ performance, thereby allowing them to do
their jobs.

Again, the situation plays a role. The nature of the task, coupled with charac-
teristics of the followers, determines which leadership behaviour contributes to sub-
ordinate satisfaction. On a new, unstructured and unclear task, followers are likely

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

to waste their efforts through inexperience, and so may feel unmotivated and
frustrated. In this situation, the path-goal leader needs to be task-focused in providing
instructions and training, thereby removing major obstacles to employee satisfac-
tion and motivation.

After mastering a routine task, followers sometimes start to lose interest. This
situation requires the leader to show empathy, consideration and understanding –
behaviours designed to remove the blocks to satisfaction in these cases. Which
behaviours the leader uses to motivate employees will depend on the needs of each
follower, requiring the leader to consider each individual. Some followers may pre-
fer guidance and clear instructions, while others may seek challenges and autonomy
to solve their own problems. A follower who likes challenges and values autonomy
will not need the leader to be directive and structuring, even o n an unstructured
task. Here, being directive may be detrimental by reducing the follower’s
satisfaction.

Parallels with SL can be seen here, in terms of matching leader behaviours to the
needs of the follower. Like SL, the path-goal approach foresees that not all leader
behaviours will be successful with all employees. However, path-goal theory differs
from SL in that it derives its rationale for when a leader should be directive and sup-
portive explicitly from motivation theory, whereas the basis for SL assumptions is
unclear.

Does path-goal theory work? In a review of contingency theories, Schriescheim
and Kerr concluded that the path-goal theory appears internally consistent, but
needs testing in practice. 7 0 Since then, mixed empirical support has emerged for
the theory. For example, while letting followers who like to be challenged solve
problems themselves makes intuitive sense, researchers have found that exhibiting
relationship behaviours leads to higher employee satisfaction regardless of the kind
of task. 7 1 In other tests of the theory, leaders successfully used structuring
behaviour in structured situations. 7 2

On the one hand, the path-goal theory is transactionally based and therefore
could apply well to Transactional leadership. Interestingly, the role of the leader in
path-goal theory is that of an obstacle remover, a role similar to that ascribed to
modern team leaders. Removing obstacles is also an essential empowering activity o f
a Visionary leader to enable followers to achieve a vision (see the Novartis and
Rodenstock case studies). In self-managing Organic environments, followers may
not require leaders to remove obstacles because the followers themselves take on this
role, as at Gore or BMW.

Evaluating contingency theories
The contingency theories reviewed here focus on the context beyond the individual
leader and his or her transactions with followers. They represented a major advance
in t h e 1 9 6 0 s and 1 9 7 0 s b e y o n d theories limited to leader traits and
behaviours. All the theories have their critics, and some have been far better

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Η U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

conceptualized, researched and supported than others. For example, SL, while less
well conceptualized and researched than the others, has been widely adopted in
practice, prescribing how managers should vary their leadership style to suit the
developmental level o f each follower (or team). By contrast, Fiedler’s contingency
model has been relatively widely researched, but criticized o n conceptual grounds.
House’s path-goal theory, which proposes that a leader’s role is to remove obstacles
for others to accomplish their tasks, appears theoretically consistent, but needs
more testing in practice.

The three theories – SL, Fieldler’s contingency model and House’s path-goal
theory – tend to adopt a leader-centric focus despite some consideration for followers
and the situation. Essentially, these contingency theories fit within the Transactional
paradigm, although path-goal theory with its focus on goals and motivation could
also apply to Visionary leadership.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has covered a range of theories and models applying to the micro-
levels of organizational leadership – those theories that focus primarily on the charac-
teristics of a particular leader or on interactions between leaders and individual or
group followers. Certain people may be destined to lead by virtue of being born into
royal or industrial dynasties, but many business leaders need to acquire appropriate
leader characteristics. There is debate over what those characteristics should be.

Some theories predict that leaders will differ from others by virtue of possessing
special traits. Modern research suggests that these traits could include displaying
drive, desire to lead, integrity, self-confidence, knowledge of the business and high-
level intelligence. In looking at behaviour that distinguishes leaders from others,
most theorists have focused on task and relationship behaviours, although Yukl
specifies other behaviours such as influencing, planning, inspiring and dealing with
c h a n g e . 7 3

While many theories take the leader as the unit of study, clearly leadership
requires followers and a comprehensive understanding of leadership would encom-
pass the interactions between leaders and followers. Accordingly, various leadership
theories and models apply to the dyadic and group levels within an organization.
These approaches include the LMX theory, which examines the quality of the relation-
ship between leader and individual followers. A quite different approach is evident
under the socio-cognitive approach, which essentially argues that leadership
stems from follower perceptions rather than residing inevitably in leader traits or
behaviours.

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Linking micro-level theories to the leadership paradigms

Classical Transactional Visionary Organic

Great Men Great Men Great Men
Traits 1 Traits Traits
Behaviour Behaviour Behaviour
LMX LMX LMX
Socio-cognitive 1 Socio-cognitive Socio-cognitive Socio-cognitive

Situational
Leadership

Fiedler’s Fiedler’s
Contingency Model Contingency Model

House’s Path-goal House’s Path-goal

Contingency theories posit that the context in which leadership takes place is
essential. Situational leadership is based on the assumption that leaders will develop
their followers, and provides a four-quadrant tool for assisting managers in this
process. Depending on each follower’s developmental level on a given task, the
leader is advised to use a different leadership style. Fiedler’s c o n t i n g e n c y theory
proposes that a leader’s effectiveness depends on the match between the leader’s
style and the given situation. Fiedler predicts that task-motivated leaders will be
more effective than relationship-oriented leaders when the situation allows high
or low control by the leader. Under conditions o f moderate control of the situa-
tion, relationship-oriented leaders are expected to be more effective (essentially
because they can use their interpersonal skills in involving their group). House’s
path-goal theory emphasizes that a leader’s role is to clear the way for followers to
accomplish tasks and to strengthen linkages between perceived effort, perfor-
mance and outcome.

Throughout the discussion in this chapter, the micro-level theories have been
linked to the leadership paradigms. Table 4.2 summarizes how these theories seem
to relate to the paradigms. The Great Men, Traits, Behaviour, LMX, Socio-cognitive
and Fielder’s contingency model approaches seem most appropriate to Classical
leadership. For Transactional leadership, all those theories applying to Classical
leadership would also apply, plus the Situational Leadership Model and House’s
Path-goal theory. Theories particularly relevant to the Visionary paradigm are the
Great Men, Traits, Behaviour, LMX, Socio-cognitive and Path-goal approaches. Most
of the micro-level leadership theories and models are not considered relevant to the
Organic paradigm, except for the Socio-cognitive approach.

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

The theories discussed in this chapter tend to be rationality-based, implying that
managing others does not necessarily involve emotion. Another group of theories,
described in the next chapter, focuses on the emotional connection between leaders
and followers.

NOTES

For full details of these notes, please see the References section at the end of
this book.

1 Bass, 1 9 8 5 ; Yukl, 1 9 9 8
2 e.g. Tracey and Hinkin, 1 9 9 8
3 Lord and Maher, 1 9 9 1 ; Waldman and Yammarino, 1 9 9 9
4 Yammarino, 1997
5 Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991
6 Weber, 1 9 7 8
7 Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1 9 7 3 : 1 6 2

8 Bradford and Cohen, 1 9 8 4
9 Farnham, 1993

10 Duerst-Lahti and Kelly, 1 9 9 5 : 1 9
11 Duerst-Lahti and Kelly, 1995; Sinclair, 1 9 9 8
12 Sinclair, 1 9 9 8
13 e.g. DuBrin, 1 9 9 8 ; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991
14 Stogdill, 1 9 4 8
15 Yukl, 1994
16 Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991
17 ibid.

18 McClelland, 1973
19 Briscoe and Hall, 1 9 9 8

2 0 Pierce, 1 9 9 4
21 Gregersen, Morrison and Black, 1 9 9 8
2 2 ibid.
23 Taylor, 1911
24 e.g. Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1 9 3 9
25 King and Fine, 2 0 0 0
2 6 Cairns, Hollenback, Preziosi and Snow, 1 9 9 8 ; Goodson, McGee and

Cashman, 1 9 8 9 ; Vecchio, 1987; Wexley, Alexander, Greenwalt and Couch,
1 9 8 0 ; Yukl, 1981

27 Fleischman and Harris, 1 9 6 2

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

M i c r o – L e v e l L e a d e r s h i p T h e o r i e s

2 8 Yukl, 1 9 9 8
2 9 ibid.
3 0 Bass, 1 9 9 0 b
31 Yukl, 1 9 9 8
3 2 Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy and Stogdill, 1 9 7 4
33 Chalef, 1 9 9 5 ; Yukl, 1994
34 Dansereau, Graen and Haga, 1975; Graen and Cashman, 1 9 7 5
35 Ashkanasy and Weierter, 1 9 9 6
3 6 Hofstede, 1984
37 Ichikawa, 1 9 9 6
3 8 Nahavandi, 1997
39 Rousseau, 1997
4 0 Lord and Maher, 1991
41 ibid.
4 2 ibid.
4 3 ibid.
4 4 ibid.

