Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership

5/27/2018 Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership

1/27

{ R G AN IZ A TIO N A I~ B E ,t tA V IG R A N D H U M A N P E RF O RM A N C E 6 , 4 1 4 - 4 4 0 (19,71)

T o w a r d a B e h a v i o r a l T h e o r y o f L e a d e r s h i pGARY YUKL

Department of Psychology The University oj AkronAkron Oh io ~804A great deal of the apparent inconsistency in the leadership literature maybe due to semantic confusion about leader behavior and to the absence of aeoneeptual framework which includes intermediate and situationM variables.

A system of three distinct leader behavior dimensions is proposed to reducethis confusion. Two of the dimensions are similar to the familiar variables,Consideration and Initiating Structure. The third dimension, Decision-Cen-tralization, refers to the extent to which a leader allows his subordinates toparticipate in decision-making. A discrepancy model is developed to explainthe relation between leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with theleader. A multiple linkage model is developed to explain how the leader be-havior variables interact with situational variables to determine group pro-ductivity. A review of the leadership literature revealed that the results ofprevious research are generally consistent with the proposed models. Thecompatibility of the linkage model with F~edler s Contingency Model is dis-cussed, and suggestions for future research are offered.

Despite over two decades of extensive leadership research, the relationof leader behavior to subordinate productivity and satisfaction with theleader is still not very dear. The apparent absence of consistent rela-tionships in the research literatu re (Sales, 1966; Norman , 1966; Lowin,1968) may be due in part to several related problems. First, there is agreat deal of semantic confusion regarding the conceptual and opera-tional definition of leadership behavior. Over the years there has been aproliferation of leader behavior terms, and the same term is oftendefined differently from one study to the next. Secondly, a great dealof empirical data has been collected, but a theoretical framework whichadequately explains causal relationships and identifies limiting con-ditions has not yet emerged. Finally, the research has often failed toinclude intermediate and situational variables which are necessary inorder to unders tand how a leader s actions can affect his subo rdina tesproductivity.The purpose of this article is to begin the development of a theorywhich explains how leader behavior, situational variables, and inter-

1The author is grateful to Is2en Wexley and Alexis Anikeeff for their helpful com-ments.414


2/27

B E H A V IO R A L T H E O R Y O F L E A D E R S H I P ~ 5

mediate variables interact to determine subordinate productivity andsatisfaction with the leader. In the first section of the article, a systemof three distinct and generally applicable leader behavior dimensionswill be proposed. In the next two sections, these leadership dimensionswill be used to develop a discrepancy model of subordinate satisfactionand a multiple linkage model of leader effectiveness. Finally, the extentto which the research literature supports these behavioral models wiltbe evaluated.

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N O F L E A D E R B E H A V I O R

Cons idera t ion and In i t i a t ing S t ruc tureSome early investigators began with a list of very specific leadershipactivities (e.g., inspection, write reports, . . . . hear complaints ) andattempted to determine how performance of these activities or theamount of time allocated to them related to leader success. Since thenumber of specific leader activities that are possible is nearly endless,several Ohio State University psychologists attempted to find a fewgeneral behavior dimensions which would apply to all types of leaders.Factor analyses of leadership behavior questionnaires were carried out,and two orthogonal factors were found (Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Halpin& Winer, 1957). These factors were called Consideration and In itiatingStructure. Consideration refers to the degree to which a leader acts ina warm and supportive manner and shows concern and respect for hissubordinates. Initiating Structure refers to the degree to which a leaderdefines and structures his own role and those of his subordinates towardgoal atta;nment.

The principal method for measuring these variables has been the useof either the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (Hemphill &Coons, 1957) or the Supervisory Behavior Description questionnaire(Fleishman, 1957a). These questionnaires are administered to a leader'ssubordinates. A related questionnaire, called the Leadership OpinionQuestionnaire (Fleishman, 1957b), is administered to the leader him-self. This questionnaire is considered to be a measure of leader attitudesrather than leader behavior. Occasionally other observers, such as peersor superiors, are the source of leader behavior descriptions, and in somestudies Consideration and Initiating Structure are experimentally ma-nipulated by having leaders play predetermined roles.Deci s ion Cent ra l i za t ion

A somewhat different approach to the classification of leaders wasinitiated by Lewin's (1944) theoretical typology of democratic, auto-


3/27

416 ~AgY YU~Leratie, and laissez-faire leaders. St,udies following in this tradition haveusually focused on the relative degree of leader and subordinate in-fluence over the group's decisions. The various decision-making pro-eedures used by a leader, such as delegation, joint decision-making,consultation, and autocratic decision-making, can be ordered along acontinuum ranging from high subordinate influence to complete leaderinfluence. Although a leader will usually allow more subordinate par-tieipation and influence for some decisions than for others, the averagedegree of participation can be computed for any specified set of typicaldecisions, tIeller and Yukl (1969) have used the term Decision-Cen-tralization to refer to this average. A high Decision-Centralization scoremeans a low amount of subordinate participation. Naturally, a leaderis capable of voluntarily sharing decision-making with his subordinatesonly to the extent that he has authority to make decisions.

Most methods that have been used to measure participation can alsobe regarded as a measure of Decision-Centralization. Participation andDecision-Centralization have been measured by subordinate ratings oftheir perceived autonomy or influence in decision-making, by subordinateresponses to a questionnaire concerning the leader's decision behavior,and by leader responses to a decision behavior questionnaire. In somestudies the leader's actual decision-making behavior has been experi-mentally manipulated. The term Decision-Centralization was introducedfor two reasons. First, this term emphasizes the behavior of the leaderrather than the behavior of the subordinates. Second, the definition ofDecision-Centralization explicitly encompasses a greater variety ofleader decision procedures than does the typical definition of partici-pat ion (Heller & Yukl, 1969).2Reconc i ling the Two pproaches to Leader Beha v ior C lass if ica t ionIs Decision-Centralization equivalent to Consideration and InitiatingStructure, or is it a distinct leadership dimension? The degree to whichthe three dimensions are independent depends upon the precise definitionsgiven them. Since the definitions vary from study to study, it is not sur-prising that there is some disagreement regarding the relation betweenthese dimensions. For example, Lowin (1968) has suggested that Initi-ating Structure is conceptually similar to autocratic supervision, Sales(1966) has suggested th at employee orientation (which includes highConsideration) is usually associated with democratic leadership, andNewport (1962) has suggested that Consideration and Initia ting Strue-

Despite my preference for the term Decision-Centralization, the more familiarterm participation will usually be used when discussing the direction of correlationsin order to avoid confusion.


4/27

B E H V I O R L T H E O R Y O F L E D E R S H I P 417ture are similar, respectively, to democratic and autocratic leadership.On the other hand, Gomberg (1966), MeMurry (1958), Schoenfeld(1959), and Stanton (t962) have claimed that high Consideration andautocratic leadership are not incompatible, or in other words, that Con-sideration and Decision-Centralization are separate dimensions.

There are several sound theoretical arguments for treating Decision-Centralization as a separate dimension of leader behavior. Let us lookfirst at the relation between Consideration and Decision-Centralization.The Consideration scale in the Ohio State questionnaires includes sev-eral items pertaining to the decision-making participation of subordi-nates, and Consideration is sometimes defined as including the sharingof decision-making with subordinates. However, one can argue that thissharing is only considerate of subordinates when they clearly desireparticipation, and the desire for participation can vary substantiallyfrom person to person and from situation to situation. Inclusion of par-ticipation items in a Consideration scale results in scores which are notcomparable across persons unless first adiusted for differences in partici-pation preferences. It is more practical to define Consideration as simplythe degree to which a leader s behavior expresses a positive att ituderather than an indifferent or negative attitude toward subordinates. Whendefined in this manner, Consideration can be regarded as conceptuallydistinct from Decision-Centralization. In general, a high Considerationleader is friendly, supportive, and considerate; a low Considerationleader is hostile, punitive, and inconsiderate. A leader who acts in-different and aloof is between these extremes but is closer to the lowend of the continuum. The specific behaviors used in sealing Considera-tion should be generally applicable to all types of leadership situations.

What about the relation between Decision-Centralization and Initi-ating Structure? Although Initiating Structure is defined broadly as task-oriented behavior, it appears to include at least three types of task be-havior: (1) Behavior indicating the leader s concern about productivity(e.g., goal-oriented comments to subordinates, and use of various rewardsand punishments to encourage productivity), (2) behavior insuring thatnecessary task decisions are made, and (3) behavior insuring th at thesedecisions and directives from higher levels in the organization arecarried out (e.g., training and supervision). Note that this definition doesnot specify who will actually make the decisions. The task orientationof the leader does not appear to be very closely related to the amountof influence he will allow subordinates in the making of task or mainte-nance decisions. Even very autocratic leaders can differ considerablywith respect to their task orientation and concern about group per-formanee. Therefore, it seems reasonable to treat Initiating Structure


5/27

418 OARY YC~Land Decision-Centralization as separate dimensions of leader behavior.

The empirical evidence on the relation of Decision-Centralization toConsideration and Initiating Structure is scanty, and the research whichwill be cited should be regarded as suggestive rather than conclusive.Most of these studies use the Consideration scale of the Leader BehaviorDescription Questionnaire, which includes some participation items.Naturally these items increase the likelihood of finding a significant cor-relation between Consideration and Decision-Centralization.

