Correlates of Leadership,, and Demographic Vttrit, bles in Three Organizational Settings ~

L. L. Larson, J. G. Hunt, and R. N. Osborn, Southern Hlinois University at Carbondale

Literature relevant to performance and satisfaction has expanded rapidly during the past two decades [2: 25, 32]. One stream of literature concentratzs on the assumption that performance and/or satisfaction criteria are related to background variables of subordi. nates and supervisors. A second major approach relates subordinate criteria to supervisory behavior. However, no studies, to our knowl- edge, combine the two approaches in attempting to determine the most parsimonious combination of background variables and leader be- havior. This article represents an attempt to combine the two ap- proaches.

Background Variables and Leader Behavior

Among those subordinate background variables showing some rela- tionship to employee criteria are: age [16, 26], experience and edu. cation [8, 25, 34], and sex [15]. Studies relating supervisory hack- ground variables to subordinate criteria are more difficult to find. Shaw [27] reviewed studies concerning the relationship between ~ge and leader performance and did not find a strong relationship. Fiedler [5], reviewing 12 separate studies, found no signifJicam relationship between supervisor experience and group performance. Finally, Day and Stogdill [3.'] reported that male and ~e:~.ale super- visors occupying parallel positions and performing similar duties dis- played similar pattern.s of leader behavior and effectiveness.

In summary, subordinate age, educatizn, experience, and sex appear to be related to employee criteria. Lowever, reported evidence of any relationship between supervisor age, experience, education, sex, and employee criteria Jis limited.

A large numbezc of leadership studies have been conducted using

Volume 2, Number 3 luly, 1974

336 ]ournal o/Business Research

a variety of approaches; however, it is beyond the scope of this study to review this literature. Instead, we concentrate on t~o leader be- havior dimensions (considera.'ion and initiating structure) from the widely used Leader Behavior l~escri~tion Questionnaire [31]. We also utiJize from that instrument the superior orientation dimension which is similar to "upward iLfluence" and which is receiving in. creasing attention in the leadersi~r |iteramre (e.g., [13, 23]).

Reviews of research using consideration and initiating structure have ~3hown a tendency for on or both variables to be relat :! to salisfaction and performance [~, 18, 19]. However, as is generally known, relationships have not been consistent enough to allow broad generalizations. Instead, leadership studies support current theory in. dicatin!:5 that the effectiveness of a given kind of leader is situational in nature, i.e., no one kind of leader behavior is generally positively related to satisfaction and effectiveness [4, 6!.

As this brief review indicates, studies tend to concentrate ol: either background variables r,f employees and supervisors or on su- pervisory leader behavior, however, as indicated above, no studies combine the two approaches and attempt to determine the most par- simonious combination of leader behavior and background variables.

Reaearch Questions and Procedure

Cons;stent with tile previous discussion, the following questions were investigated in three state institutions for the mentaUy ill o1" retarded.

(1) What is the relationship between e~ployee background vari- ables and employee perfc .lance and satisfaction?

(2) What is the relationship between ~,pervisor background vari- ables and employee performance a~d satisfaction?

(3) What is the relationship between supervisor leader behavior variables and employee p~:l'forrnance and satisfaction?

(4) When considered in combination, what is the relative predict- ~Lbility of supervisor and ~ubordinate background variables ~tnd supervisor leaqler behavior variables?

Sample Data were gathered a: three state mental institutions in a populoas midw~tern state through the use of paper and pencil ques- tionnaLires.'Employees of interest differ somewhat between institutions and the fc tlowing discussion outlines the organizational roles studied and tlae classification o~ data for analysis.

Iwsti~ation I handled retardates of all ages. Here, all first.level super~-isors and psychiatric sides (those responsible for direct patient care): except a skeleton night shit~ were potential subjects. Excl~,~ded fr~m consideration were thow. who were functionally illiterate, absent, or on vacation during the data collection period. In total 177 aides

Corrdate~ o[ ~utership and Demographic Variables 337

and 34 supervisors participated in the study, representing an aide return rate of approximately 75 !~:~ercent and a supervisor return rate of over 90 percent.