45 ibid.
4 6 Hersey and Blanchard, 1 9 6 9
47 Hersey and Blanchard, 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 8 2 , 1 9 9 6
4 8 Blanchard and Nelson, 1997
4 9 Blanchard, Zigarmi and Nelson, 1993
5 0 Blanchard, Zigarmi and Zigarmi, 1985
51 Blanchard and Nelson, 1997; Blanchard, Zigarmi and Nelson, 1 9 9 3

5 2 Graeff, 1 9 8 3
53 Blank, Weitzel and Green, 1 9 9 0 ; Graeff, 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 9 7 ; Vecchio 1987
54 Goodson, McGee and Cashman, 1 9 8 9
55 e.g. Cairns, Hallenback, Preziosi and Snow, 1 9 9 8
5 6 The SL model shown here differs substantially from the original Hersey

and Blanchard version. Bell curves, as used in the original model, usually
refer to data sets and the use of such a curve is therefore incompatible with
the 2 x 2 matrix structure of the SL model, which implies no continuous
data set. Furthermore, in modelling theory, an almost universally accepted
convention is that temporal sequences go from left to right (Britt, 1 9 9 7 ) ,
which the original model also violated.

57 Blanchard and Nelson, 1997
5 8 Avery and Ryan, 2 0 0 2
59 Avery, 2 0 0 1
6 0 Avery and Ryan, 2 0 0 2
61 ibid.
6 2 Parry and Sarros, 1 9 9 6
63 Duchon, Green and Tabor, 1 9 8 6 ; Steiner, 1 9 8 8 ; Wexley, Alexander,

Greenwalt and Couch, 1 9 8 0 ; Yukl, 1981

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Λ U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a d e r s h i p

64 Goodson, McGee and Cashman, 1 9 8 9
65 Fiedler, 1997
66 e.g. Ayman, Chemers and Fiedler, 1 9 9 5 ; Peters, Hartke and Pohlmann,

1 9 8 5 ; Strube and Garcia, 1981
67 Nahavandi, 1997
68 House, 1 9 7 1 ; House and Dessler, 1 9 7 4 ; House and Mitchell, 1 9 7 4
69 Porter and Lawler, 1 9 6 8 ; Vroom, 1964
70 Schriescheim and Kerr, 1977
71 e.g. J o h n s , 1 9 7 8
72 e.g. Bass, Valenzi, Farrow and Solomon, 1 9 7 5
73 Yukl, 1 9 9 8

EBSCOhost – printed on 3/9/2021 6:58 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

R.J. HOUSE’S “A PATH-GOAL THEORY OF
LEADER EFFECTIVENESS”

Martin C. Evans*
University of Toronto

1964 was a wonderful year for organizational behavior. Three influential micro

organization theory books (Argyris, 1964; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck, & Rosenthal,

1964; Vroom, 1964) were published, as well as one that recast our view of organization

structuring (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1964). Vroom’s articulation of expectancy theory as a

general model of job choice and motivation inspired a large number of researchers to test

the theory (e.g., Hackman & Porter, 1968), to criticize the theory (Mitchell, 1974), and to

elaborate on the theory.
It is in the elaboration mode that House’s path-goal theory makes its contribution. The

path-goal theory of leadership had its genesis, as did one other influential theory of

leadership (Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950) in the work of the Institute for Social Research

at the University of Michigan. In 1957, Georgopoulos, Mahoney, and Jones published their

seminal test of the expectancy theory of motivation. By 1964, with the publication of

Vroom’s Work and Motivation, the theory had been broadened to encompass a whole

series of individual choices (of a job, of an organization, and of how hard to work) in

organizational settings. During this period, (Kahn, 1958) argued that the effects of leaders

on subordinates’ performance and satisfaction might be mediated through effects upon the

subordinate’s motivation.
Once Vroom had articulated a viable, testable theory of motivation, it was clear that the

next sensible step was to examine whether important organizational factors (leadership,

structure, job design) might have an impact on employee behavior through a motivational

mediator.
Evans (1968, 1970) presented a theoretical exposition of the ways in which this

mediation might take place for leadership behavior (consideration and initiating structure)

* Direct all correspondence to: Professor M.G. Evans, University of Toronto, Faculty of Management, 246 Bloor
Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS lV4. r-mud: evans@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 305-309.

Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISSN: 1048.9843

306 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3 199

6

and provided for a test of the theory (as well as of the underlying expectancy theory of

motivation).
In 1971, House extended the theory by examining the contingencies under which

leader behavior might affect each of the elements of motivation; and this position was

elaborated and extended by House and Mitchell (1974) and Evans (1979) {See also

Indvick, 1986).

Table 1
Predictions From Path-Goal Theory

LAW&~ Behcr~ior Viirirrhk
~

Reward variety

Diagnose differences in desired rewards

Upward influence

‘VI{ E/

Charismatic behavior

Articulates goal

Competent

Supportive

Trustworthy

Accurate feedback

Timely. clear. specific feedback

Discrm~inate between good and poor performance

Courage to communicate feedback

Accurate attributions about the causes of subordinate’s

bchuvior

Participation in goal settmg and measures

C[)nlmunic~te contingencies

Reward and punish co~ltin~et~t on pcrf[~r~~luncc

Recommend contingent organizationa rewards

Stimulate contingent reward by group and by outsiders,

supportive climate

Visible performance

Group rewards

Articulate the value of the organization

Set difficult goals

Directive

Participative

Show confidence

Coaching and training

Clarify paths

Participative
Directive

Planning and or~uni~in~

Supportive

+

4% .I E,

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+
A

+
+
+
+
+

EV,

+

I

+
+
+
.I.

Selection and Placement

House’s Path-Goal Theory 307

Donald Hebb once wrote that a good theory was one that stays around long enough to
help one get to a better theory. The path-goal theory of leadership has fulfilled that
criterion well. From the initial development by Evans in 1968, the theory has developed
into a contingency form (House, 1971) and into a general diagnostic model (Kerr &
Jermier, 1978). Once path-goal theory had focused upon transactional calculative forms
of leadership (the impact on subordinates’ expectancies and, to a lesser extent, the
provision of valued rewards), the gap in terms of the leader’s role in need arousal became
clear. This, together with Bums (1978) work on transformational leadership led to the
development of better theories: the charismatic and transformational theories of
leadership (House, 1977; Bass, 1985); these take path-goal theory to its logical
transcendental limit.

The development of the path-goal theory of leadership was a triumph of the theory
building process. An examination of the components of the underlying motivation model
led House to question what aspects of leader behavior might affect these components; this
led him to his breaking with the traditional dimensions of initiation of structure and

consideration to the richer set of: directive, supportive, achievement-oriented, and
participative (House & Mitchell, 1974). A more recent elaboration Evans (1987) of
relevant leader behaviors is provided in Table 1.

The second contribution of this theory building process was the second question that
House asked: What alternative ways could be provided for the individual to be high in the
components of motivation? Unlike Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory which was driven
by empiricism, House was led to the contingency aspects of his theory by both
inconsistent empirical findings and theoretical insight. Aspects of the job, organization,
and individual could affect the individual’s motivation and preferences for leader
behaviors.

TESTING OF THE THEORY

Although the theory presented specifically articulated the role of motivation as the
mediator between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance, most tests

of path-goal theory have focused on the direct effects, under different contingencies, of
leader behavior on satisfaction and performance. These tests have been very restrictive in
the kinds of leader behaviors examined, the dependent variables studied, and the moderator
variables examined. Summary data from the bulk of the published research testing path-
goal theory are presented in Table 2 (Evans, 1987).

These data indicate how restricted our efforts have been. Nearly all the studies have
focused on two leader behaviors (instrumental [29] and supportive [25]) as they interacted
with task structure [20] to affect performance [ 151 or, more likely, satisfaction [26].

The number of studies that have examined components of the motivation theories is
small [4]. The number of studies that have included individual characteristics of the
subordinate as moderators is minimal [4]; and only two have looked at joint task and
individual characteristics as moderators (Schuler, 1976; Weed, Mitchell, & Smyser, 1976).
In the light of the absence of studies testing the critical motivational hypotheses of the
theory, it is hard to argue that the theory has undergone reasonable testing. It has not. As
we honour this classic citation, it may be time to re-examine the level of support for the
theory.

308 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 7 No. 3 1996

Table

2

Variables Used in Tests of Path-Goal Theory
._______~.

Leader Rehn~iors

Instrumental/direclive

Supporrivelconsiderate

Participative
Upward influence

Contingent reward

Contingent punishment

Other

Task structure, repetitiveness, scope

Role Ambiguity

Task Independence

Autonomy

Group or Organization size or cohesion

Subordinate expertise or education

Upward influence

Leader expertise

Other

Dupendunr Vcrriahl~s

Performance

Turnover

Supervisor satisfaction

Work satisfaction

Extrinsic satisfaction

intrinsic satisfaction

Overall satisfaction

Effort

El

F ‘?

Role ambiguity

Role conflict

Other-
________~ .~_..