In a study of 67 second-line supervisors in three companies, thisauthor found a low but significant correlation (r = - - . 24 ; p < .05) be-tween Consideration and Decision-Centralization. Decision-Centraliza-tion was measured by means of leader responses on the decision pro-cedure questionnaire (Form C) described in Heller and YukI (1968).There was no significant correlation between Decision-Centralizationand Initiating Structure.

Other evidence is provided by analyses of a more recent version ofthe Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, which has ten newsubscales in addition to the original scales for Consideration and Initi-ating Structure. One of the new scales, called Tolerance of MemberFreedom, can be regarded as a measure of part icipation or Decision-Centralization. Stogdill, Goode, and Day (1962, 1963, 1964) admin-istered this questionnaire to subordinates of corporation presidents,labor union presidents, community leaders, and ministers. The correla-tions between Consideration and Tolerance of Member Freedom forthe four samples, respectively, were .41, .42, .40, and .49. For a sampleof office supervisors rated by female subordinates on this questionnaire,the correlation was .50 (Beer, 1966). 3 Decision-Centralization andInitiating Structure were not significantly correlated in any of the fivesamples just described.Argyle, Gardner, and Cioffi (1957) analyzed the relation amongleadership dimensions as measured by questionnaires administered tomanagers in England. Demo.eratie (vs authoritarian) leadership oor-related .41 with nonpunitive (vs punitive) leadership. Democratic leader-ship was not significantly correlated with pressure for production, acomponent of Initiating Structure.

If we remember to reverse the sign of the correlation when necessaryin order to correct for the fact that high participation equals low De-cision-Centralization, then it is obvious tha t the results of these studiesare remarkedly consistent. Decision-Centralization and Initiating Struc~

~Signifieanee levels for tl le correlations were not given, but judging from thesample sizes, they should all be significant at the .05 level or better.


6/27

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP 419ture appear to be independent dimensions. Decision-Centralization andConsideration should probably be regarded as oblique rather thanorthogonal dimensions. That is, there will tend to be a low to moderatenegative correlation between them, but some leaders will have highscores on both dimensions ( benevolent autocrat ) and some leaderswill have low scores on both dimensions ( malevolent democrat ).

A DISCREPANCY MODEL OF SUBORDINATE SATISFACTIONWITH THE LEADERIn this section, a discrepancy model of satisfaction will be used to

explain the relation of the three leadership dimensions to subordinatesatisfaction with the leader. Discrepancy or subtraction models of jobsatisfaction have been proposed by a number of psychologists (Morse,953; Sehaffer, 1953; Rosen & Rosen, 1955; Ross & Zander, 1957;Porter, 1962; Katzell, 1964; Locke, 1969). In a discrepancy model, satis-faction is a function of the difference between a person's preferencesand his actual experience. The less the discrepancy between preferencesand experience, the greater the satisfaction. This hypothesis has receivedsome support in the studies cited above, but the evidence is by nomeans conclusive. In some versions of the discrepancy model there isa second hypothesis which states that the amount of dissatisfactionwith a given discrepancy also depends upon the importance of the needsaffecting the preference level. If importance varies from person to person,the discrepancy scores cannot be compared unless first adjusted forimportance. Whether such a correction is necessary, and if so, how itshould be made appears to be a matter of growing controversy.

Although the discrepancy model appears to be applicable to the anal-ysis of subordinates' satisfaction with their leader, only a few studieshave used it for this purpose. In two of these studies (Foa, 1957; Greet,1961), leadership variables other than Consideration, Initiating Struc-ture, and Decision-Centralization were used. No studies were foundwhich included subordinate preferences for Consideration and InitiatingStructure as a moderating variable. The results from studies whichhave included subordinate preferences for participation in decision-mak-ing tend to be consistent with the discrepancy model.

According to the proposed discrepancy model, the shape of the curverelating leader behavior to subordinate satisfaction will vary somewhatdepending upon a subordinate's preference level. A preference level willbe defined tentatively as a range of leader behavior acceptable to subor-dinates rather than as a single point on a behavior continuum. Figure 1shows the theoretical curves for a low, medium, and high preferencelevel. The curves represent the relation for a single subordinate. When


7/27

420 GARY YUK L

Z h i g h0

~oq

to} Jow P Ll o w

A

h i g hB E H A V I O R

z h i g h0

w

o w

l o w

B

P i X ~h i g h

B E H A V I O R

=h~gh iUI STRUCTURE

SUBORDINATE kMOTIVATIONORGANIZATION RMANCB

~I SUBORDINATESKILL LEVEL1 SITUATIONALL V RI BLES

FIG. 3. A multiple linkage model of leader effectiveness.

The ordering of the other combinations is less certain, because the in-teraction appears to be highly complex and irregular. If leaders weresubgrouped according to their Initiating Structure scores, for high struc-turing leaders there would probably be a positive relation between Con-sideration and subordinate task motivation. For low structuring leaders,there is some reason to suspect that the relation between Considerationand subordinate motivation is described by an inverted U-shaped cm've.In other words, subordinate task motivation can be adversely affectedwhen the low structuring leader is either very supportive and friendlyor very hostile and punitive.

There are at least two hypotheses for explaining the interaction be-tween Consideration and Initiating Structure, and it is not yet clear ifeither or both are correct. From ins trumental ity theory (Vroom, 1964,p. 220; Galbraith & Cummings, 1967), comes the hypothesis that aleader can improve subordinate performance by being highly considerateto subordinates who make an effort to perform well, while withholdingConsideration from subordinates who show little task motivation. Ineffect, considerate behavior is a reward which is contingent upon thedisplay of certain task-motivated behavior by subordinates.

The identi fication hypothesis proposes that subordinate motivat ionis a response to previous leader Consideration rather than an attempt toobtain future Consideration. As Consideration increases, subordinate at-titudes toward the leader become more favorable and his influence overthe subordinates increases correspondingly. In effect, the considerateleader has greater referent power (French & Raven, 19,59). However,in order for subordinate loyalty to be translated into task motivation,it is necessary for the leader to communicate a concern for productivity.If the leader is highly considerate but does not stress productivity, thesubordinates are likely to feel that they can safely neglect their tasks.


11/27

424 Q a Y YUKLIf a leader actually becomes hostile and punitive, it is likely that

subordinate task motivation will be adversely affected, regardless of thelevel of Initiating Structure. Punitive leadership can lead to counter-aggression by subordinates in the form of slowdowns and subtle sabotage(Day & Hamblin, 1964).Decision Centralization and Subordinate Motivation

Although there is some direct evidence that subordinate participationcan result in increased task motivation (Baumgartel, 1956), the natureand relat ive importance of the psychological processes accounting forthe relation and the prerequisite conditions for their occurrence are notyet clear. A number of explanations for the effect of participation onsubordinate motivation have been proposed during the last two decades.

Probably the most important of the proposed processes is the pos-sibili ty th at subordinates become ego-involved with a decision whichthey have helped to make. When subordinates identify with a decision,they become motivated to help make the decision successful, if only tomaintain a favorable self-concept. However, there may be several limit-ing conditions for this causal sequenee (Strauss, 1964; Vroom, 19'64;Lowin, 1968). It is possible that there is some minimal amount of in-dividual influence, actual or perceived, which is necessary before iden-tification will occur. As a group gets larger, the influence of each memberover a decision will necessarily decline; thus the size of the group maybe one limiting factor. Also, it is not clear whether a person who supportsa proposal that is rejected will become committed to the proposal finallyselected by the group. Another prerequisite may be the subordinate's per-ception that the decision process is a test of his decision ability and thoseskills of his which are used in implementing the decision. In the ease wheresubordinates participate in making decisions unrelated to their tasks,there is no reason to assume that any increased commitment to these de-cisions will generalize to task decisions. Finally, if responsibility formaking decisions is thrust upon subordinates who do not want it or whosee it as the legitimate role of the leader, then these subordinates mayfail to identify with the decisions (French, Israel, & As, 1960).

Another explanation of the relation between Decision-Centralizationand task motivation is that participation facilitates reduction of subor-dinate resistance to change (Coch & French, 1948). One way this couldoccur is through direct persuasion. Since the leader is usually not awareof all the subordinates' fears an.d doubts regarding a proposed change,consultation provides him with an opportunity to uncover these fearsand to persuade subordinates that the change will be beneficial rather


12/27

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LF~gDERSHIP 4: 5

than harmful. When a leader's proposal involves features which clearlyare detrimental to subordinates, mere persuasion is not likely to win theirsupport. However, consultation or joint decision-making provides theopportunity for bargaining and agreement on a compromise proposalwhich the subordinates can support (Strauss, 1964).

When the leader allows his subordinates to make a group decision,the interaction dynamics of the group are yet another possible sourceof increased task motivation. If the work group is cohesive, its membersare subject to direct social pressure to conform to group norms (Schachter,Willerman, Festinger, & Hyman, 1961; Berkowitz, 1954; Seashore, 1954).In addition, the work group may function as a reference group for itsmembers (Neweomb, 1965, p. 109). Subordinates who have positive atti-tudes toward their work group will tend to support group norms, includ-ing group decisions made in a legitimate manner. This tendency for mem-ber attitudes and behavior to be consistent with reference group normswill occur even in the absence of direct social pressure.