The sample population ::! institution iI was similar to institu.tion I in that all psychiatric aides and supervisors were potertial subjects; it differed in that the night shift was included and some of the aides tended retarded residents while others took care of mentally ill residents. ~ In :total, 105 aides and 23 supervisors participated in the study, representing a 44 percent return rate for aides and almost a 100 percent return rate for supervisors, a

Institution III cared for retarded children. Its sample population differed from I and II in that it was possible to include not only all three shifts of direct patient care personnel but . all other employees except the food service staff. The superintendent argued that all people in that institution were concerned with direct patient care and should be included in the sample regardless of form~tl designation. Interviews with lower level personnel confirmed this view. Excluding those absent from the institution, the 162 non.supervisory personnel and 39 supervisors participating resuhed in a return rate of almost 80 percent for non-supervisory personnel and almost 100 percent for supervisors.

The three institutions were controlled and monitored by external units. For example, patient adrnissions were not cortrolled by the institution nor could new programs be initiated withoul the consent of a state committee. In addition, limits were placed o~ discretionary spending, choice of personnel and allocation of program funds.

While all three institutions were part of and wer.~ controlled by a larger system, differences existed between them. hLstitution I was an old (opened in the 1870s)~, large, custodially-oriented facility catering to mentally retarded patients (ages 18.64) having a low probability of returning to the community. It was located in a rural area near three larger population centers.

Insfi',ution II also was old (1870s), medium in sze, and located il~ an isolated rural area. Unlike I and III it housed l~oth l:~entally ill and mentally retarde, d residents (ages 18-64) and t:eatment of the retarded was based on the institution's experience with mentally ill residents.

Institution III was relatively new (1960s), sm~tll, and housed only mentally retarded individuals under 18 years c f age. Its treat- ment approach was the more progressive of the thre~ institutions. It was similar to II in that it was located in an isolatecl rural area.

Measures All data, except pert ormance, were obtained by adm:m- istering a paper and pencil questionnaire to the subje~:ts. Each particJ-

338 Journal o] Bt~iness Research

pant was asked to provide information about his or her sex, age, years of education and experience in :mental health care (or ill the mental health field). Leader behavior measures were based on employee per- ceptions of the behavior of their immediat~ supervisor. Three dime n. skins of the Leader Behavior Descriptior Questionnaire--Form ~:II (LBDQ) [29] were selected ~rom the 12 available. The dimensions and their definitions were: (1) consideration -"leader regards the comfort, well being, status and contributions of followers"; (2) ini- tiating strueture--"leader clearly de~ines own role and lets fol- lowersknow what is expected"; and (3) tmperior orientationw "leader maintains cordial reLqfions with superiors and is striving for higher statt, s" [29]. Each dinlension consists of 10 items on a five- point scale and yields a maximum score of 50. The consideration and structure dimensions ,vere shown by Halpin [~,1"[ to have con- current criteria validity and by Stogdill [30] to have experimental criteria validity. Stcgdill [29] reported Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficients for the scales ranging from .6,9 to .87.

Satisfaction with various job aspects was measured with the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) [28]. The JDI yields satisfaction scores in five specific areag the work itself, supervision, co-workers, pay, and promotion, and is often summed to provide an overall (total) satisfaction score. Maximum scores af 54 are set for each scale and the total ma.,fimum is 270. Smith~ et al. [28] report good discriminant and convergent validity and split-half Spearman-Brown correlations ranging from .80 to .88 i'or the five scales.

Need-satisfaction was measured by utilizing Porter's [24] ques- tionnaire based on Masiow's [20] theory of motivation. Item scores connoting respective need areas of security, social, esteem, autonomy, and .,~e]f-actualization were measured on seven-point scaies. Respon. dents were asked to evaluate each area in terms of how much of the characteristic "is now" present and how much "should be" present. Szale scores from the "is now" were then subtracted ~rom the "should be" ~o give need-dissatisfaction. Following Porter [24], small dif. ferences were interpreted as meaning little dissatisfaction (more satisfa0:tion) and large discrepancies were considered to indicate much need-dissatisfaction.

Group performance rating scales were developed involving four dimensions: psychological and emotional care, physical care, opera- tions (paper work and administrative matters), and overall per- formance. 'I"hese were designed to compensate for differences among groups within the same organization. Each dimension was rated on a sevenopoint scale with more differenSation at the favorable end to allow for any tendency of respondents to give relatively few un. favorable ratings. The rating scale was similar to that used by Nealey

Correlates o[ Leadership and Demographic Variables 339

and Blood [22] and followed format and suggestions made by Georgopoulos and Mann ['9] and Barrett, Taylor, Paiker and Martens [1]. Scaie definitions were developed from discussion with admin- istrat;,,e personnel and were pretested and refined before being ~sed.