NOTE

29

27

4

I
I
I
7

20

5

3

2
3
2

I
1
8

13
3
IO
9
5
7
7
5
4

2
6

I
s –

1. Details of the research surveyed can be obtained from the author.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1964). i~r~~p~~so~~ competence and orgunizafio~~~ e@ectiveness. Homewo~, IL:
Irwin.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership andperjformance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

House’s Path-Goal Theory 309

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Evans, M.G. (1968). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Unpublished

Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Pe$ormance, S,277-298.
Evans, M.G. (1979). Leadership. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid

Publishing.
Evans, M.G. (1987). Fiihrungstheorien-Weg-ziel-theorie. In A. Kieser, G. Reber, & R. Wunderer

(Eds.), Handworterbuch der Ftihrung. Stuttgart, Germany: C.E. Poeschel Verlag.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Georgopoulos, B.S., Mahoney, T.M., & Jones, L.W. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 41,3&i-353.
Hackman, J.R., & Porter, L.W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of work expectancies.

Organizational Behavior and Human Petiormance, 3,417-426.
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quaterly, 16,

321-338.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),

Leadership: the cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary

Business, 9, 8 l-97.
Indvick, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: a meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the Academy of

Management Meetings, 46, 189-192.
Kahn, R.L. (1958). Human relations on the shop floor. In E.M. Hugh-Jones (Ed.), Human relations

and modern management (pp. 43-74). Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoeck, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). Organizntional

stress: studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an ofice

situation. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement.

Organizational Behavior and Human Peqormance, 22,375-403.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1964). Managing differentiation and integration in organizations.

Cambridge, MA: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
Mitchell, T.R. (1974) Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference, and effort: a

theoretical, methodological and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077.
Schuler, R. (1976). Conflicting findings in path-goal theory leadership research: a suggested

interpretation. Unpublished manuscript, Cleveland State University.
Weed, S., Mitchell, T.R., & Smyser, C. (1976). A test of House’s path-goal theory of leadership in an

organizational setting. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

THE CONTINGENCY MODEL
OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS:

ITS LEVELS OF ANALYSIS

Roya Ayman*
lllinois Institute of Technology

Martin M.Chemers
Claremont Mdenna College

Fred Fiedler
University of Washington

The contingency model of leadership effectiveness (Fiedler, 1978) has been the basis for an extensive

body of research. During the last three decades, numerous studies have supported its propositions

(Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981), but the model has also elicited strong

criticisms. This article argues that the contingency model was one of the first models in leadership

research that was theoretically multi-level and methodologically multi-source. New evidence and

alternative perspectives are offered to address the issues concerning the conceptual definitions of the

model’s components, which have often been the subject of debate. The discussion concludes with

productive avenues for future research in the paradigm and its potential contributions to leadership

training and development within a multi-level framework.

INTRODUCTION

The contingency model of leadership effectiveness was presented in its most complete
form in Fiedler (1967) and Fiedler and Chemers (1974). The evolution of the model
and the development of its constructs covers three decades of research. This article
examines the model from a theoretical and methodological perspective. It focuses on

* Direct all correspondence to: Roya Ayman, Department of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology,

Chicago, IL 60616-3793.

Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 147-167.

Copyright @ 1995 by JAI Press Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISSN: 1048-9843

148 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

the levels of analysis used to determine the various components of the model, to measure
effective leadership, and to define the sources of information for its central variables.

The model predicts that a leader’s effectiveness is based on two main factors: a leader’s
attributes, referred to as task or relationship motivational orientation (formerly referred
to as style), and a leader’s situational control (formerly referred to as situational
favorability). The model predicts that leaders who have a task motivational orientation
compared to those who have a relationship orientation or motivation will be more
successful in high- and low-control situations. Relationship oriented leaders compared
to task-oriented leaders will be more effective in moderate control situations (Fiedler,
1978). A leader is designated as “in match” in situations where the model predicts high
group performance and “out of match”in situations of low group performance (Fiedler
& Chemers, 1984).

The model is, by design, multi-level and multi-source. That is, measures of the leader’s
motivational orientation are based on the leader’s responses (individual level);
characteristics of the situation have been measured by the leader’s report and/ or that
of subordinates and experimenters (multi-level and multi-source), and outcomes have
been assessed at the group level, primarily group performance (Fiedler, 1978) as
determined by objective measures, supervisor ratings, and averaged follower satisfaction
(Rice, 1981). A few studies used outcomes related to the leader as an individual (e.g.,
stress, performance). A few studies have examined the model at the dyadic, leader-
subordinate level (e.g., Fiedler, Potter, Zais, & Knowlton, 1979). Most generally, the
model has defined the leadership effectiveness at the group level of analysis. In fact,
it may be appropriate to say that this is the first model in leadership effectiveness research
that was designed in a multi-level-of-analysis framework (Dansereau, personal
communication).

The model has been the target of numerous criticisms through its evolution (e.g.,
Ashour, 1973; Graen, Alvares, Orris, & Martella, 1971; Graen, Orris, & Alvares, 1971;
Schriesheim & Kerr 1977; Vecchio, 1977) and has been an impetus for over 200 empirical
studies. After three decades of research, two meta-analyses (i.e., Peters, Hartke, &
Pohlmann, 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981) have tested its criteria-related validity. The
results, overall, have supported the model. Both meta-analyses agreed that the
laboratory studies yielded stronger support than the field studies, and both provided
recommendations for improvement. Most of the recommendations suggested a need
to expand and refine the definitions of situational control and of the factors that
contribute to situational control.

This article defines the constructs which determine the model and reviews the
operational definitions. Although there have been several reviews of the model, it has
been about 16 years since the last complete review (Fielder, 1978). Confusion still exists
regarding the model’s components and their relationship with each other. In this article,
new and old evidence is discussed to clarify these misunderstandings. The model’s
constructs are: (1) leader’s characteristics, (2) situational control, and (3) leadership
effectiveness. Table 1 gives a summary of the way each of these variables in the model
has been defined and measured.

This article seeks to demonstrate that the strength of the contingency model lies in
its use of a multi-level and multiple-sources approach in defining leadership effectiveness.
Specifically, as presented in Table 1, measures of the leader’s orientation are drawn

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 149

Table 1
Summary of Contingency Model’s Variables with Their Conceptual Level

of Analysis, Measure, and Source of Information

Variables Level Measure Source

Leader’s Motivational
Orientation

Situational Control
Group Climate

Task Structure

Authority

Effectiveness
Satisfaction

Performance

Stress

Individual Least Preferred
Coworker (LPC) Scale

Group Group Atmosphere (GA)

Leader-Member Relation

Sociometric Method

Individual

Individual

Task Structure Scale or

Type of Job

Position Power Scale

Group or Dyadic Job Descriptor Index

(JDJ)

Group Supervisory Rating

Archival Data

Individual Fiedler’s Job Stress Scale Leader

Leadet

Leader or Averaged

Group Score

Leader or Experimenter

Leader Experiment

Superior

Subordinate

Superior
Experimenter

Org. Records

from the leader; outcome measures are typically taken from sources independent of
the leader, such as supervisor ratings or objective performance measures. Situational
variables have been specified in a number of ways, many of which are conceptually
and operationally independent both from leader variables and sources of the outcome
criteria (e.g., experimental manipulations, observer ratings of organizational
characteristics).

The independence of the theoretical variables reduces the model’s vulnerability to
validity threats attendant to single-source ratings and overlapping common-method
variance. Furthermore, even when leader’s characteristics and situational and outcome
variables are provided by leader ratings, as in studies of leader stress (Chemers, Hays,
Rhodewalt, & Wysocki, 1985), the predicted interactions among the variables are of
a nature (i.e., both complex and counterintuitive) such that the interactions are unlikely
to be the result of consistency factors or demand characteristics (Orne, 1962).

In the sections that follow, we address the levels of analysis and sources of information
with respect to: (1) the leader’s motivational orientation, (2) the variables that contribute
to the leader’s situational control, (3) various individual, group, and organizational
outcomes, (4) the new directions, and (5) the applications of the contingency model.

LEADERSHIP MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION

Although past reviews (e.g., Rice 1978a, 1978b) have been quite thorough, there are
a few issues regarding the conceptualization of the scale and its use that were not

150 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

clarified. In order to address these points, this section presents key evidence that
elucidates these issues. The leader’s orientation is measured by a scale referred to as
“least preferred coworker” (LPC) scale. The scale’s instructions ask the respondent to
identify within the context of all the persons with whom the respondent has ever worked:

the one person in your life with whom you could work least well. This individual may
or may not be the person you also dislike most. It must be the one person with whom
you had the most difficulty getting a job done, the one single individual with whom
you would least want to work-a boss, a subordinate, or a peer (Fiedler & Chemers,
1984, p. 17).

Various closely related forms of the LPC scale have consisted of from 16 to 22, eight-
point, bipolar adjective scales on which the respondent’s least preferred coworker is
described. Regardless of the version, the respondent’s score is calculated by summing
across all items. When the LPC score has been treated categorically, the cutoff points
to categorize the score have not always been consistent across studies. In some cases,
extreme scores have been used (cutoffs usually have been based on a standard deviation
on each side of the mean or the top and bottom 10% or thirds of the distribution).

In other cases, a median or mean split has been used to categorize high and low LPC

scores. In recent years, a few studies have used the LPC score as a continuous score,
examining the magnitude of its relation to outcome variables.