Of course, increased commitment to carry out decisions is not con-ceptually equivalent to increased task motivation. Subordinates canmake task decisions which in effect restrict output or resist change.Subordinate attitudes toward the leader and the organization constitutean important situational variable which moderates the effect of partici-pation upon task motivation. If relations between the leader and thesubordinates are very poor, or the subordinates are in opposition to thegoal of maximum group performance, then participation in decisions in-volving production goals, standards, quotas, etc., is not likely to result inincreased subordinate task motivation (Strauss, 1964:). Since Considera-tion is an important determinant of subordinate attitudes toward theleader, participation is more likely to be effective if combined with highConsideration than if combined with low Consideration.L e a d e r e h a v i o r a n d S u b o r d i n a t e T as lc S k i l l

The second way in which leaders can increase group performance isto increase the ability of subordinates to perform their individual tasks.A number of studies (reviewed in Vroom, 1964, p. 197) support Maier's(1965) hypothesis that performance is a function of a person's Motiva-tion X Ability. According to this hypothesis, even highly motivated sub-ordinates will not perform well if they lack the necessary knowledge orskills to carry out their assignments. Therefore, one way for a leader toimprove group performance is to correct deficiencies in subordinate taskskills and knowledge by means of on-the-job instruction and improveddownward communication of task-relevant information. Instruction and


13/27

426 GAnY YV~_~communication of this nature are, by definition, elements of InitiatingStructure. A more complex analysis of the relation between InitiatingStructure and subordinate task skill was beyond the seope of this article.T he N a t ur e o f T as k R o l e O r gan iz a ti on

Task-Role Organization refers to how efficiently the skill resources ofsubordinates are utilized to perform the group's formal tasks. Adequacyof Task-Role Organization depends upon how well job assignment de-cisions and work method decisions are made. The making of job assign-ment decisions is usually referred to in industrial psychology as place-ment or classification. When the jobs of each subordinate are identicaland subordinates work independently of each other, it doesn't matterwhat subordinates are assigned to what jobs. However, when jobs arehighly specialized, each job has different skill requirements, and skilldifferences among subordinates are substantial, then job assignmentsare an important type of task decision. If work assignments are not madecarefully, the skills of some workers will not be fully utilized, while otherworkers will be placed in jobs which they cannot perform adequately.Furthermore, if the jobs are interdependent, bottlenecks will occur atvarious points in the flow of work.Work method decisions are important whenever a task can be per-formed in many different ways, and some ways are better than others.Work methods and procedures can be designed with the available skillsof a particular work group in mind, but it is common practice in indus-trial engineering to ignore individual differences and develop methodswhich maximize the efficiency of the typical worker. Decisions aboutwork procedures are not always the responsibility of the leader. In someorganizations, work methods are designed by staff specialists or arerigidly prescribed by company or union regulations.

Task-Role Organization was included in the multiple linkage model toaccount for any variability in group productivity which is not attribut-able to subordinate motiva{ion, subordinate ability, or to extraneousevents such as an improvement in the flow of material inputs, a break-down in equipment, etc. The identification of Task-Role Organization asa separate variable is analogous to Maier's (1965) distinction betweenthe quality of a decision and group acceptance of the decision. AlthoughTask-Role Organization is an important conceptual component of themultiple linkage model; measurement of this variable is likely to provetroublesome. Any measure of Task-Role Organization will be highlyspecific to a given set of tasks and subordinates. Wi thi n a specific situa-tion, one could attempt to scale the adequacy of job assignment de-cisions by evaluating the match between iob requirements and subor-


14/27

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF L]~ADERSHIP 4 7

d i na t e sk i ll s fo r a ll poss i b l e com bi na t i ons o f i ob a s s i gnm en t s . A de qu ac yo f w o r k m e t h o d d e c is io n s c o u ld b e e v a l u a t e d i n s e v e r a l w a y s . I n s o m es i t u a t i o n s , t h e a c c u m u l a t e d k n o w l e d g e o f i n d u s t r i a l e n g i n e e r i n g s p e -c i a li s ts m a y p e r m i t t h e s u b j e c t i v e r a n k i n g o f v a r i o u s p o s s i b l e w o r k p r o -cedures ac co rd i ng t o the i r r e l a t i ve e ffic iency. W hen ob j e c t i ve m easu re s o fg roup pe r fo rm anc e (e .g ., qua n t i t y o r qu a l i t y o f ou t pu t , l abo r t im e , e r ro r s )a re ava i l ab l e t o u se a s a c r i t e r i on o f e f f i c i ency , t hen a l t e rna t i ve w orkm e t h o d s m a y b e e x p e r i m e n t a l l y c o m p a r e d . H o w e v e r , i t m a y b e d i f f i c u l tt o h o l d t a s k m o t i v a t i o n c o n s t a n t , e v e n w i t h i n a s i n g l e w o r k g r o u p , b e -cause j ob des i gn can a f f ec t t he i n t r i n s ic m o t i va t i on o f w o rke r s a s w e l las their efficiency.In i t ia t ing S truc ture D ec is ion-Centra l iza t ion andTask-Role Organiza t ion

B o t h I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e a n d D e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l i z a t i o n a p p e a r t o b ere l a t ed t o Task -Ro l e O rgan i za t i on . By de f i n i t i on , a l eade r w ho i s h i gh i nIn i t i a t i ng S t ruc t u re w i l l a t t em pt t o i m p rove t he e f fi ci ency o f h i s g roup .H o w e v e r , s i m p l y e n g a g i n g i n s t r u c t u r i n g b e h a v i o r d o e s n o t g u a r a n t e et:hat Ta sk -R o l e O rg an i za t i on w i ll im p rove . Th e l ead e r s success dependsupon h i s o rgan i z i ng sk i l l s , t e chn i ca l know l edge , and t he ex t en t t o w h i chh e t a p s t h e k n o w l e d g e o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s b y a l l o w i n g t h e m s o m e d e g r e eo f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n m a k i n g t a s k d e c is io n s . T h e r e l a ti o n b e t w e e n D e c i s io n -C e n t r a l iz a t i o n a n d T a s k - R o l e O r g a n i z a ti o n i s m o d e r a t e d b y t h e r e la t i v ea m o u n t o f l e a d e r a n d s u b o r d i n a t e o r g a n iz in g s k il ls a n d t a s k k n o w l e d g e .W h e n t h e l e a d e r i s v e r y c a p a b l e i n t h i s r e s p e c t b u t t h e s u b o r d i n a t e sl ack t he app rop r i a t e t a l en t s , t hen t he re w i l l be a nega t i ve r e l a t i on be -t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t io n a n d T a s k - t l. o le O r g a n iz a t io n . W h e n t h e s u b o r d i n a t e sh a v e m o r e r e l e v a n t k n o w l e d g e a n d o r g a n i z i n g t a l e n t t h a n t h e l e a d e r , w ew o u l d e x p e c t a p o s i t iv e r e la t io n b e t w e e n p a r t i c ip a t i o n a n d T a s k - R o l eO r g a n i z a ti o n . W e h a v e a l r e a d y s e e n t h a t D e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l i z a t i o n c a na f f e c t t h e t a s k m o t i v a t i o n o f s u b o r d i n a t e s a s w e l l a s th e q u a l i t y o f t a s kdec i s i ons . Th i s m eans t ha t i n t he s i t ua t i on w here t he re i s a nega t i ver e l a ti o n b e t w e e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d T a s k - R o l e O r g a n i z at io n , t h e r e m a ya ls o b e a p o s it i v e r e l a ti o n b e t w e e n p a r t i c ip a t i o n a n d s u b o r d i n a t e m o -t i v a t i o n . W h e n s u c h a t r a d e - o f f d i l e m m a o c c u r s , s o m e i n t e r m e d i a t e d e -g r e e o f D e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l i z a t i o n w i l l p r o b a b l y b e o p t i m a l w i t h r e s p e c tt o g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e .In som e s i tua t i ons , t he q ua l i t y o f t a sk dec i s ions invo l ves a t i m e d i -m ens i on . Tha t i s , t he e f f ec t i veness o f dec i s i ons depends i n pa r t uponh o w q u i c k l y th e y a r e m a d e ( S t ra u s s , 1 9 6 4 ; L o w i n , 19 6 8 ). A u t o c r a t i cd e c i s i o n - m a k i n g i s f a s t e r t h a n o t h e r d e c i s i o n p r o c e d u r e s b e c a u s e l i t t l ec o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s i s n e c e s s a r y . T h e r e f o r e , p a r t i c i p a t i o n


15/27

4 8 G A R Y Y U IC L

i s l i k e l y t o b e n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e w h e n r a p i ddec i s i on -m ak i ng i s r equ i r ed . The m agn i t ude o f t h is nega t i ve r e l a t ion w i l lb e g r e a t e s t w h e n t h e l e a d e r a l r e a d y h a s t h e n e c e s s a r y k n o w l e d g e a n da b i l i ty t o m a k e g o o d d e c is io n s , t h e s u b o r d i n a t e s a r e m o t i v a t e d b y t h eu rge ncy o f t he s i t ua t i on , and t he t a s k g roup is ve ry l a rge .Summ ary of the M ultiple inkage M odel

T h e m a j o r f e a t u r e s o f t h e m u l ti p l e l i n k a g e m o d e l o f l e a d e r sh i p e f fe c -t iv e n e s s c a n b e s u m m a r i z e d b y m e a n s o f t h e f o ll o w i ng h y p o t h e s e s :

H y p 1 : G r o u p p r o d u c t i v i t y is a f u n c t io n o f t h e i n te r a c t i o n a m o n gs u b o r d i n a t e t a s k m o t i v a t i o n , s u b o r d i n a t e t a s k s k i l l s , a n d T a s k - R o l eO rga n i za t i on fo r t he g roup .

t t y p 2 : I n i t i a t i n g S t r u c t u r e a n d C o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t e r a c t i n t h e d e t e r -r u i n a t i o n o f s u b o r d i n a t e t a s k m o t i v a t i o n . T a s k m o t i v a t i o n i s h i g h e s t w h e nt h e l e a d e r i s h i g h o n b o t h b e h a v i o r v a r i a b l e s .