' ,e measurement of individual performance was also based on the recommendations of Georgopoulos and Mann [9] and Barrett, et al~ [1]. Descriptive anchors adapted from Glaen, Dansereau, and Minami [10] were used to rate individuals on several dimensions including overall performance. Time constraints in institution I did not permit the collection of individual performance ratings.

Wherever possible, two or more raters at the second managerial level rated the performance of individuals and groups under the direction of first-level managers. In organization I there was a single evaluation for each performance dimension per gr~,up. Intercorrela- tions between each of the performance dimensions and overall per- formance ranged from .74 to .83. Based on these substantial inter- correlation,., the higher reliability of the overall performance meas. ure, and otl~ter evidence that global measures may ~pproximate more extensive subratings [33], it was decided to use the overall rating as the performance measure. Average interrater corr,~lations were .71 and .'i8 in institution II and .58 and .77 in institution III for in- dividual and group performance, respectively. 4

Data Analysis Data in this study are treated al three levels: in- dividual; average individual, i.e., averaging of individual scores for those under a given supervisor; and group, i.e., the j ating of the entire group. The individual predictor criterion analyses highlight individ- ual differences and may be viewed as providing information for individual counseling. Average individual predictor, criterion, and group results are frequently interpreted on a mor¢; macro level?

Results

The first research question is as follow~: What is the relationship be. tween employee background variables and emFloy~e satisfaction and performance? The results are not overwhelming. At the individual level of analysis, zero-order correlations show some relationships between sex, age, experience, and performance only for institution III. As Table 1 indicates, employee background variables show some :'elationships to job satisfaction measures. This seems particularly true for institutions I and III where the sex of errployees appears to be related to a number of job satisfaction items.

Only five (out of a possible 60) relationships between employee background variables and need.satisfaction were significant (p .05). These five are institution I, education and esteem (.17); in-

340 ,lournel o! Business Research

~D

0 .,.4 4.a

4~ c~

0

,D

o

o

0

o

o ,,,,=1

r~ o

• 1 " 4 0

>,.,, ~ o

Z o r,,l

I

• i~ 41 • i~ .ii

¢~I ,.=4 (~ i

! I I

~ ,=-q ,.- i

i i i

.ic .1~ .k

i i !

i .~ ,.-o r~ l ~ ,-..¢ r. , l

I I ' I

,"-4 ~ ,-,g

.1(

.k

! ! !

i,,,, ~ 1=~4

.Je

Z ,.,=I ,..=4

I

,...4 ,--o ~

I I I

I I I

I I I

o o o

I

I ! !

O I

~D

! I

~=-i t',,l ~

! I

.ic

• o .

! I

I

I=~ ~==I i.==I

Q •

I

! I l

! l !

I

! I

I

i

~D

|1

Z

U

Z

t ~

U

Z

o~I

0 ~ a q .

u

" 0

• ~ 0

• ~ 1 , r = l

~ 1 4 . 1

• ,-I , .~

O ~

U

~.~

~ . r . l

N

O .~,1

o~.,I ID

+JP=4

"~o

.,=I • i

vl vl

,Ic

Correlates o~ Leadership and Demographic: Variables 34!

stitution II, education and security (.21); and in institution III, age and autonomy (.23), age and esteem (.22) and age and self-actualiza. finn (.23). ~ At the macro or average individual and group levels of analysis a pattern similar to individual results is found for job and need-satisfaction; however, no significant relationships exist be- tween employee average individual background variables and group performdnce ratings.

The purpose of the second research question is to examine the relationship between supervisor background variables and subordi. nate satisfaction and performance. The level of analysis by necessity compares individual supervisor background variables to average: in- dividual pecformance, job and need-satisfaction and group perform- ance. Result~ indicate no significant relationships between supervisor background variables and average individual performance; however, some relationship exists between supervisor background variables and overall group performance. As Table 2 indicates, female .'super. visors in institution I obtain bettec group performance, and years

Table :~: Correlations between Supervisor Background Variables and Employee Overall Average Individual and Group Performance

S u p e r v i s o r Background V a r i a b l e s

Overa l l Average Overa l l Group I n s t i t u t i o n a I n d i v i d u a l Performance Perfo~-mance

I NA - . 4 0 * Sex b I I - 04 - . 3 1

I I I - . 1 0 0 5

Age I NA - . 2 0

I I .11 .03 I I I - . 0 2 .11

Educat ion ( Y e a r s ) I hA .05

I I - . 2 6 . 4 2 " I I I .19 .~;4"

E x p e r i e n c e I NA - . 0 4

I I - . 1 7 .19 ~II .15 - . 1 2

a I , N = 34; II N = 23; l I I , N = 39.

bs x i s i n d i c a t e d by the p r o p o r t i o n o f males; t h e r e f o r e , a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n i n d i - c a t e s high performance for males arid a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n indi~ .ates high performance f~:r f e m a l e s .