Psychometric Questions Concerning the LPC Scale

This section discusses the validity and reliability of the LPC scale, with the special
intent of clarifying past misconceptions with respect to the measurement and meaning

of the construct. We address both the psychometric properties of the scale and its validity
and utility as a research tool. Rather than measuring a leader’s attitudes, expectations,

and self-reported behaviors, the LPC scale seeks to infer a respondent’s (leader’s)
investment in task accomplishment through his/ her reactions to a coworker who thwarts
accomplishment. The degree to which the respondent gives a negative rating of the “least
preferred coworker” presumably reflects the respondent’s frustration or anger.

Two terms in the instructions are especially important-that is, “least” and

“coworker.” The term “least” demands that the person rated is not just any undesirable
coworker in the rater’s experience but the single worst ever encountered. The intent
is to create a strong stimulus that will draw the greatest level of reaction from the
respondent. Asking a respondent to describe two different coworkers as a means of
assessing the reliability of the measure is not appropriate. For each rater, there should
be only one appropriate stimulus: the least preferred coworker.

The term “coworker” rather than “subordinate” or “follower” is intentionally vague,
allowing the respondent to rate a peer, superior, or subordinate. Finally, the frame of
reference for identifying this poor coworker is the respondent’s entire working history,
avoiding an emphasis on the current situation. Here, the attempt is to obtain a stable,
affective reaction. The items on which the least preferred coworker are rated are not
descriptors of particular behaviors or task-related abilities. They are global, evaluative
adjectives. The ratings of the stimulus thus reflect a general evaluative response (i.e.,

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 151

an attitude) toward a person who has interfered with the attainment of a more or less
highly valued goal (e.g., task accomplishment). In sum, the LPC reflects a broad
emotional reaction to a poor coworker, revealing how important the rater considers
task success to be.

The LPC score clearly has been the most controversial component of the contingency
model. It has been interpreted as a measure of psychological distance, leader orientation,
and motivational hierarchy. All of these interpretations apply to some extent. This lack
of consensus has been very disturbing to those with a low tolerance for ambiguity.
Whether we now call LPC a measure of leader orientation, the term favored by Ayman
and Chemers (1991), or a motivational index, the term favored by Fiedler (1978), is
not of critical importance. As we shall see, the difference in operational terms turns
out to be one of emphasis rather than of substance.

Questions of the construct validity of the LPC scale have engendered debates and
controversies. Three approaches have been taken to respond to these debates. One has
examined the scale’s item content. A second has addressed issues of convergent and
divergent validity, and a third has studied the relationship between the LPC score and
leader behavior. Each of these approaches is now considered.

Item Content
The discussion surrounding the nature of the adjectives included in the scale has been

concerned with the different number of adjectives that were descriptors of work-related
traits (e.g., lazy or industrious) versus the number of relationship-relevant descriptors
(e.g., friendly or close). Rice (1978b) referred to a series of studies (published and
unpublished) demonstrating that the scale has two factors (task and people orientation).
He also demonstrated that the structure has varied for high and low LPC respondents,
and the intercorrelation between the factors across studies has also varied. Edwards,
Rode, and Ayman (1989) compared the responses of ROTC cadets to the leader
behavior questionnaire (LBDQ), leader opinion questionnaire (LOQ or LEAD), and
LPC scale, using confirmatory factor analyses. They found that the three scales of
LBDQ, LOQ, and LEAD had similar two-factor structures (consideration and initiation
of structure) and that the LPC scale did not match this factor structure.

Rice (1978b) argued that “the potential importance of these factor analytic data is
indicated by examining the relationship between LPC factor scores and external
criteria” (p, 110). Rice and Seaman (1981) explored the relationship of task versus
relationship adjective sets with outcome variables. Using a 22-item scale, they found
that an overall score and a score based only on task items seemed to have quite similar
relationships to outcome criteria. Apparently, the variations in item content of the scale
do not threaten the criterion-related validity of the total LPC scale.

Convergent-Divergent Validity
During the past 30 years of research on LPC, several studies have examined the LPC

scale’s construct validity through convergent and divergent validity studies in which
LPC scores are associated with other trait measures. The earlier studies reported
correlations below .30 between the various traits and the LPC scale, establishing the
LPC scale as an independent construct (Fiedler, 1967). Recent studies have shown that
respondents’self-monitoring score (Ayman & Chemers, 199 1; Ayman & Abenate, 1994),

152 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

gender (Powell, Butterfield, Mainiero, 1981; Schneier, 1978), values and intelligence
(Kennedy, Houston, Korsgaard, & Gal10 (1987) are non-linearly related to the LPC
scale.

Rice (1978a) reported a low negative linear relationship between the LPC score (that
is, a low LPC person scoring higher) and measures of self-evaluation, including
intelligence (Bons, Bass, & Komorita, 1970), achievement (Burke, 1965), and being
agreeable (Shima, 1968). He also reported a positive relationship (that is, high LPC
person scoring higher) with social cognitive complexity. A pattern of results relating
the LPC score to measures of confidence, attention, and cognitive complexity, revealed
that low LPC persons were more interested in, and knowledgeable about, variables
in the task domain whereas high LPC persons evidenced a similar involvement with
aspects of the interpersonal or relationship domain. Rice concluded that the LPC scale
reflects a basic value orientation (toward task achievement in low LPCs and toward
interpersonal relations in high LPCs) and these values influence attitudes towards
various factors in the leadership environment.

Two studies of job satisfaction provide direct support of the value-attitude
interpretation of the LPC construct. In both a laboratory experiment (Rice, Marwick,
Chemers, & Bentley, 1982) and an organizational survey (Chemers & Ayman, 1985)
low LPC leaders showed a significantly stronger relationship between performance
measures and job satisfaction than did high LPC leaders. The high LPCs showed a
stronger relationship than the lows between job satisfaction and measures of group
atmosphere and interpersonal harmony. Consistent with other studies that have
demonstrated a moderating effect of work values (e.g., growth need strength, need for
achievement) on satisfaction-performance relationships (e.g., Abdel-Halim, 1980), these
findings reinforce the view of LPC as a measure of values or motivational orientations
of the respondents.

Leader Behavior
The third construct validity technique involves relating the LPC scale to leader

behavior measures. Fiedler and Chemers (1974) referred to the LPC score as a measure
of the leader’s style. Whereas it may have seemed rational then to relate the LPC score
to leader behavior, several issues of concern need to be addressed. First, as already
established, the LPC scale measures a respondent’s attitudes, values, and motivational
orientation, not his or her behavior. Although attitudes and values may be the basis
for an individual’s behavior, attitude/values and behavior do not bear an isomorphic
relationship, and therefore, the relationship between a leader’s LPC score and a
particular leader behavior is an empirical question. Second, recognition of the strong
effect of cognitive and information processing biases in the perception of leader behavior
(Lord & Maher, 1991) has called into question the role of behavioral measures as valid
indicators of “actual” leader behavior.

Given these caveats related to the measurement of leader behavior, the relationship
between the LPC and leaders’behaviors is important not only from a leadership-process
perspective but also because it can assist in clarifying two dominant hypotheses about
the LPC: the Value-Attitude (Rice 1978a) and the Motivational Hierarchy (Fiedler,
1978) hypotheses. For the value-attitude hypothesis to be supported, the research should
show significant and consistent main effects for the LPC scale and measures of leader

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 153

behavior. For the motivational hierarchy hypothesis to be validated, the results should
have demonstrated an interaction effect of a leader’s LPC score with his or her
situational control predicting the leader’s behavior. Rice (1978a), by including main
effects that were present in studies with significant interaction effects, concluded that
across studies there were an equal number of findings supporting both hypotheses. This
conclusion may have been premature because some of these main effects were part of
results that supported interaction effects.

We argued earlier that the LPC scale is an attitude measure with a strong emphasis
on the affective component. However, evidence also supported the fact that although
the LPC reflects the respondent’s reaction to a person in a situation, it also reflects
the respondent’s values and goals (i.e., emphasis on task accomplishment or relationship
with people), which are the motivational forces behind his/ her actions. The results of
the interaction effects of leader’s LPC score and situational control on measures of
leader behavior demonstrate that the relationship of the leader’s LPC score to the
leader’s behavior is moderated by the situation (e.g., Bons & Fiedler, 1976; Borden,
1980; Chemers, 1969; Frost, 1981; Fiedler, 1967, 1972; Fielder 8z Garcia, 1987; Larson,
Rowland, 1973; Sample & Wilson, 1965). For example, high LPC leaders behaved more
considerately toward group members in moderately stressful conditions than low LPC
leaders; low LPC leaders behaved more considerately than highs in situations where
they felt in control. On the other hand, high LPC leaders behaved with more emphasis
on the task than low LPC leaders in situations where they felt in control, and the low
LPC leaders behaved with more focus on the task than high LPC leaders when they
were in moderately stressful conditions. These shifts in behavioral manifestations of
LPC score may be indicative of a hierarchy of the leaders’ goals motivating them to
act. That is, in situations where individuals feel that their primary values, goals, or
motivational orientations are not met, they act in a way to satisfy them, and if they
are satisfied, their secondary goals or values will direct their behavior. It is important
to note that in several of the above-mentioned studies, leader’s behavior was measured
by objective techniques-for example, in-basket exercise responses (Larson 8z Rowland,
1973).