H y p 3 : D e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l i z a t i o n i s n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s u b o r -d i na t e t a s k m o t i va t i on i.e ., h i gh pa r t i c i p a t i on causes h i gh m o t i va t i on )w h e n s u b o r d i n a t e r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e l e a d e r a r e f a v o r a b l e , t h e d e c i s i o f i sa r e r e l e v a n t t o s u b o r d i n a t e t a s k s , a n d s u b o r d i n a t e s p e r c e i v e t h e i r p a r -t i e i pa t i on t o be a te s t o f va l ued ab i li ti e s .

H y p 4 : I n i t i a t in g S t r u c t u r e i n t e r a c ts w i t h D e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l i z a t i o n i nt h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f T a s k - R o l e O r g a n i z a ti o n . T h e r e l a t io n s h i p i s m o d -e r a t e d b y th e l e v e l a n d d i s tr i b u t io n o f t a s k k n o w l e d g e a n d p l a n n i n gab i l i t y i n t he g roup .

H y p 5 : I n i t i a t in g S t r u c t u r e is p o s i t i v e l y re l a t e d t o t h e l e v e l o f s u b o r -d i na t e t a sk sk i l l .

R E V I E W O F R E L A T E D R E S E A R C HM o s t s t u d i e s o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n l e a d e r b e h a v i o r a n d s u b o r d i n a t e

s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l e a d e r h a v e n o t m e a s u r e d s u b o r d i n a t e p r e f e r e n c e so r t h e p e r s o n a l i t y a n d s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s w h i c h d e t e r m i n e t h e s ep r e f e r e n c e s . M o s t s t u d i e s o f t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n l e a d e r b e h a v i o r a n dg r o u p p r o d u c t i v i t y h a v e n o t i n c l u d e d m e a s u r e s o f t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e a n ds i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h e p r o p o s e d l i n k a g e m o d e l . T h e a p p r o a c h t y p i c a lo f m o s i ~ l e a d e r s h i p r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n t o l o o k f o r a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e nl e a d e r b e h a v i o r a n d o n e o f t h e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s p r e v i o u sr e s e a r c h d o e s p r o v i d e s o m e d i r e c t a n d s o m e i n d i r e c t e v i d e n c e f o r e v a l -u a t i n g t h e p r o p o s e d m o d e l s .

I n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s o f t h i s a r t i c l e r e l e v a n t l e a d e r s h i p r e s e a r c hw i l l be r ev i ew ed . The r ev i ew w i ll i nc lude s t ud i e s dea l ing w i t h v a r i ab l e sw h i c h a r e r e a s o n a b l y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e i n t h e p r o p o s e d d i s c r e p a n c y a n dl i n k a g e m o d e l s . H o w e v e r , i t s h o u l d b e e m p h a s i z e d t h a t i n m a n y o f t h e s e


16/27

BEH VIOR L THEORY OF LE DE RSHI P 4 9

s t u d ie s , t h e o p e r a t i o n a l m e a s u r e m e n t o f a v a r i a b l e o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e st he concep t ua l de f i n i t i on p re sen t ed i n t h i s a r t i c l e . S t ud i e s u s i ng sca l e sw h i ch can be r ega rd ed a s a m easu re o f l eade r a t t i t ud es ( e.g ., L P Csca le , P sca le , Le ade r sh i p O p i n i on Q u es t i onna i r e ) r a t h e r t ha n l ead e rb e h a v i o r w e r e n o t i n c l u d e d . A l s o e x e l u d e d w e r e s t u d i e s o f g e n e r a l v sc l o se Supe rv is i on . Th i s l eade r sh i p d i m ens i on , a s u sua l l y d e f ined , con -f o u n d s D e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l iz a t i o n w i t h I n i ti a t i n g S t r u c t u re . F i n a l ly , t h erev i ew does no t i nc l ude s t ud i e s o f em ergen t l eade r s i n i n fo rm a l g roups ,s t ud i e s u s i ng ch i l d ren , s t ud i e s i nvo l v i ng an en t i r e o rgan i za t i on r a t he rt h a n i n d i v i d u a l w o r k g r o u p s o r d e p a r t m e n t s , a n d s t u d i e s i n w h i c h l e a d e rb e h a v i o r is o b v i o u s l y c o n f o u n d e d w i t h o r g a n i z a ti o n a l v a r i a b l e s s u c h a st h e i n c e n t i v e s y s t e m .

ons idera tion and S a t i s fac t ionIn seven s t ud i e s o t h e r e l a ti o n b e t w e e n C o n s i d e r a t io n a n d s u b o r d i n a t e

s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r l e a d e r , C o n s i d e r a t i o n w a s m e a s u r e d b y m e a n s o fs u b o r d i n a t e r e s p o n s e s o n l e a d e r b e h a v i o r d e s c r i p t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . I nf iv e o f t h e s e s t u d ie s ( H a l p i n , 1 9 5 7; H a l p i n & W i n e r , 1 9 5 7 ; N e a l e y &Bl ood , 1968 ; Y uk l , 1969a ; A nde r son , 19 '66 ) t he re w a s a s t rong p os i t i ver e l a ti o n b e t w e e n C o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d s u b o r d i n a t e s a t i s f a c ti o n . I n t h e r e -m a i n i ng t w o s tud i e s (F l e i shm an & H ar r i s , 1962; Sk i nne r , 1969) t he rew a s a s i g n if ic a n t c u r v i li n e a r r e l a ti o n b e t w e e n C o n s i d e r a t io n a n d t w o o b -j e c t i v e m e a s u r e s w h i c h r e fl ec t s u b o r d i n a t e s a t is f a c t io n , n a m e l y t u r n o v e ra n d g r i e v a n c e s . T h e c u r v e d e s c r i b i n g t h e r e l a t i o n c o r r e s p o n d e d r o u g h l yt o cu rve C i n F i g . 1 . I f subo rd i na t e p re fe rences w ere hom ogeneous , t h i sc u r v e w o u l d r e p r e s e n t s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e f o r t h e c o n c e p t o f a z o n e o fi nd i f f e rence w i t h i n w h i ch l eade r behav i o r does no t a f f ec t subo rd i na t esa t i s f ac t i on . B e l ow th i s i nd i f f e rence zone, t he r e l a t i on be t w een Co ns i d -e ra t i on and sa t i s f ac t i on w as pos i t i ve .

In r e sea rch r epo r t ed i n L i k e r t (196.1 , p . 17 ) , a spec t s o f Cons i d e ra t i ons u c h a s s u p e r v i s o r ta k e s a n i n te r e s t i n 'm e a n d u n d e r s t a n d s m y p r o b -l e m s a n d s u p e r v i s o r t h in k s o f e m p l o y e e s a s h u m a n b e i n gs r a t h e r th a na s p e r s o n s t o g e t t h e w o r k d o n e , w e r e r e l a t e d to f a v o r a b l e a t ti t u d e s o nj o b - r e l a te d m a t t e r s . I n t w o l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r im e n t s ( D a y & H a m b l i n ,1964 ; M i sum i & Sh i rakash i , 1966) pu n i t i ve l ea de r beh av i o r ( i.e ., lowC o n s i d e r a t io n ) w a s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l o w s u b o r d i n a t e s a t i s f a c ti o n . I n a n -o t he r l ab o r a t o ry expe r i m e n t , Low i n (19 '69 ) found a s ign i f i can t pos i t i ver e l a ti o n b e t w e e n s u b o r d i n a t e s ' s a t is f a c t i o n a n d t h e i r r a t i n g s o f l e a d e rC o n s i d e r a t i o n , b u t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n s a t i s f a c t i o n b e t w e e n h i g h a n d l o wCons i de ra t i on cond i t i ons , a l t hough i n t he r i gh t d i r ec t i on , w as no t s i gn i f i -can t .

O n l y t w o s t u d i e s w e r e f o u n d i n w h i c h a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n C o n -


17/27

430 (~AR~ YL-~:Lsideration and subordinate satisfaction with the leader did not occur. Ina study by Argyle, Gardner, and Cioffi (1958), leader self-reports ofpunitive behavior did not correlate significantly with subordinate turn-over and absences. Pelz (1952) found an interaction between the degreeto which a leader acts as a representative of his subordinates when deal-ing with higher management (one form of Consideration) and theleader's upward influence in the organization. For leaders with little up-ward influence, subordinates were less satisfied when the leader wentto bat for them than when he did not go to bat. Presumably the leaderrepresentation raised expectations which he could not fulfill, therebyfrustrating subordinates. In terms of the discrepancy model, the subor-dinates' preferences for leader representation are probably lower whenit repeatedly causes frustration. Whether the negative effects of unsuc-cessful representation can completely cancel out the positive effects ofother considerate behavior by the leader is not clear. It does not seemlikely.