*p <_ .05

of education are positively related to group perf.ormance in instituo tion III and negatively related to group performance in institution II. Experience and age appear to be unrelated to group performance.

"he data suggest ,nly a slight relationship between supervisory individual background variab~,-.s and subordinate average individual job and need.satisfaction (four significant correlations, p ~ .05,

342 lournal o/Business Research

out oi a possible 72 Jt%r i, ob satisfaction and four out of 60 for need. sstisfaction). Though the sig~ificant job satisfaction correlations are scattered, three of the four significant need.satisfaction vari- ables occur in :institutior, ~I where experience appears to be related to: social needs (.47), esteem needs (.42) and self.actualization needs

The third research question probes the relationship between super. visor leader behavior variables and employee performance and satis- faction. Since the leader behavior scores are based upon subordinate perceptions of their supervisor's b,-:havior, both the individual leve! of analysis and the average indzvidual and group levels of analysis are appropriate. As Table 3 indicates, consideration is related to individual, average individual, and group performance in institution III ,qnd to group performance in institution I. Structure predicts average individuai performance for institution Ii and superior orien- tation is negatively related to average individual performance in i,~- stitution IlI.

[ IIII I [I [[ I [

Table 3: Correlations between .Supervisor Leader Beb.,vior and Em- ployee Individual, Average Individual, and Group 2erformance

II ~ I I I I I W I

S u p e r v i s o r L e a d e r O v e r a l l I n d i v i d u a l O v e r a l l A v e r a g e O v e r a l l Crou~ B e h a v i o r P e r £ o r m a r c e a I n d i v i d u a l P e r f o ~ n a n c e b P e r f o r m s ce ~

I NA NA .3,6" C o n s i d e r a z i o : a c I i - . 0 1 -~04 -.C~4

I I I .~8 ~ .33* .54*

S ~ r u c ~ u r e .' !,~A N~ . t4

I I .03 . 4 0 " .26 I I I .09 .12 - . 13

I NA NA .32 S u p e r i o r I I .02 . . 2 7 - . 2 7 o r i e n t a t i o u I I I - . 8 8 - . 5 0 " * - . 1 2

a I , N = 177; I I , N = 105; I I I , N = 162. °

° I , N = 34; I I , N = 23; I I I , N = 39 .

CEach c o r r e l a t i o n has t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e o t h e r two l e a d e r s h i p d i , t e n s i o n : , p a r t i a l t ed o u t .

*p < .05

**p <_ . 0 ! e

I I II I I II I I Ill •

Consideration is by far the best predictor of individual job and ne~l-satisfz, ction (Table 4). Leader initiating structure predicts job satishctiotJ somewhat better than superior orientation and ~aeither shows any strong relationship to employee need satisfaction. Correla- tk;ns for the average individual level of analysis ~not tabled) follow the same pattern awl indicate that consideration is a strong predictor. S~xucture and superior orientation have fewer significant correhtions.

The final research question considers the relative predictabi~ y

Correlates c~ Leadership and Demographic Variables 343

I

0 0 :3

O It"')

i e -

0

• ° °

• ° .

• ° °

• i ,'~ ~ ¢'4

IJl • • •

• ° ,

0

0

• ° °

I i

• , °

I I I

• ° °

I !

I I I

• ° ,

I

• ° °

i i

• ° °

i

• ° °

! i

• ° °

i I

• °

!

• . •

i i I

imq ~ ~

• ° °

I

t

• ° °

|

I I

I I

• ° °

i

.T, • ° °

I

• d~ 0

D 0

L.