In summary, the value-attitude and motivational hierarchy are not incompatible
hypotheses. Rather, one focuses on the measure of LPC and the other on the construct
it represents. They both agree that LPC measures values or goals. However, the former
assumed that individual’s values will always be manifested in specific behaviors (Rice,
1978a) and the latter (Fiedler, 1978) assumed that values or goals may or may not be
manifested in a particular behavior. In the latter case, the vehicle that moderates the
behavioral manifestation is the situation. The motivational hierarchy is more in line
with other social-psychological views on the relationship between attitude and behavior
(Ajzen, 1987; Fazio, 1990).

In addition, the relationship of the LPC score and leader behavior can only be studied
when the issues of measurement of leader behavior are considered with great care.
Therefore, although we concur with Rice’s position that research on this relationship
may provide a better understanding of the LPC score, the path is not as smooth and
clear as it may seem.

Although the evidence on the construct validity of the LPC scale is not conclusive,
some conclusions do seem reasonable. A low LPC score is a reflection of a negative

154 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

affect emanating from frustration with the inability to complete the task at hand. A
low score may represent those individuals who have a self-concept that is strongly
associated with accomplishment. The evidence suggests that LPC is a measure of a
respondent’s inner state, not a measure of his/ her behavior patterns.

Reliability

As a final note to the review of the LPC scale’s psychometric properties, its reliability
is now discussed. The reliability of the LPC scale has been measured both by examining
its internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The internal consistency of the scale
has always been fairly high. The average internal consistency coefficient reported is .88
(Rice, 1978b), and more recently, Ayman and Chemers (1991) reported Cronbach’s
alpha of .90. The test-retest reliability of the scale parallels other personality measures
with a median stability coefficient of .67 (Rice, 1978b; Fiedler, 1978). Rice’s (1978b)
review included 23 studies on test-retest reliability of the scale. The time lapse in the
these studies ranged from two days to two-and-a-half years. The scale seems to meet
the established criteria for reliability.

Summary of the Review on the LPC Scale
Overall, the findings about the psychometric properties of the LPC scale have

demonstrated that the nature of the adjectives included in the scale may affect its
structure, but it is not critical to the scale’s functionality. Based on the existing evidence,
it is safe to say that the LPC scale is a measure of the internal state of the leader. Whether
it measures values, motivation attitude, or goals is not totally resolved. However, based
on Markus and Wurf (1987), all of these concepts are variables that operate in
determining the working self, though they vary in their level of specificity.

The LPC scale is a measure whose history and approach creates unique advantages
and disadvantages. As an indirect measure of values and/ or motivational orientation,
it is less susceptible to demand characteristics or social desirability effects. On the other
hand, the lack of a clear theoretic-deductive explanation makes the LPC construct
appear mysterious and unscientific. The predictive utility of the construct as evidenced
in the comprehensive meta-analyses (Strube & Garcia, 1981; Peters, Hartke, &
Pohlmann, 1985) does encourage us to continue attempts to understand the concept
better.

SITUATIONAL CONTROL

The other central construct in contingency model research, situational control, has been
operationalized in various ways. It is conceptually defined as the leader’s sense of
influence and control afforded by the situation (Fiedler, 1978). In most of the research,
three components of the situation have been identified as contributors to a sense of
predictability and control: Leader-Member Relationship (formerly referred to as group
atmosphere), Task Structure, and Position Power.

In the following sections, each of the three components of situational control is
discussed. Each component is defined both theoretically and methodologically. From
a methodological perspective, both the measurements and the source of information
for the component across studies are examined. Finally, the relationship among the

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 155

three components is presented, as well as their relationship with the leader’s motivational
orientation.

Leader-Member Relations

This construct refers to the amount of cohesiveness in the work team and the support
of the team for the leader. Leader-member relations is the most important aspect of
the situation, because if the leader lacks group support, energy is diverted to controlling
the group rather than toward planning, problem-solving, and productivity. Under these
conditions, the leader’s influence is weakened, and he or she can not rely on the team
to achieve and implement the goal.

In early laboratory research of the model, the group-atmosphere scale (Fiedler, 1967)
was used to assess either experimentally manipulated or naturally occurring work team
cohesion. The measure was completed by all participants. The scale consisted of 10
eight-point bipolar items. In studies where sociometric choice was use to manipulate
group cohesion, the statistical relationship between the score on the group atmosphere
scale and sociometric manipulation was positive and substantial (e.g., Chemers &
Skrzypek, 1972).

More recently, the Leader-Member Relation (LMR) scale has been used to assess
this construct. This measure was first introduced as a training tool (Fiedler, Chemers,
& Mahar, 1976). It consists of eight five-point scale items describing the relationship
of the team members with each other and their loyalty and responsiveness to the leader.
The LMR scale has good internal reliability-Cronbach’s alpha of.80 (e.g., Ayman &
Chemers, 1991).

Leader-member relations is theoretically conceptualized at the group level. In much
of the experimental and field studies a group average on Group Atmosphere scale was
used to determine group cohesion (e.g., Chemers & Skrzypek, 1972, Geyer 8z Julian,
1973, Csoka & Fiedler, 1972). In some of the more recent field studies, the leader has
been the source of information about this construct. However, the leaders’ scores
represented their experiences with their group as a whole, not with individual
subordinates in dyadic relationships (e.g., Ayman & Chemers, 1991).

The leader-member relations scale has shown strong construct validity. The group
atmosphere scale and the leader-member relation scale are highly correlated–r = .88
(Fiedler, 1978). Neither of the scales has shown a correlation with the leader’s LPC
scale (e.g., Chemers, Hays, Rhodewalt, & Wysoki, 1985; Fiedler, 1978; McNamara,
1968). However, group atmosphere has been correlated with some outcome variables
like leader’s experience of stress with the subordinates (Chemers et al., 1985). The
construct validity of the leader-member relations scale demonstrates that it is a valid
measure depicting the group’s cohesion and loyalty to the leader. The test of validity
has been ascertained by high correlations between two different measures and from
multiple sources (i.e., the group and/or the leader). It is independent of the leader’s
orientation even when the leader has been the source of information for both the LPC
score and the leader-member relation score. This is a significant strength in the model
because in field studies, the leader is typically the source of this information.

156 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

Task Structure

This second component of Situational Control represents the clarity and certainty
in task goals and procedures that allow the leader confidently to guide the group’s
activities. In laboratory studies, the variable was usually manipulated by the choice of
assigned tasks that varied on Shaw’s (1963) criteria for task structure (Fiedler, 1978).
In field studies, task structure ratings can be provided by a knowledgeable observer,
such as a superior. A scale for rating task structure by a supervisor or investigator was
developed by Hunt (1967).

More recent field research has employed the Task Structure Rating Scale developed
as part of the “Leader Match” training program (Fiedler, Chemers, & Mahar, 1976;
Fiedler & Chemers, 1984). The self-report scale consists of 10 items incorporating Shaw’s
(1963) dimensions of goal clarity, goal path multiplicity, solution specificity, and
outcome quantifiability. Based on research that indicated that task-relevant experience
and training enhanced task structure (Fiedler, 1970; Chemers, Rice, Sundstrom, &
Butler, 1975), an additional two-item subscale assessing the leader’s experience and
training was added to the scale. Information on the total scale’s reliability is not
available. However, Ayman and Chemers (1991) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .81
for the first section of the scale.

In studies where the measure of task structure has been based on the leader’s
perception, the intercorrelation of LPC score and task structure score has not been
reported. Part of the reason may be due to the fact that task structure is a single
component of the situational control dimension and only the correlations between
situational control and other variables are usually reported. In addition, until recently,
task structure was objectively rated by the experimenter or the leader’s supervisor in
most studies.

The sense of predictability and certainty provided by a task with clear goals and
procedures contributes to the overall level of situational control experienced by the
leader. Conceptually, task structure is a group-level variable. The task being measured
includes all the activities that the leader must accomplish to move the group toward
its collective goal. In contrast to some models, the task being measured is the leader’s
task, not the task of individual subordinates being supervised by the leader. For
example, a task requiring high levels of interdependence among subordinates might
increase complexity and reduce task structure for the leader.

Operationally, task structure has been defined by leader self-reports, by ratings of
observers or superiors, or by manipulation of assigned tasks. Although the measurement
of the variable sometimes occurs at the individual level, in combination with other
situational control variables, it represents an aspect of the group environment in which
the leader functions. As shown, in Table 1, however, it is an individual-level variable
about the Leader’s Task.

Position Power

This component of situational control is defined as the administrative authority
bestowed on the leader by the organization or other source of authority-for example,
the experimenter. Fiedler (1978) advised that position power assessments should be
supplied by the leader’s supervisor, due to the possibility of distortion of information

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 157

by self-report. However, in most field studies, the leader’s self-report has been used
(Fiedler & Chemers, 1984). This is a five-item scale that measures the leader’s
discretionary power to reward and punish, job-relevant expertise, and official status.
Internal reliability data are available for only one study (Ayman & Chemers, 1991),
where it had a low Cronbach’s Alpha of .3 1. While a single reliability coefficient is
not conclusive, it may be that the low internal consistency is the result of the
multidimensional nature of the scale, which measures several bases of power. In most
field research, leaders are chosen from a single organizational level with similar position
power. No relationship has been found between leader’s LPC score and the leader’s
reported Position Power score.