In summary, the research literature indicates that in most situations,considerate leaders will have more satisfied subordinates. Although noneof the investigators included subordinate preferences in their analysis,the results are consistent, with the discrepancy model if we can makethe relatively safe assumption that most subordinates prefer considerateleaders.In i t i a t ing S t ruc ture and Sa t i s fac t ion

A consistent linear relation between Initiating Structure and subor-dinate satisfaction was not found, even within sets of studies usingcomparable measures. Unfortunately, none of the studies reviewed in-eluded subordinate preferences. Baumgartel (1956), ttalpin and Winer(1957), Argyle et at (1958), 3/iisumi and Shirakashi (1966), Lowin(1969), Anderson (1966), and Likert (1961, pp. 16-18) failed to find asignificant relation. IIalpin (1957) and Yukl (1969a) found positive cor-relations. Vroom and Mann (1960) found a significant negative correlationbetween pressure for production and job. satisfaction for delivery truckdrivers but not for loaders. Nealey and Blood (196.8) found a negativecorrelation between Initiating Structure and subordinate satisfactionfor second-level supervisors and a positive correlation for first-levelsupervisors.Only three studies were found which examined the possibility of acurvilinear relation between Initiating Structure and subordinate satis-faction. Liker~ (1955) found that the relation between pressure forproductivity and subordinate satisfaction took the form of an invertedU-shaped curve which is similar to curve B in Fig. 1. Fleishman and


18/27

B E t t V IO R I J T H E O R Y O F D E D E R S H I P 431Harris (1962) and Skinner (1969) found a curvilincar relation betweenInitiating Structure and both turnover and grievances. Although subor-dinate preferences were not measured, the relationships in these studieswere roughly comparable to curve A in Fig. 1.

Yleishman and Harris also tested for an interaction between InitiatingStructure and Consideration. The results of their analysis suggest thatConsideration has a greater effect upon subordinate satisfaction thandoes Initiating Structure. High Consideration leaders could increaseInitiating Structure with little accompanying increase in turnover orgrievances. Fleishman and Harris provide two possible explanations forthis interaction. One explanation is that considerate leaders are morelikely to deal with any dissatisfaction caused by high structuring be-havior before the dissatisfaction results in official grievances or with-drawal (i.e., turnover). Another explanation is that Consideration affectsthe way subordinates perceive structuring behavior. In terms of the dis-crepancy model, subordinates of highly considerate leaders are morelikely to have a higher preference level for Initiating Structure becausethey do not perceive leader structuring as threatening and restrictive.D e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l i z a t i o n a n d S a t i s f a c t i o n

Six studies were found which examined the correlation between subor-dinate satisfaction and participation as perceived either by the leadersor by the subordinates (Baumgartel, 1956; Argyle e t a l . 1958; Vroom,1959; Bachman, Smith, Slesinger, 1966; Yukl, 1969a; Tosi, 1970). Ineach of these studies, evidence was found to support a positive relationbetween participation and subordinate satisfaction, although within someof the studies, a significant relation was not obtained for every subsampleor for every alternative measure of the variables. A significant positiverelation was also found in each of five studies in which participation wasexperimentally manipulated (Coch French, t948; Shaw, 1955, Morse

:Reimer, 1956; Solem, 1958; Maier Hoffrnan, 1962). The results ofthese studies are generally consistent with the discrepancy model if onecan assume that the subordinates preferred a substantiaI degree of par-ticipation.

In those eases where a significant relation between participation andsubordinate satisfaction was not found, there was usua ll y some reasonto expect that the subordinates preferred a moderate or low amount ofparticipation. In the study by Vroom (1959), a positive correlation oc-curred for subordinates with a high need for independence but not for sub-ordinates with a low need for independence. Bass (1965, pp. 169-170) andFrench e t a l . (1960) found that subordinate participation did not resultin more favorable attitudes toward a leader unless the subordinates per-


19/27

43 2 GARY YUKLc e i v ed th e d e c i s io n - m a k i n g a s a l e g i ti m a t e p a r t o f th e i r r o le . F u r t h e re v i d en c e f o r t h e m o d e r a t i n g e f fe c t o f s u b o r d i n a t e p r e f e r en c e s c a n b e f o u n di n a s t u d y b y B a u m g a r t e l (1 95 6) a n d in t w o u n p u b l i s h e d s tu d i e s ( J a c o b -son , 1951; Ta nn enb aum , 1954) w h i ch w ere r epo r t ed i n L i k e r t (1961, pp .9 2 - 9 3 ) . I n t h e T e n n e n b a u m s t u d y , s o m e s u b o r d i n a te s r e a c t e d a d v e r s e l yt o a sudden subs t an t i a l i nc rease i n pa r t i c i pa t i on . F i na l l y , M orse (1953 ,p . 64 ) f o u n d t h a t , r e g a r d le s s o f w h e t h e r w o r k e r s m a d e s o m e d e c is io n so r n o n e , t h e y r e p o r t e d m o r e i n t r i n s i c j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n w h e n t h e a m o u n to f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g e q u a l l e d t h e a m o u n t d e s i r e d t h a n w h e n t h e y w e r eno t a l low ed t o m a ke a s m a ny dec i s ions a s t he y des i red . A l t hough i n t ri n s i cj o b s a t i s f a c t i o n i s c o n c e p t u a l l y d i s t i n c t f r o m s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e l e a d e r ,t h e s e t w o v a r i a b l e s a r e p r o b a b l y h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w h e n t h e l e a d e r d e -t e r m i n e s h o w m u c h r e s p o n s i b i l it y a s u b o r d i n a t e h a s f o r m a k i n g t a s kdecisions.C o n s i d e r a t io n I n i t i a t in g S t r u c t u r e a n d P r o d u c t i v i t y

C o n s i d e r in g t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f tl ~ e i n t e r a c ti o n b e t w e e n C o n s i d e r a t io nand In i t i a t i ng S t ruc t u re , i t i s no t su rp r i s i ng t ha t r e sea rch on t he r e l a t i onb e t w e e n C o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y d o e s n o~ y i e l d c o n s i s t e n t r e s u lt s .In t he l a rge m a j o r i t y o f s t ud i e s t he re w as e i t he r a s i gn i f ican t pos i t i vere l a t i on (K a t z , M ac co by , G ur i n , F l oo r , 1951; A rg y l e e t a l . 1958;Bese o Law she , 1959 ; Sch ach t e r e~ al . 1 96 1; K a y , M e y e r , F r e n c h ,1965) o r t he re w as no s i gn if i can t l inea r r e l a t i on (Bass , 1957; H a l p i n ,1957; R am bo , 1958; D a y H am bl i n , 1964; A nd e r son , 1966 ; N ea l eyBl ood , 1968; R ow l an d Sco t t , 1968) . Lo w i n (19 ' 69 ) found a pos i t i ver e l a ti o n f o r o b j e c t i v e l y m a n i p u l a t e d C o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a n e x p e r i m e n t b u tno t fo r sub ord i na t e r a t i ngs o f Con s i de ra t i on . A s i gn if i can t nega t i ve r e l a -t io n w a s f o u n d b y E I a lp in a n d W i n e r (1 95 7) f o r a i r c r a f t c o m m a n d e r s a n db y F l e i s h m a n , H a r r i s , a n d B u r t t (1 95 5, p . 8 0 ) f o r f o r e m e n o f p r o d u c t i o nd e p a r t m e n t s b u t n o t f o r n o n p r o d u c t i o n d e p a r t m e n t s . I n b o t h o f t h e s es tu d i es , p r o d u c t i v i t y w a s m e a s u r e d b y s u p e r i o r r a ti n g s , a n d t h e h ig h e s tr a t i n g s w e n t t o l e a d e r s l o w o n C o n s i d e r a t i o n b u t h i g h o n I n i t i a t i n gS t r u c t u r e . I t is p o s s i b le t h a t t h e r a t in g s w e r e in f lu e n c e d m o r e b y t h er a t e r s ' t a s k - o r i e n t e d s t e r e o t y p e o f t h e i d e a l l e a d e r th a n b y a c t u a l g r o u pp e r f o r m a n c e .T u r n i n g t o r e s e a rc h o n th e r e l a ti o n b e t w e e n I n i t ia t i n g S t r u c t u r e a n dproduc t i v i t y , w e aga i n f i nd m i xed r e su l t s . In a num ber o f s t ud i e s as i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n w a s r e p o r t e d ( F l e i s h m a n e t a l . 1955; L iker t ,1 9 55 ; t I a l p i n W i n e r , 1 9 57 ; M a i e r M a i e r , 1 9 57 ; B e s e o L a w s h e ,1959; A nd e r son , 1966 ; N ea l ey B l ood , 1968) . F o r som e subs am pl es i nt h r e e o f t h e s e s t u d ie s , a n d f o r l e a d e r s s tu d i e d b y A r g y l e e t a l . (1958) ,B a s s ( 1 9 5 7 ), H a l p i n ( 1 9 5 7) , R a m b o ( 1 9 5 8 ), a n d L o w i n ( 1 9 6 9 ), a s ig n if i-


20/27

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP 4

can t r e l a t i on w as no t found . In no ca se w as a s i gn i f i can t nega t i ve r e l a -t i on r epo r t ed .