0

I=

0 Y. 4.1

t-,

,,.3 t4.,

0 tl

,,)

I I *J ~,1

u v l , . I

.,b

-i

344 Journal of Business Research

of employee and supezvisory background variables and supervisory leader behavior in combination. A step-wise regression analysis was used to determine the mo~t parsimonious combination of employee and supervisor background variables and leader behaviors. While all l,ackground and leader b~..havior variables were included, only those variables making a significant increase (at the .05 level or bet,er) ~n predictiveness are summarized. The results presented in Table 5 are most notable for the relatively large multiple R's re- suiting wh~n background variables and leader behavior dimen-ions are com!:.in,~d. As one would expect from the previous analyses, leader behavior di:mensions are the n~ost prevalent predict:,rs. In institution I sex apper rs to be an important background variable, an,~ in institu- tio,s II and III age appears to be of importance.

Dire~tionality of each of the variables shown in Table 5 can be determined by examining the signs of the Beta weitghts in the corre. sponding regression equations. The results of such an examination (not tabled) show that all oi the leader be~.c'~ior wdues with one ex. ception (institution II, structure as a predictor oi satisfaction with pay) are positive. In contrast, all values for employee age are negative. The same trend of negative Beta weight3 applies to super- visor age and also experience. Employee and supervisor education have positive values and employee experience seems to vary as a functioa of institution and/~.r criterion.

D/semi/on

Two traditional a-~sumptions pertaining to employee satisfaction and per/o~ance were examined separately an3 in additive fashion. The first assumption that employee background variables are related to employee satisfaction and/or performance was not strongly supported although there are some results worth highlighting. ~:hile the litera- ture indicates that female employee, are somewhat less satisfied than their male counterparts [15], we iind in institutions I and III that females are relatively more satisfied than their male counterparts. A possible explanation for this result might be the proportion of females iff the sample. A female employee may be more satisfied if ,.he majority of her co-workers are female (or male). Shelf6 an. alysis (not shown) to determine differences between sample means indicates that sample I has significantly more females (.01 level) '2tan sample III. Apparently the proportion of females in the sample population is not a factor in the results obtained. Neither do other differences among the institutions appear to influence tlhe results when satisfaction measures are the criteria. However, when per- fo,wnance (either individual or group) is the criterion there appear to be differences a~ong the correlations by institution.

Correlates of Leadership and Demographic l/ariables 34~5

i i

3

I c

m

( i i

| (

I ! i (

i : i

J

I

i,m

I q

i

I,, I

I '

I i

p,

p-, 0

.i

.<

t ~

I-

f (

4 .~ o

.,'4

O~

t

i ,o

O~

) ix

I-4

, I - I , 4 U) , 4 ,"4 , - J U I - - I 1 , 4 4 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G'~ f,,'l I".. ~,D O'~ ,-4 CO ~ I ' .- o4 t".. (~,

u~ u~ ~ ~nO~ tO tO < u~

• , o o 8 ~ o

--

,'~ ,-I (/~ u~l (/} ,-I ,-4 ,,,-4 ill ~ I ,.-I 0 0 • 0 ' 0 0 0 (D C, 0 • • • ~ • ~ . . . . . . . Z

¢) ¢) OJ

,-4 ~ I ,'-4 ~ ,-.4 ,---I *-'I ~ I.Cl U"I ,-4 , - I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IU tO X o.

I n m

S

• ,-I Q) • 1.1 {J

0 ~ ~ ~

~ ' " =o ~ .," d

• ,~ (11 0 ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~

II

0

l.l (I)

I1

IlJ

0 r-4

It

-,-4 ,i,..I

4.1

.,-4

0

0 -,-4

t ~

0

to ; ~ l a

d J~

m ~ ~ •

,, .51 f, Z l.J .,.,t

,,. I,d ~l

• ,-| ~ ... ul r,.1

U ,-4

ql -,-t

,%

346 Jou'na! o/Business Research

~elafionships between superv~:~r background variables and em- ployee satisfaction and/or performance also were sparse. While fema~,~ ~, supervisors in sample I achieved higher performance than male~.~, a~cl there was a negative relationship between the level of edu. cation and performance in sample II and a positive relationship in sample I~, ~le more interesting result is for the variable, experience. In all three samples no significant relationship was found between experlience and performance. This result supports Fiedler's findings [5]. Since experience appears to be frequently used as a selection criterion for supervisory personnel, the lack of a relationship is notewor~y.