Similar to the Task Structure, Position Power has been defined at the individual
level, for the leader. It has been manipulated by experimental design, described by the
leader’s supervisor, or measured through the leader’s perception (see Table 1). Like Task
Structure, it contributes to the overall level of control in the leader’s situation, and may
be conceptualized as either a group- or individual-level variable depending on the
analysis.

Summary of Situational Control and Social Power

The three components of situational control parallel French and Raven’s (1959) five
bases of power. Power has been defined as the ability to influence others. Situational
Control has also been defined as providing the leader with the ability to influence and
gain control (Bass, 1991). French and Raven identified the expert and referent sources
of power as sources based on knowledge and expertise regarding the task and the
strength or solidity of the social relationships. Research has indicated that these two
sources of power have the most efficacious and lasting effects in social influence
(Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985; Yukl & Taber, 1983). Referent power based on the
quality of the social relationship is most similar to the contingency model variable of
“Leader-Member Relations.” Expert power with its emphasis on task knowledge bears
much in common with “Task Structure.” The three other sources of power-coercive,
reward, and legitimate-reflect on individual’s authority. These three sources have
shown to be inter-correlated to the point that some have referred to it as position power
(Bass, 1991). Their effects have been debated. Thus, they do not seem to have as robust
and lasting effect as the referent and expert sources (Podsakoff & Schrieshiem, 1985).
In the contingency model, these power sources are given the least weight in the
assessment of situational control.

The weighing of the three components of situational control was originally ordinal.
Fiedler (1967) specified group atmosphere (leader-member relations) to be most
important. Task Structure came second, and Position Power was third. The analytic
strategy typically involved dividing groups at the median on each variable and
combining the resultant designations into one of eight cells, or “octants.“This approach
had the ad hoc effect of weighing leader-member relations twice as strongly as task
structure, which was weighted twice as strongly as position power (i.e., 412: 1 weighing
ratio). Later empirical research related measures of each variable to a rating of overall
control and predictability and found that the inductively derived weights were very close
to the 4:2: 1 ratios (Nebeker, 1975).

158 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

The self-rating Leader Match scales (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984) are adjusted for the
prescribed weights by the maximum number of points possible on each scale (i.e., LMR
scale, 40 points; TS scale, 20; PP scale, 10). The summed scale values provide a measure
of overall Situational Control, which can be compared to the cutting points for high,
moderate, and low levels of control. Recent field studies have used the normative cutoff

points (e.g., Giffort & Ayman, 1989) or median (e.g., Ayman & Chemers, 1991) or
tripartite splits (e.g., Chemers et al., 1985) of sample distributions to assign leaders to

conditions.

THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
WITHIN THE CONTINGENCY MODEL

The variables that define the leader’s personal characteristic (the LPC) and the leader’s
situational control (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power) are
both conceptually and psychometrically independent. This is one of the most valuable
and unique properties of the contingency model. In studies where the leader is the only
source of information for both personal and situational variables, or where the situation
is defined by an independent observer, the LPC and situational control scores are not
statistically related. Problems of multi-colinearity and single-source biases, which
bedevil much current leadership-research methodology (Padsakoff & Organ, 1986;

Spector, 1987) are not a serious problem for contingency model research. Although
LPC and situational control are uncorrelated, some dependency does appear among
the three situational variables.

In laboratory experiments, the situational control variables were manipulated and
their relationship was, by design, independent. In field studies, task structure and

position power have been found to be correlated between r = .75 (Chemers & Fiedler,
1986) and r = .33 (Chemers et al., 1985). The actual level of interdependence of the
three factors may have varied from study to study because of the level of the manager,
the type of company, or the source of information on each factor. Overlap among the
situational control variables provides a strong rationale for employing the composite
situational control score.

Relationship of the Model to Outcome (Dependent) Variables

The contingency model of leadership effectiveness has defined its criterion of
effectiveness primarily as work group performance. However, some studies have
examined effects on other criteria, such as subordinate satisfaction or leader’s reported
symptoms of stress.

The operational definition of performance has been based partially on the nature
of task and the level of the leader’s position. Wherever possible, productivity was defined
by objective measures, such as win-lose records for basketball teams, tons per person-
hour for steel production crews, and accuracy for bombing crews. In cases where the
nature of the tasks required a subjective evaluation, at least two raters evaluated the
quality of performance. Such tasks typically consisted of composing a story, developing
a report, or recommending a program. In most of the organizational field studies, the
manager’s performance was rated by a superior.

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 159

The important point to note is that the contingency model has used a variety of
performance measures that have been relevant to the work group objective. However,
regardless of whether the performance was measured subjectively or objectively and
whether it was a measure of quality or quantity, it was always assessed by an agent
outside of the work team.

We pointed out earlier that the contingency model was designed primarily to predict
work team performance. The empirical development of the model made clear that only
the interaction of personal and situational parameters could predict group performance.
One of the most important premises of the contingency principle is that neither leader
characteristics nor situational factors alone can predict performance. The reviews and
meta-analyses have established the essential validity of that premise. Person-situation
match, but neither person nor situation alone, has been consistently predictive of
performance outcomes.

In the early stages of the development of the model, Fiedler (1967) argued that group
productivity was the most important and appropriate outcome variable in leadership
research. He pointed out that chief executive officers, football coaches, and symphony
conductors are not retained and rewarded for making their subordinates happy and
satisfied but for making them productive and profitable. This point is still apt today,
but organizational theorists and practitioners have come to recognize that variables
such as commitment, loyalty, and satisfaction can have important implications for
organizational performance and profitability.

In 1977, Schriesheim and Kerr criticized the contingency model for its lack of
attention to subordinate satisfaction. If we turn our attention to the prediction and
explanation of subordinate satisfaction and other attitudinal and affective states, what
might be the most useful ways to proceed? A logical approach might be to look for
the same confluence of person and situational variables that are effective in the
prediction of performance-that is, leader-situation match.

In 1981, Rice responded to Schriesheim and Kerr’s (1977) criticism with a review
of existing studies examining the relationship of the contingency model variables to
job satisfaction. Although some inconsistencies exist across studies, Rice concluded that
the bulk of the evidence supports the view that subordinate satisfaction is highest when
leaders are in match. Subsequent studies of managers in the United States (Giffort &
Ayman, 1989) and in Mexico (Ayman & Chemers, 1991) have supported Rice’s
conclusions. Subordinates of low LPC managers in high-control situations and of high
LPC managers in moderate-control situations were more satisfied than their “out-of-
match” counterparts.

Job satisfaction is a multi-faceted construct. The contingency model effects reported
here occur primarily on measures of satisfaction with the superior or satisfaction with
coworkers (i.e., measures of work team cohesion) rather than on measures of satisfaction
with pay or promotion which are variables frequently outside the leader’s control. It
is interesting to note that match (i.e., the interaction of LPC and Situational Control)
is a better predictor of subordinate satisfaction than is the leader’s score on the leader-
member relations scale, indicating the importance of multiple, independent measures
of group effects.

Although the validity of the contingency model in the prediction of group
performance seems well established and its utility for predicting subordinate satisfaction

160 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

is promising, many gaps in understanding remain which reduce the model’s explanatory
value. The model continues, however, to instigate research that may enrich our
understanding of the processes that underlie match effects. The next section will briefly
describe some new directions in contingency model research involving efforts at the
individual level to understand the phenomenological and emotional effects of match;
at the dyadic level to predict performance and satisfaction; and multi-trait approaches
in which person-level variables besides the LPC are integrated into the model.

NEW DIRECTIONS

Individual-level Analyses

A series of studies have examined the phenomenological experience of style-situation
match on leaders. Garcia (1983) compared high and low LPC persons working on

individual tasks that varied in the degree of certainty. Certainty was manipulated by
providing half of the subjects with task-relevant training that increased task structure
and subjective reports of certainty. Garcia reported that low LPC persons in the high-

certainty condition (training) and high LPC persons in the low-certainty (no training)
condition made stronger attributions to their own ability as the cause of performance
than did low LPC persons in the low certainty condition or high LPCs in the high
certainty condition. In a laboratory experiment on group leadership, Nahavandi (1983)
found that “in-match”leaders, as defined by contingency model variables, reported higher
levels of involvement and interest in the experience than did “out-of-match” leaders.

Chemers, Hays, Rhodewalt, and Wysocki (1985) measured the relationship of
contingency model match to job stress and stress-related illness among university
administrators. Department chairs who were out of match reported significantly higher
levels of stress and stress-related illness than did their in-match counterparts. These
findings were replicated in a follow-up study (Chemers, Hill, & Sorod, 1986) of high
school administrators. As in the earlier studies, in-match leaders reported less stress
and illness, as well as higher levels of job satisfaction, than did out-of-match leaders.
Shirakashi (1991) closely replicated the results of these match-stress studies using a
sample of managers in Japan.

A laboratory experiment by Chemers, Sorod, and Akimoto (reported in Chemers,
1993) found that in-match leaders as compared to out-of-match leaders reported: (1)
more positive mood states, (2) greater confidence in their ability to lead, and (3) more
internal attributions to their own ability and effort to explain group performance. A
number of theorists and researchers have recently focused on the role of positive affective
states, such as confidence and mood, on leadership performance (e.g., Murphy, 1992;
May, 1993; Staw & Barsade, 1993; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; House & Shamir, 1993).
Leadership match may be a powerful moderator of contemporaneous situational factors

affecting such affective states.