I t i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t s o f e w i n v e s t ig a t o r s m e a s u r e d i n t e r m e d i a t ev a r i a b l e s o r t e s t e d f o r a n in t e r a c t io n b e t w e e n C o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d I n i t i a t in gS t r u c t u r e . H o w e v e r , th e f e w s t u d ie s w h i c h a r e d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t t o t h ep r o p o s e d l i n k a g e m o d e l d o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e . I n a l a b o r a t o r ye x p e r i m e n t i n J a p a n , M i s u m i a n d S h i ra k a s h i (1 96 6) f o u n d t h a t l e a d e r sw h o w e r e b o t h t a s k o r i e n t e d a n d c o n s i d e r a t e i n t h e i r b e h a v i o r h a d t h em o s t p r o d u c t i v e g r o u p s. H a l p i n (1 95 7) f o u n d t h a t a i r c r a f t c o m m a n d e r sw e r e r a t e d h i g h e s t in e f f e ct iv e n e s s w h e n t h e y w e r e a b o v e t h e m e a n o nb o t h C o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d I n i ti a t in g S t r u c tu r e . H e m p h i l l ( 19 5 7) o b t a i n e dt h e s a m e r e su l ts f o r t h e r e l a t io n b e t w e e n th e b e h a v i o r o f d e p a r t m e n tc h a i r m e n i n a L i b e r a l A r t s C o l l eg e a n d f a c u l t y r a t in g s o f h o w w e l l t h ed e p a r t m e n t w a s a d m i n i s te r e d . F l e i s h m a n a n d S i m m o n s ( 1 97 0) t r a n s l a t e dt h e S u p e r v i s o r y B e h a v i o r D e s c r i p t i o n i n t o H e b r e w a n d a d m i n i s t e r e d t h i sques t i onna i re t o t he supe r i o r s o f I s r ae l i fo rem en . P ro f i c i en cy r a t i ngs fo rt h e f o r e m e n w e r e a l s o o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e i r s u p e r i or s . O n c e a g a in , t h e f o r e -m e n w i t h t h e b e s t r a t i n g s t e n d e d t o b e h i g h o n b o t h C o n s i d e r a t i o n a n dIn i t i a t i ng S t ruc t u re . P a t ehen (1962) found t h a t pe r so na l p rodu c t i onn e r m s (i.e ., t a s k m o t i v a t io n ) o f w o r k e r s w e r e h i g h e s t w h e n t h e l e a d e re n c o u r a g e d p r o f i c ie n c y a s w e l l a s g o i n g t o b a t f o r t h e m . T h e s e p r o -d u e t i o n n o r m s w e r e r e l a t e d i n t u r n t o a c t u a l g r o u p p r o d u c t i o n . F i n a l l y ,a l th o u g h h e d i d n ' t m e a s u r e C o n s i d e r a t io n , B a u m g a r t e l (1 95 6) f o u n d as i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n s u b o r d i n a t e m o t i v a t i o n a n d t h econce rn o f r e sea rch l ab o r a t o ry d i r ec to r s fo r goa l a t t a i n m en t (i.e ., In i t i -a t i n g S t r u c t u r e ) .D e c i s i o n C e n t r a l iz a t io n a n d P r o d u c t i v i t y

S e v e n t e e n s t u d i e s w e r e f o u n d w h i c h e x a m i n e d t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e nD e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l iz a t i o n a n d g r o u p p r o d u c t i v i t y . A s ig n i fi c a n t p o s i ti v er e la t io n b e t w e e n p a r t ic i p a ti o n a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y w a s f o u nd b y B a e b m a ne t al . ( 1 9 6 6 ), C o c h a n d F r e n c h ( 1 9 4 8) , F l e i s h m a n ( 1 9 6 5 ), F r e n c h ( 1 9 50 ) ,F r e n c h , K a y , a n d M e y e r ( 1 9 6 6 ) , L a w r e n c e a n d S m i t h ( 1 9 5 5 ) , L i k e r t(1 96 1 , p . 2 0 ) , M a n n a n d D e n t (1 95 zi), M c C u r d y a n d E b e r ( 1 9 5 3) ,M e l t z e r ( 1 9 5 6) , a n d V r o o m ( 1 9 5 9 ). A r g y l e e t al . (1958) found a posi t ive.r e l a t i o n o n l y f o r d e p a r t m e n t s w i t h o u t p i e c e r a t e s , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h eo rgan i za t i ona l i ncen t i ve sys t em , a s i t ua t i ona l va r i ab l e , i n t e rac t s w i t hD e c i s i o n - C e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s u b o r d i n a t e s ' t a s k m o t i v a -r i ch . Tos i (1970) , F rench et al . ( 1 9 6 0 ) , a n d M c C u r d y a n d L a m b e r t(1952) f a i led t o fi nd a s ign i f ican t r e l a t i on b e t w e en pa r t i c i pa t i on andpro du c t i v i t y . In t w o o t he r s tud i e s (Shaw , 1955 ; M orse & Re i m er , 1956)a s i gn if i can t neg a t i ve r e l a t i on w as found . Seve ra l o f t he se sb l d i e s dem on-


21/27

434 ~AI~Y Y~ o~

s t r a f e t h a t v a r i o u s s i tu a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s c a n m o d e r a t e t h e e f fe c ts o f l e a d e rdec i s i on behav i o r on g roup pe r fo rm ance . N eve r t he l e s s , t he h i gh pe rcen t ageo f s t ud i e s r epo r t i ng a pos i t i ve r e l a t i on i s an i nd i ca t i on t ha t som e deg reeo f p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e ad s t o a n i n c r e a s e in g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e i n m o s t s i t u a -t ions . H o w eve r , t h i s gene ra l i za t i on i s n o t e q u i v a l e n t t o c o n c lu d i n g t h em o r e p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h e r e i s, t h e g r e a t e r w il l b e g ro u p p r o d u c t i v i t y . F o ra p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p , t h e r e is p r o b a b l y s o m e o p t im a l p a t t e r n o f d e ci s io n -m ak i n g w h i ch w i ll cons i s t o f va r i ou s am oun t s o f de l ega t i on , jo i n t de -c i si o n - m a k i n g , c o n s u l ta t io n , a n d a u t o c r a t i c d e c is i o n - m a k i n g ( H e l l e r &Y u k l , 1 9 6 9 ) . T h e o p t i m a l p a t t e r n i s l i k e l y t o i n v o l v e s o m e i n t e r m e d i a t ea m o u n t o f s u b o r d i n a t e i n fl ue n c e, r a t h e r t h a n t h e g r e a t e s t p o s s ib l ea m o u n t .

DISCUSSIONT h e M u l t ip l e L i n k a g e M o d e l a n d F ie d Ie r s C o n t in g e n c y M o d e l

A c o n s i d e r a b le n u m b e r o f l e a d e rs h i p s t u d ie s h a v e b e e n c o n d u c t e d b yFred F i ed l e r and h i s a s soc i a t e s a t t he U n i ve r s i t y o f I l l i no i s (F i ed l e r ,1967) . F i ed l e r has d eve l op ed a t heo ry o f l eade r sh i p e f f ec ti veness t o ex -p l a i n t he r e su l t s o f t h i s r e sea rch . A cc o rd i ng t o F i ed l e r ' s t heo r y , g roupp e r f o r m a n c e i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e in t e r a c t io n b e t w e e n t h e le a d e r 's e s t e e mf o r h is l e a s t p r e f e r r e d c o - w o r k e r ( L P C ) a n d t h r e e s it u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s :t a s k s t ru c t u r e , l e a d e r - m e m b e r r e la t io n s , a n d t h e p o s i t io n p o w e r o f t h el e ad e r . L e a d e r s w i t h l o w L P C s c o re s h a v e t h e m o s t p r o d u c t i v e g r o u p sw h en t he l eade r sh i p s i t ua t i on , i n t e rm s o f t he t h ree s i t ua t i ona l va r i ab l e s ,i s e i t h e r v e r y f a v o r a b l e o r v e r y u n f a v o r a b l e . L e a d e r s w i t h h i g h L P Cscores a re m o re e f f ec ti ve w he n the s i t ua t i on is i n t e rm ed i a t e i n f avo rab l e -n e s s . A l t h o u g h F i e d l e r p r o v i d e s a b e h a v i o r a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s e h y -po t hes i zed r e l a t ions , m os t o f h i s s t ud i e s d i d no t m eas u re l eade r be hav i o r .T h e f e w s t u d ie s w h i c h h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e b e h a v i o r a l c o r -r e l a te s o f L P C s c o re s h a v e n o t y i e l d e d c o n s i s te n t re s u l ts ( S a m p l e &W i l son , 1965; F ied le r , 1967 , p . 53 ; N ea ley & Bloo d, 1968; Yuk l , 1970;G ruen fe l d , Ran ee , & W ei s senbe rg , 1969 ; Re i l l y , 1969) . Thu s , i t i s no tp o s s i b l e a t t h i s t i m e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r F i e d l e r ' s m o d e l i s c o m p a t i b l ew i t h t h e p r o p o s e d l i n k a g e m o d e l . B o t h t h e o r i e s a r e g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t e db y t h e i r o w n s e p a r a t e b o d i e s of e m p i r i c a l r e s e ar c h . R e c o n c i l ia t i o n o f t h et w o a p p r o a c h e s w i l l p r o b a b l y r e q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h w h i c h i n c l u d e sv a r i a b l e s f r o m b o t h t h e o r i e s .