The second assumption is tlmt supervi,~. ," leader behavior in- iiuences performance and s~tisfaction. Overall results from the three samples suggest that leader consideration is the best predictor of performance, job and need-sat~isfaction. While this appears to sup- port the more simplistic theory Y types [21] of leader moJels, a number of explanations are possible. Not the 1-ast of these is that the situation,~ in all three samples are influenced by a larger state bureaucracy which appears to establish a nigh degree of structure for employees. Further, so~.~..: data suggest that initiating sl~xucture from the leader may be seen ~s unnecessary or redundant where there is a grea~ deal of non-leader structure [14]. Hence, perhaps where the organi.~,ation is rigidly structured and non-leader sources of struc- ture are ~,Imerous, initiating structure may have no relationsh~'!p or a negative :relations'nip with satisfaction [17, 18]. On the ¢~lher hand, if bureaucratic structuring is perceived negatively by the employees, "consideration" may be especially prized.

While neither employee nor supervisor background va~-iabk!~,s pre- dict well by themselves, the forraer do irequently appear to be good predictors in combination with leadership. Where signii!icant, the median propo,~icn of additional variance added by these variables beyond that ol leadership alone is ]2 percent. This result, coupled with the relative ease of obtaining such variables, ,~uggests that demo- graphics may be quite usei~ul in selection and placement. Such a find- ing, at Che very least, suggests that leadership-demographic combina- tions ovght to be examined in fut~are studies.

A bro,ader question implicit i:, this study is the potential influence of organizational and institutional factors. Results for t~le research quest.lons involving satisfaction criteria are similar acros,~ organiza- tions, and state bureaucratic policies seem to loom large. However, even with this bureaucratic: umbrella there are several differences s~I~en peri'orr,,ance is the criterion. Here, the nature of the institution may be iimportant in addition Io combinations of leadership and demograp}iic variables.

Correlates o~ Leadership and Demographic Variables 347

Fooi~notes

1This study was conducted under contract 1 RO1 MH17416.01 apd 02 with th." Mental Health Service Branch of the National Institute of Mental t~ealth, J. C. ]-]uril, principal investigator. The authors wish to acknowledge ~he assistance of P. Dully. G. Yunker, and E. Lloyd who assisted in various phases of the study.

2When the predictor-criterion relationships were examined, it was fount{ that partialling out the type of resident cared for (retardate or mentally ill~ mad~ essentially ;;,~ difference.

3Prior to this study, a job re-evaluation study using paper and pencil questio1~naires had been conducted in institution II. While those conducting the study had promist.d employees that there would be no negative repercussions, some demotions and decreases in salary resulted from the study. Despite elaborate efforts on the authors' part, including a six month delay in data collection, the employees were reluctant to complete the ql,,~st ~,onnaire.

For a more detailed discussion, see Hunt, OGhorn, and Larsc, r~-.~ I . t * . t .

5Items were reverse scored so that positive correlations indicate that high predictor scores are positively associated with high need-sa:i~fe,'tion scor~-:.

Reterences 1. Barrett, R. S.; Taylor, E. K.; Parker, J. W.; and Martens, W. L. "Rating Scale

Content: I Scale Information and Supervisory Ratings." Personnel Psychology 11 (1956) : 333-346.

2. Brayfield, A. H. a1,~d Crockett, W. H. "Employee Attitudes and Employee Per- formance." Psychological Bulletin 52 (1955): 396.424.

3. Day, D. R. and St0gdill, R. M. "Leader Behavior of Male and Female Supervisors: A Comparative Study." Personnel Psychology 25 {1972~: 353.360.

4. Fiedler, F. E. d Theory o/ Leadership Ef/ectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hil|, 1967. 5. Fiedler, F. E. "L~adership Experience and Leader Performance--Another Hypothesis

Shot to Hell." Orgat'~izationai Behavior and Human PerJormance 5 (1970~: 1-17o 6. Filley, A. C. and House, R. J. Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior.

Glen~iew, Ill.: Scott Foresman, 1.°59. 7. Fleishman, E. A. "Twenty Years of Considera:ion and Structure." In Current

Developmer,,.ts in the Study o] Leadership, edited by E. A. Fieishman and J. G. Hunt. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973.

8. Froelich, H. P. a*.d Wolins, L. "Job Satisfaction as Need Satisfaction." Personnel Psychology ] 3 (1960) : 407-420.

9. Georgopou!os, G. S. and Mann, F. C. The Community General Hospital. New York: MacMillan, 1962.

10. Graen, G.; Dansereau, F.; and Minami, J. "Dysfunctional Leadership Styles." Organi- zational Behavior and Human Performance 7 {1972~: 21G2"36.