Dyadic-Level Analyses

The study of dyads in the contingency model has not received much attention. Two
studies that have examined dyads have shown trends that indicate that the nature of

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 161

the task may interact with different compositions of leader’s and follower’s LPC score
to predict subordinate satisfaction and performance.

Chemers, Goza, and Plumer (1978) conducted an experiment in which three- person
groups solved a problem for which the leader and one follower had been given
contradictory information in a pre-session briefing. The dyads that were most effective
in solving the problem were those with a high LPC leader and low LPC follower, while
the most ineffective dyads were those that were homogeneous with respect to leader
and follower LPC. Tobey (1992) also found the high-LPC-leader/low-LPC-subordinate
dyads to be most effective in performance on a similarly unstructured task. However,
Tobey (1992) also found that dyads led by low LPCs outperformed dyads led by high
LPCs when the task was more structured. It seems reasonable to expect that the effects
of dyadic composition on both performance and satisfaction would be most
productively addressed in a contingency framework.

Multi-Trait Approach

Weiss and Adler (1984) have suggested a multi-trait approach to organizational
behavior theories. They advise the inclusion of traits that have a theoretical relationship
to outcome criteria or have the potential for expanding the explanatory base of the
theory. The most developed of the new expansions of the contingency model is the
cognitive resource theory (Fiedler, 1993; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). Fiedler and his
associates have demonstrated that the leader’s ability to make effective use of his or
her cognitive resources (i.e., intellectual ability and job-relevant experience) depends
on a number of contingencies. Job stress from any of several sources (including one’s
boss or subordinates, or the nature of one’s task) interferes with a leader’s ability to
think creatively and use intellectual resources but enhances the value of the well-learned
lessons of experience. The intellectual demands of the task, the cooperativeness of
subordinates, and the leader’s willingness to act directively also moderate the impact
of cognitive resources on group productivity.

Unless the leader acts in a directive manner employing knowledge and insight to
influence group activities, those cognitive resources will have little effect. Furthermore,
compliant and supportive subordinates who respond positively to the leader’s influence
attempts increase the impact of the leader’s directions on group outputs. Finally,
intellectually demanding tasks that place a premium on thoughtful and creative ideas
will increase the relative effects of cognitive processes.

Similar to the cognitive model, cognitive resource theory places an individual-level
phenomenon (the effects of stress on cognition) in a context in which superiors,
subordinates, and task influence relationships with group-level outcomes. Leadership
as a group process, analyzable at the group level, seems to be the overriding emphasis
of these two contingency theories.

Like the contingency model that preceded it, cognitive resource theory assesses the
effects of individual-level variables (i.e., leader intelligence and experience) at a group
level of analysis. Situational parameters, such as task demands, subordinate support,
and environmental stress, moderate the relationships between the individual-level
variables and group-level outcomes, for example, productivity. Cognitive resource
theory adds the process variable of the leader’s level of directiveness to tie together the

162 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

leader and outcome variables. The centrality of job stress in the cognitive resource theory
and in the recent work by Chemers and his associates on leadership match and job
stress suggests the potential for integrating the two models. Future research in that
direction seems warranted.

Another multi-trait approach to contingency-model research has investigated the
moderating role of self-monitoring (Snyder, 1979). Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) have
argued that a leader’s flexibility in adapting to situational characteristics may be a
leadership trait with broad applicability. The self-monitoring construct reflects an
individual’s sensitivity and responsiveness to the social expectations across varying
situations. Since leadership match is based on the degree of fit between the leader’s
motivational orientation and situational characteristics, a leader’s ability to adapt to
situations might moderate the effects of match. Specifically, high self-monitors who
are able to change their behavior to adjust to the expectations of others may be less
susceptible to leader-situation mismatches than would be low self-monitors whose
behavioral style is more rigidly determined by internal values and attitudes.

A recent study by Ayman and Chemers (1991) included the self-monitoring scale
with the contingency model measures administered to 85 middle managers in Mexican
companies. The predicted effects of match on several outcome measures, including
subordinate satisfaction with work and the leader’s effectiveness in conflict
management, were moderated by self-monitoring as expected. Other measures in the
same study, such as subordinate satisfaction with the leader, showed straight match
effects, unaffected by self-monitoring.

These results indicate that multi-trait approaches to leadership effects have great
potential. However, the choice of traits for inclusion must be theoretically driven (Weiss
& Adler, 1984).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The contingency model of leadership has stimulated and guided research for more than
30 years. The greatest strengths of the model reside in: (1) the conceptual and statistical
independence of its central constructs, LPC and Situational Control; (2) its emphasis
on independent and, where possible, objective measures of important organizational
outcomes such as group productivity; (3) its relatively lesser vulnerability to the
invalidation of its constructs and findings as a result of information-processing biases
and methodological weaknesses; and, of course, (4) its proven predictive validity.

The model’s greatest weaknesses arise from its inductive development. The LPC
construct has little face or concurrent validity, and even evidence for its construct validity
requires some faith. The lack of process-based explanations for performance effects
makes both the understanding and application of the model more difficult.

One of the major strengths of the contingency model in practical application is that
about 15 minutes worth of questionnaire administration provides a multi-level analysis
of person-situation match that can be used in selection, placement, training, and
organizational development. Based on the contingency model, the Leader Match
training program (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984) provides a framework for organizational
intervention at the individual, dyadic, and group levels.

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 163

During the last three decades, the contingency model has been the subject of extensive
research and vigorous controversy, and yet it is alive and still developing. The individual
and dyadic levels of analysis are being added to the traditional focus on group-level
effectiveness phenomena. Multi-trait approaches may help to illuminate the factors that
underlie its impact. The power of the cognitive resource theory reveals productive
avenues for bridging the gap between the contingency model and other psychological
theories. Finally, the model’s utility in creating practical approaches to leadership
training and organizational development reinforces Kurt Lewin’s dictum that “There
is nothing so practical as a good theory.”

Through training such as Leader Match, which is based on the contingency model
of leadership effectiveness, the leader uses both personal and group data to assess his
or her match in the situation. The validity of this training program has been presented
in numerous documents (Fiedler & Mahar, 1979; Burke dz Day, 1986). Using the model’s
existing research, the leader can then anticipate his or her effectiveness both at a personal
and dyadic level (i.e., experienced stress or subordinate satisfaction) and at a group
level (i.e., performance, subordinates’ satisfaction and morale). With access to such
wisdom, the leader can do “job engineering.” This does not require major changes in
the way the work is done but, through modifying the three situational control constructs,
the leader can affect all levels of work team dynamics and alter group functioning.

Because the model is multi-level, (that is, it represents leadership as a dynamic
exchange of various levels of analyses present in a natural team building setting instead
of individually focused model-only the leader or the subordinates), it allows for
interventions at different levels. For example, at the individual level, the leader is made
aware of the his or her strength and environmentally available resources and learns
job engineering. This is helpful for leadership development programs. A focus on the
dyadic level will assist in arranging work teams for the highest yield.

Similar to some other leadership theories, the contingency model has also been tested
for validity in other countries (e.g., Ayman & Chemers, 1991; Rubio, 1986; Shima,
1968). In addition, cross-cultural research with the contingency model has incorporated
the effects of work team diversity (e.g., Fiedler, 1966). The employment of a multi-
level approach in which group-level variables, such as leader-member relations, are
conceptualized and measured at the group level of analysis provides a basis for the
inclusion of work team diversity. Diverse group affiliations between leader and followers
(e.g., with respect to religion, language, ethnicity, gender, functional specialization, etc.)
can be addressed in terms of effects on the situational control constructs. Groups marked
by diversity may have lower leader-member relations. Diversity might also affect the
leader’s power and authority or task structure, as cultural differences in customs and
norms affect expectations about the acceptable forms of leadership influence (Triandis,
1993). The ability of the contingency model to incorporate the effects of cultural
differences and diversity provides the potential for building a universal leadership
theory.

Although the contingency model is almost 40 years old, its basic premise, the
interaction of person and situation in the study of leadership effectiveness, provides
a flexibility that allows the model to grow and develop. The levels of analysis approach
offers a framework for utilizing the flexibility that may render productive avenues for
future research.

164 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

REFERENCES

Abdel-Halim, A.A. (1980). Effects of higher order need strength on the job performance-job
satisfaction relationship. Personnel Psychology, 33, 335-347.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality

and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

(Vol. 20, pp. l-63). New York: Academic.

Ashour, AS. (1973). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 339-355.

Ayman, R., & Abenate, D.C. (1994). An expansion of the contingency model: The moderating
influence of self-monitoring. Unpublished manuscript, Illinois Institute of Technology,

Chicago, IL.

Ayman, R., & Chemers, M.M. (1991). The effect of leadership match on subordinate satisfaction
in Mexican organizations: Some moderating influences of self-monitoring. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 40, 299-3 14.

Bass, B.M. (1991). Bass & StogdillS handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial

applications. 3rd edition. New York: Free Press.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper &
Row.

Bons, P.M., Bass, A.R., & Komorita, S/ (1970). Changes in leadership style as a function of

military experience and type of command. Personnel Psychology, 23, 55 l-568.
Bons, P.M., & Fiedler, F.E. (1976). Changes in organizational leadership and the behavior of

relationship and task motivated leaders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 453473.