D i r e c t i o n f o r F u t u r e R e s e a r c hT h e t h e o r e t ic a l f r a m e w o r k a n d ~ h e l i te r a t u r e r e v i e w p r e s e n t e d e a r l i er

po i n t ou t som e em pi r i ca l gaps w h i ch b ad l y need f illing. Th e cen t r a lf e a t u r e o f th e l in k a g e m o d e l is th e s e t o f i n t e rm e d i a t e v a r i a b l e s . A


22/27

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP 435l eade r can do l i t t l e t o i m prove g roup p roduc t i v i t y un l e s s he can a l t e r oneo r m ore o f t he se va r i ab l e s . Y e t t he m ed i a t i ng ro le o f t he se va r i ab l e s , t he i rr e l a t i on t o each o the r , and t he i r i n t e rac t i on i n t he de t e rm i na t i on o f p ro -d u c t i v i t y h a v e s e l d o m b e e n i n v e s t i g a t e d i n l e a d e r s h i p s t u d i e s . F u t u r er e s e a r c h s h o u l d b e m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e i n s c o p e . L e a d e r b e h a v i o r v a r i -ab l e s, i n t e rm ed i a t e va r i ab l e s , s i t ua t i ona l va r i ab l e s , sub ord i n a t e p re fe r -enees , c r i t e r i on va r i ab l e s ( i . e . , s a t i s f ac t i on and p roduc t i v i t y ) , and r e l evan tl eade r t r a i t s shou l d a l l be i nc luded . S i t ua t i on a l v a r i ab l e s o t he r t han t hosed i scussed i n t h i s a r t i c l e a l so need t o be inves t i ga t ed . L i k e l y cand i da t e sa re t he o rgan i za t i ona l l i m i t i ng cond i t i ons fo r pa r t i c i pa t i on sugges t ed byLow i n (1968) and S t rauss (1964) , t he s t ruc t u ra l v a r i ab l e s found t o bea s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e a d e r d e c i s i o n b e h a v i o r b y H e l l e r a n d Y u k t ( 1 9 6 9 ) ,t h e s i t u a ti o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n F i e d l e r s m o d e l , th e s i t u a ti o n a l v a r i a b l e sc l u s t e r - a n a l y z e d b y Y u k l ( 1 9 6 9 b ) , a n d W o o d w a r d s (1 96 5) s y s t e m f o rc l a s s i f y i n g p r o d u c t i o n t e c h n o l o g y . F i n a l l y , t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e t h r e eb e h a v i o r d i m e n s i o n s i n t e r a c t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e v a r i a b l e ss h o u l d b e i n v e s t i g a t e d . I f p o s s i b l e , t h e l e a d e r b e h a v i o r v a r i a b l e s s h o u l db e e x p e r i m e n t a l l y m a n i p u l a t e d i n o r d e r t o a v o i d t h e m e a s u r e m e n t p r o b -l e m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e a d e r b e h a v i o r d e s c r i p t i o n s b y s u b o r d i n a t e s .

T h e a n a l y s i s o f l e a d e r e f f e c ti v e n es s h a s u t i l iz e d l e a d e r b e h a v i o r v a r i -a b l e s w h i c h m a i n t a i n a b a s i c c o n t i n u i t y w i t h t r a d i t io n a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a ti o nand re sea rch . H o w eve r , i n specu l a t i ng ab ou t fu t u re r e sea rch , i t i s ap -p r o p r i a t e t o e v a l u a t e t h e c o n t i n u e d u s e f u ln e s s o f t h e s e b r o a d l y d e f i n edb e h a v i o r d im e n s i on s . I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t C o n s i d e r a t io n a n d I n i t i a ti n g S t r u c -t u r e a r e c o m p o s e d o f r e l a t i v e l y d i v e r s e e l e m e n t s , w h i l e D e c i s i o n - C e n -t r a l i z a t i o n i s a n a v e r a g e b a s e d o n m a n y d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f d e c i s i o n s . I no r d e r to i m p r o v e t h e p r e d i c t i v e p o w e r o f t h e m o d e l, it m a y b e n e c e s s a r yt o i d e n t i f y w h i c h c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e b e h a v i o r v a r i a b l e s a r e t h e m o s ti m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t s o f e a c h i n t e r m e d i a t e v a r i a b l e .

T h e d i s c r e p a n c y m o d e l a n d t h e m u l t i p l e l i n k a g e m o d e l p r o v i d e o n l yt h e s k e l e t o n o f a s t a t i c l e a d e r s h i p t h e o r y w h i c h p u r p o s e l y i g n o r e s t h ea d d i t i o n a l c o m p l e x i t i e s o f f e e d b a c k l o o p s a n d c i r c u l a r c a u s a l i t y . M u c ha d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h a n d r e v i s i o n w i l l b e n e c e s s a r y t o t r a n s f o r m t h e s k e l e -t on i n t o a fu l l - f l edged dynam i c m ode l w h i ch pe rm i t s accu ra t e p red i c t i onsa b o u t l e a d e r e f f ec t iv e n e s s i n f o r m a l t a s k g r o u p s.

REFERENCESA:~DERS05r, L. R. Leader behavior, member attitudes, and task performance of inter-cultural discussion groups. Journal o f Soc ia t Psychology 1966, 69, 305-319.ARaYLE, M., GARDXER, G., CIOFFI, F. The measurement of supervisory methods.H u m a n R e l a t i o n s 1957, 10, 295-313.AEa~E, M., GARDXEm G., CmFFI, F. Supervisory methods related to productivity,absenteeism, and labor tmmover. H u m a n R e l a t i o n s 1958, 11, 2340.BACH~AN, J. G., SMIT~, C. G., SLESI~GER, J. A. Control, performance, and saris-


23/27

436 GARY YUKLfaction: An analysis of structural and individual effects. Journal o] Pe~'sonaIitya n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 4, 127-136.BAss, B. M. Leadership opinions and related characteristics of salesmen and salesmanagers. In 1{. M. StogdilI and A. E. Coons (Eds.), L e a d e r b e h a v i o r : I t s d e -s c r i p t i o n a n d m e a s u r e m e n t . Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio StateUniversity, 1957.

Bhss, B. M. Organiza t ional psychology . Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1965.BAU~ARTEL, H. Leadership, motivations, and att itudes in research laboratories.J o u r n a l o / S o c i a l I s s u e s , 1956, 12, (2), 24-31.B EE R, M . L e a d e r s h i p , e m p l o y e e n e e d s , a n d m o t i v a t i o n . Columbus: Bureau of Busi-ness Research, Ohio State University, Monograph No. 129, 1966.BERKOWITZ, L. Group Standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. H u m a n R e l a t i o n s ,1954, 7, 509-519.BEsco, R. O., LAWSHE, C. I-I. Foreman leadership as perceived by supervisor andsubordinate. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1959, 12, 573-582.Cocg, L., FaENCE, J. R. P. Overcoming resistance to change. H u m a n R e l a t i o n s ,1948, 1, 512-532.DAY, R. C., & HAMBLI~ , R. L. Some effects of close and puni tive styles of supervision.A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o ] S o c i o l o g y , 1964, 16, 499-510.FIEDLER F. ]~ . A the ory o] leadersh ip e f]ect ivene ss . New York: McGraw-ttill, 1967.]~LEISHlVIANE. A. A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M. Stogdill andA. E. Coons (Eds.), L e a d e r b e h a v i o r : I t s d e s c r i p t i o n a n d m e a s u r e m e n t . Co-lumbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957 (a).FLEISHlV~A~ E. A. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill andA. E. Coons (Eds.), L e a d e r b e h a v i o r : I t s d e s c r i p t i o n a n d m e a s u r e m e n t . Ca-lumbus : Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957 (b).FLEISHMAN E. A. Attitude versus skill factors in work group productivity. P e r s o n n e lP s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 18, 253-266.FLEISHMA~, ]~. A., c~ SImMOnS, J. Relationship between leadership patterns andeffectiveness ratings among Israeli foremen. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 23,169~172.FLEISHMA~ ]~. A., & HARRIS ]~. F. Patterns of leadership behavior related to em-ployee grievances and turnover. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, 15, 43-56.FLEISH~AZ E. A., HARalS, E. F., & BURTT, It. E. Leadersh ip and superv i s ion , in in -dus t ry . Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, Re-search monograph No. 33, 1955.FoA, U. G. Relation of worker's expectations to satisfaction with his supervisor. P e r -s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 1957, 10, 161-168.FaENCE, g. R. P. Field experiments: Changing group productivity. In J. G. Miller(Ed:), E x p e r i m e n t s i n s o c i a l p r o c es s : A s y m p o s i u m o n s o ci a l p s y c h o l o g y . New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.FRENCh, J. R. P., ISRAEL, J., & As, D. An experiment on participation in a Norwegianfactory. H u m a n R e l a t i o n s , 1960, 13, 3-19.FRENCE, J. R. P., KAY, E., & MEYEa, I-I. Participation and ~he appraisal system.H u m a n R e l a t i o w s , 1966, 19, 3-20.F~ENC~, J. R. P., & RAVEN, B. The bases of social power. I n D. Cartwright (Ed.),Studies in soc ia l power . Ann Arbor: Ins titute for Social Research, University ofMichigan, 1959.GnLBRAIT~, J., & CVM~INGS, L. L. An empirical investigation of the motivationaldeterminants of task performance: Interactive effects between instrumentMity-


24/27

B E H AV IO R A L T H E OR Y O F L E A D E R S H I P 4 ~ 7

v a l e n c e a n d m o t i v a t i o n - a b i l i t y . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a n d H u m a n P e r ] o r m -ance 1967, 2, 237-257.