11. Halpin, A. "The Leader Behavior and Effectiveness of Aircraft Commanders.,' In Leader Behavior: lts Description and Measurement, edited by R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons. Columbus, Oh.: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Mono- graph #88~ 1957.

12. Hollander, E. P. and Julian, J. W. "Contemporary Trends "'. 'he Analysis of Leader- ship Processes." Psychological Bulletin 71 (1969): 387-397.

13. House, R. J.; Filley, A. C.; and Gujarati, D. N. "Leadership Style, Hierarchical Influence, and the Satisfaction of Subordinate Role Expectations: A Test of Likert's Influence Proposition." Journal o/ Applied Psychology 55 (1971~: 422-432.

14. House, R. J. and Dessler, G. "The Path Goal Theory of Leadership: Some Post Hoc and A Priori Tests." In Contingency Approaches ~o Leadership, edited by J. G. Hunt a,.nd L. L. Larson. Carbondaie, IlL: Southern Illinois University Press, forthcoming.

348 Journal o~ Business Research

15. Hulin, C. L. and '~mith, P. C. "Sex Differences in Job Satisfaction." lournrd o/ Appl~hed Psychology 48 (1964) : 88.92.

16. |lulin, C. L. and Smith, P. C. "A LineaJ [~[odel ,~ Job Sati,Jaetion." Journal o/ Applied Psychology 49 q1966): 209-216.

17. ltunL J. G.; Osborn, R. N.; and Larson, L. L. Leadership E.Oectirenoss in Mental i~nstitu~io.~s. Final Technical Report, National Institute of Mental Health, 1973.

18. Kerr. S.; Sch~esheim, C. A.; Murphy, C. J.; and Stogdill, R. M. "Toward a Con- tingency Theory of Leadershiip Based upon the C'onsideration and Initiating Structure Literature." Organizational Behavior and Human Per/ormance, in press.

19. Lowin, A.; Hrapchak, W. J.; and Kavanagh, M. J. "Experimental Investigation of Consideration and Initiating Structure." Administratiz'e Science Qt,~rterty 14 (le~69): 238-253.

20. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Bros.. 1954. 2L McGregor, D. The Human Side o/ Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1960. 2~. Neale~, S. M. and Blood, M. R. "Leadership Performance of Nursing Supervis,:)r.~

at Two Organizational Levels." Journal o/ Applied Psyc:nolog) 52 ~1968): 414-422. 23. Pelz, D. C. "Influence: A Key to Effective !.~adership in the First-l.evel Supervisor."

Personnel (November 1952): 3-11. 24. Porter, L. W. "A Study o[ Perceived N~t~d Satisfaction in Bottom and Middl~

Management Jobs." Journal o~ 4pp/ied Psychology 45 ¢1961J: l-lb. 25. Ronan, W. W. "Individual and Situational Variables Relating to Job Satisfaction."

Journal o/ Applied Psychology, Monograph #54 ~1970): No. ], Part 2. 26. Saleh, S. D. and Otis, J. L. "Age and Level of Job Satisfactiov_." Personnel

Psyc;~ology 17 (196~: 425-430. 27. Shaw, M. E. Group Dynami,:s: The Psychology o/ Small Group ~ei~et, ior. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1971. 28. Smith, P. C.; Kendall. L.; and Hulin, C. L. The Measure,~e~qt o/ Saris.faction in

Work and Retirement: ,4 Strategy #,r the Study o/ Atilt, des. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1%9.

29. Stogdill, R. M. Mammal/or the Leader Behavior Description Questionnair: form Xli. Columbus, Oh.: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1%3.

30. $~gdill: R. M. "Validity of Leader Behavior Descriptions." Personnel Psychology 22 ~1969): 153-158.

31. Stogdiil, R. M. and Coon,:, .A., eds. Leader Behavior: Its Description nnd Measure. ment. Columbus, Oh.: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Mona. graph #88, 1957.

32. Vroom, V. H. Work and Motiration. New York: '~itey, 196~.L. ~ . Whitlock,, G. H. "Application of the Psychophysical Law to Performance Evaluation."

Journal of Applied Psych~dogy 47 (1963): 15-23. ~ . Yuzuk, R. P. The /issessr,~ent o~ Employee .]lorale: .4 Uompc, rison o/ Two Measures.

Columbus, Oh.: Ohio State University, Bureau of Busines~ Re~earch, Monograph #99, 1961.