Borden, D.F. (1980). Leader-boss stress, personality job satisfaction and performance: Another

look at the inter-relationship of some old constructs in the modem large bureaucracy.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Burke, W.W. (1965). Leadership behavior as a function of the leader, the follower, and situation,

Journal of Personality, 33, 60-8 1.
Burke, M.J., & Day, R.R. (1986). Accumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,232-246.
Chemers, M.M. (1969). Cross-cultural training as a means for improving situational

favorableness. Human Relations, 22, 531-546.

Chemers, M.M. (1993). An integrative theory of leadership. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman

(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 293-319). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Chemers, M.M., and Ayman, R. (1985). Leadership orientation as a moderator of the relationship

between job performance and job satisfaction of Mexican managers. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 11, 359-367.
Chemers, M.M., and Fielder, F.E. (1986). The trouble with assumptions: A reply to Jago and

Ragan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,560-563.
Chemers, M.M., Goza, B. & Plumer, S.I. (1978). Leadership style and communication process.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Chemers, M.M., Hays, R.B., Rhodewalt, F., & Wysocki, J. (1985). A person-environment

analysis of job stress: A contingency model explanation. Journal of Personality and Social
PsychoZogy, 49, 628-635.

Chemers, M.M., Hill, C., & Sorod, B. (1986). Personality-environment match and health:
Support for the contingency model. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the
American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 165

Chemers, M.M., Rice, R.W., Sundstrom, E., & Butler, W. (1975). Leader esteem for the least
preferred co-worker score, training, and effectiveness: An experimental examination.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,401409.

Chemers, M.M., & Skrzypek, G.J. (1972). Experimental test of the contingency model of
leadership effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 172-177.

Csoka, L.S., & Fiedler, F.E. (1972) The effect of military training: A test of the contingency

model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8,395-407.
Edwards, J.E., Rode, L.G., & Ayman, R. (1989).The construct validity of scales from four

leadership questionnaires. 171e Journal of General Psychology, 116, 171-181.
Fazio, R.H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model

as an integrative framework. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). New York: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F.E. (1966). The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance:
A test of the contingency model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2,237-264.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F.E. (1970). Leadership experience and leadership training-Some new answers to an

old problem. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,453-470.
Fiedler, F.E. (1972). Personality, motivational systems, and the behavior of high and low LPC

persons. Human Relations, 25, 391-412.
Fiedler, F.E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 59-96). New
York: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F.E. (1993). The leadership situation and the black box in contingency theories. In M.M.
Chemers & R. Ayman (I%.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions
(pp.2-28). New York: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F.E., & Chemers, M.M. (1974). Leadership and effective management. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.

Fiedler, F.E., & Chemers, M.M. (1984). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match
concept. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.

Fiedler, F.E., Chemers, M.M., & Mahar, L. (1976). Improving leadership effectiveness: Zhe leader
match concept. New York: Wiley.

Fiedler, F.E., & Garcia, J.E. (1987). New approach to effective leadership: Cognitive resources
and organizationalperformance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fiedler, F.E., & Mahar, L. (1979). A field experiment validating contingency model leadership
training. Journal of Applied of Psychology, 64, 247-254.

Fiedler, F.E., Potter, E.H., Zais, M.M., & Knowlton, W.A. (1979). Organizational stress and
the use and misuse of managerial intelligence and experience. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64,635~647.

French, J.R., L Raven, B. (1959). The basis of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies
in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Frost, D.E. (1981). The effects of interpersonal stress on leadership effectiveness. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.

Garcia, J.E. (1983). An investigation of a person-situation match interpretation of the esteem
for the least preferred coworker scale (LPC). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Salt Lake
City, University of Utah.

Geyer, L.J., & Julian, J.W. (1973). Manipulation of situational favorability in tests of the
contingency model. Journal of Psychology, 84, 13-21.

Giffort, D.W., & Ayman, R. (1989). Contingency model and subordinate satisfaction: Mental
health organizations. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Conference,
Anaheim, CA.

166 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 6 No. 2 1995

Graen, G., Alvares, K.M., Orris, J.B., & Martella, J.A. (1971). Contingency model of leadership
effectiveness: Antecedent and evidential results. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 285-296.

Graen, G., Orris, J.B., & Alvares, K.M. (1971). Contingency model of leadership effectiveness:
Some experimental results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5.5, 196-201.

House, R.J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-104). New York: Academic.

Hunt, J.G. (1967). Fiedler’s leadership contingency model: An empirical test in three
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, 290-308.

Kennedy, J.K., Houston, J.M., Korsgaard, M.A., & Gallo, D.D. (1987). Construct space of the
least preferred coworker (LPC) scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47,
807-8 14.

Kenny, D.A., & Zaccaro, S.J. (1983). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68, 678-685.

Larson, L.L., & Rowland, K.M. (1973). Leadership style, stress, and behavior in performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9,407-420.

Lord, R.G., & Maher, K.J. (1991). Leadership and information processing. Boston: Unwin
Hyman.

Markus, H., and Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.

May, ST. (1993). Heavy mettle: The effects of confidence and optimism on leader performance.
Unpublished B.A. thesis, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA.

McNamara, V.D. (1968). Leadership, staff and school effectiveness. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Alberta.

Murphy, S.E. (1992). The contribution of leadership experience and self-efficacy to group
performance under evaluation apprehension. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Nahavandi, A. (1983). The effect of personal and situational factors on satisfaction with
leadership. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Nebeker, D.M. (1975). Situational favoribility and environmental uncertainty: An integrative
study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 281-294.

Orne, M.T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular
reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17,776-

783.
Peters, L.H., Hartke, D.D., & Pohlmann, J.F. (1985). Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership:

An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmitt and Hunter. Psychological
Bulletin, 97, 274-285.

Podsakoff, P.M., and Schriesheim, C.A. (1985). Field studies of French and Raven’s bases of
power: Critique, reanalysis, and suggestions for future research. Psychological Bulletin,
97,387-411.

Podsakoff, P.M., and Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
and prospects. Journal of Management, 12,31-41.

Powell, G.N., Butterfield, D.A., & Mainiero, L.A. (1981). Sex-role identity and sex as predictors
of leadership style. Psychological Reports, 49, 829-830.

Puls, E.C. (1988). Fiedler’s contingency model: leader behavior change across situation.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.

Rice, W.R. (1978a). Construct validity of the least preferred co-worker score. Psychological
Bulletin, 8.5, 1199-1237.

Rice, W.R. (1978b). Psychometric properties of the esteem for the least preferred coworker (LPC
Scale). Academy of Management Review, 3, 106-I 18.

Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness 167

Rice, W.R. (1981). Leader LPC and follower satisfaction: A review. Orgunizurional Behavior
and Human Performance, 28, 1-25.

Rice, R.W., Marwick, N.J., Chemers, M.M., 8z Bentley, J.C. (1982). Task performance and
satisfaction: Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) as a moderator. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 8, 534-541.

Rice, R.W., & Seaman, F.J. (1981). Internal analyses of the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC)
scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 109-120.

Rubio, J. (1986). Estudio empiric0 sobre la validez de1 Modelo de la Contingencia de Fiedler
[An empirical study of the validity of Fiedler’s contingency model.] Revista de Psicologia
General y Aplicada, 41,601-614.

Sample, J.A., & Wilson, T.R. (1965). Leader behavior, group productivity, and rating of least
preferred co-worker. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I, 266-270.

Schneier, C.E. (1978). The contingency model of leadership: An extension to emergent leadership
and leader’s sex. Organizational Behavior and Human performance, 21,220-239.

Schriesheim, C.A., & Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal
of current and future directions. In J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The
cutting edge (pp. 9-44). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Shaw, M.E. (1963). Scaling group tasks: A method of dimensional analysis. JSAS Catalogue
of Selected Documents in Psychology, 3(8).

Shima, H. (1968). The leadership between the leader’s modes of interpersonal cognition and the
performance of the group. Japanese Psychological Research, 10, 13-30.

Shirakashi, S. (1991). Job stress of managers: A contingency model analysis. Organizational
Science, 25,42-5 1.

Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitx (Ed.), Advances in experimental
socialpsychology (Vol. 12, pp. 81-104). New York: Academic Press.

Spector, P.E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-report affect and perceptions at work:
Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,438443.

Staw, B.M., & Barsade, S.G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-
but-wiser vs. happier and smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304-
331.

Strube, M.J., & Garcia, J.E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler’s contingency model
of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307-321.

Tobey, A.M. (1992). Subordinate satisfaction with supervision: A dyadic or group phenomenon.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.

Triandis, H.C. (1993). The contingency model in cross-cultural perspective. In M.M. Chemers
8r R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 167-
188). New York: Academic Press.

Vecchio, R.P. (1977). An empirical examination of the validity of Fiedler’s model of leadership
effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 180-206.

Vecchio, R.P. (1980). Alternatives to the least preferred co-worker construct. 27ze Journal of
Social Psychology, I12,2 l-29.

Weiss, H.M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. l-50). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.

Yukl, G.A., & Taber, T. (1983). The effective use of managerial power. Personnel, 60, 3744.