G O ~B ER a, W . T h e t r o u b l e w i t h d e m o c r a t i c m a n a g e m e n t . Transac t ion 1966, 3, (5) ,30-35.GRE~R , F . L . L e a d e r i n d u l g e n c e a n d g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l M o n o g r a p h s1961, 75 (12 , W hole No . 516).GRCENFELD, L. W ., RANCh, D . E. , WEISS~NBER0, P . T he be ha vi or of tas k- or ien te d( lo w L P C ) a n d s o c i a l l y - o r i e n t e d ( h ig h L P C ) l e a d e r s u n d e r s e v e r a l c o n d i t i o n so f s o c i a l s u p p o r t . J o u r n a l o ] S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y 1969, 79, 99-107.t h L P I ~ , A . W . T h e l e a d e r b e h a v i o r a n d e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a i r c r a f t c o m m a n d e r s . I n1~. M . S t o g d i l l a n d A . E . C o o n s ( E d s . ) , L e a d e r b e h a v i o r : I t s d e s c r i p t i o n a n d

m e a s u r e m e n t . C o l u m b u s : B u r e a u o f B u s i n es s R e s e ar c h , O h i o S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty ,1957.HAL PIN, A . W. , WI ~E R , B . J : A f a c t o r i a l s t u d y o f t h e l e a d e r b e h a v i o r d e s c r i p t i o n s .I n 1~. M . S t o g d i l l a n d A . E . C o o n s ( E d s . ) , L e a d e r b e h a v i o r : I t s d e s c r i p t i o n a n dm e a s u r e m e n t . C o l u m b u s : B u r e a u o f B u s i n e s s R e s e a r c h , O h i o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,1957.HELLER F. ~g Y U K L G . P a r t i c i p a t i o n , m a n a g e r i a l d e c i si o n - m a k i n g , a n d s i t u a t i o n a lv a r i a b l e s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a n d H u m a n P e r ] o r m a n c e 196 9, 4, 227-241.

H]~MPtt ILL J . K . L e a d e r b e h a v i o r a s s o c ia t e d w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t iv e r e p u t a t i o n s o fc o ll eg e d e p a r t m e n t s . I n R . M . S t o g d i l l a n d A . E . C o o n s ( E d s . ), L e a d e r b e h a v i o r :I t s d e s c r i p t i o n a n d m e a s u r e m e n t . C o l u m b u s : B u r e a u o f B u s i n e s s R e s e a r c h , O h i oS t a t e Un i v e r s i t y , 1 9 5 7 .H E ~ P m L L , J. K . , C OO NS, A . E . D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e l e a d e r b e h a v i o r d e s c ri p t i o nq u e s t i o n n a ir e . I n R . M . S t o g d i l l a n d A . E . C o o n s ( E d s . ), L e a d e r b e h a v i o r : I t sd e s c r i p t i o n a n d m e a s u r e m e n t . C o l u m b u s : B u r e a u o f B u s i n e s s R e s e a r c h , O h i oS t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 95 7.JAC0BSOX, J . M . A na ly s i s o f in te rpe r son a l r e la t ions in a fo rm al o rgan iza t ion . U np ub -l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Un i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1 9 5 3 .KA~:Z, D ., MACCOBY, N ., G UR IN, G., FLOOR L . P r o d u c t i v i t y s u p e r v i si o n a n d m o r a l e

among rai lroad workers . A n n A r b o r : S u r v e y R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , U n i v e r s i t y o fMichigan , 1951 .I~A'rZELL, P~. A. P e r son a l va lue s , job sa t i s f ac t io n , an d job beh avio r . I n H. Bo r row( E d . ) , M a n i n a W o r l d o ] W o r k . B o s t o n : Ho u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 1 9 6 4 .KAy , E . , M E , R , H . I t . , F R E ~'e H , J . R . P . E f f e ct s o f t h r e a t i n a p e r f o r m a n c e a p -p r a i s a l i n t e r v i e w . J o u r n a l o ] A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y 1965, 49, 311-317.NOR MAN, A . IK . C o n s i d e r a t i o n , i n i t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e , a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a - - Arev iew. P e r s o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 1966, 19, 349-362.

LAWRENCE, L . C . ~ 5 S ~ I I T I - I P . C . G r o u p d e c is i o n a n d e m p l o y e e p a r t i c i p a t i o n . J o u r n a lo ] A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y 1955, 39, 334-337.L E WlN, I ( . T h e d y n a m i c s o f g r o u p a c t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p 1944, 1, 195-200.L IKER T, R . D e v e l o p i n g p a t t e r n s i n m a n a g e m e n t . S t r e n g t h e n i n g m a n a g e m e n t ] o r t h en e w t e c h n o l o g y . N e w Y o r k : A m e r i c a n M a n a g e m e n t A s s o c ia t io n , 1 95 5.LIKERT, R. N e w p a t t e rn s o J m a n a g e m e n t . N e w Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1 96 1.LOCKE, E . A . W h a t i s j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n ? O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a n d H u m a n P e r ] o r m -ance 1969, 4, 309-336.L o w i ~ , A . P a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g : A m o d e l , l i t e r a t u r e c r i t i q u e , a n d p r e s c r i p -t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a n d H u m a n P e r J o r m a n c e 1968, 3 ,68-106.L o w IN , A ., ~-~RAPCHA1K, W . J ., (~5 ~ V A N A G I - I M . J . C o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d I n i t i a t i n g


25/27

4 8 ~A~Y V~KL

Structure: An experimental investigation of leadership traits. A dm i n i s t r a l i v eScience Quarterly 1969, 14, 238-253.MAIER, N. R. F. Psychology in indus t ry . Third ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.,

1965.MAmR, N. R. F., & HOFFMAN, L. R. Group decision in England and the UnitedStates, P e r s onne l P s y c ho logy 1962, 15, 75-87.MAmR, N. R. F., & MAIER, R. A. An experimental test of the effects of develop-mental vs. free discussions on the quality of group decisions. Journal o] Ap-p l i ed Psychology 1957, 41, 320-323.MAN~, F. C., & DENT, J. The supervisor: Member of ~wo organizational families.H ar v ar d B us i ne s s R e v i e w 1954, 32, (6), 103-112.MeCuRDY, I-I. O., EBE~, I. i.W. Democratic vs. authori tar ian: A further investiga-tion of group problem-solving. Journal o] Personal i ty 1953, 22, 258-269.McCuRD, tI . G., & LAMBERT, W. E. The efficiency of small groups in the solutionof problems requiring genuine cooperation. Journal o / Personal i t y 1952, 20,478-494.McMuRaAY, R. N. The case for benevolent autocracy. Ha rvard Business R ev ie w19'58, 36, (1), 82-90.MELTZEa, L. Scientific productivity in organizational settings. Journal o] Social Issues1956, 12, (2), 32-40.MIsu~I , J., & SHIRAKASEI, S. An experimental study of the effects of supervisorybehavior on productivity and morale in a hierarchical organization. H u m a n R e -Iations 19'66 19, 297-307.Mo~sE, N. Saris]action in the white-collar job. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Re-search, University of Michigan, 1953.MoRsE, N. C., & REI~ER, E. The experimental change of a major organizationalvariable. Journal o] Abnormal and Soc ia l Psychology 1956, ~2, t20-129.M~-LDER, M., & STE~ERDING, A. Threat, at traction to group and strong leadership: Alaboratory experiment in a natural setting. H u m a n R e l a t i o n s 1963, 16, 317-334.NEALEY, S. M., & BLOOD, M. R. Leadership performance of nm'sing supervisors attwo organizational levels. Journal o] Appl i ed Psychology 1968, 52, 414-422.NEWEOMB, T. I-I., TS~NEI~, R. H., & CON-WRSE, P. E. Social psychology. New York:Holt, l~inehart, & Winston, 1965.NEwPoaT, G. A study of attitudes and leadership behavior. Personne l Admini s t ra t ion19'62, t~ (5), 42-46.PATCHE~r, M. Supervisory methods and group performance norms. A dm i n i s t r a t i v eScience Quarterly 1962, 7, 275-294.PELZ, D. C. Influence: A key to effective leadership in the first-line supervisor. P e r -sonnel 1952, ~9, 209-217.PORTER, L. W. Job att itudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need ful-fillment as a function of job level. Journal o] Appl i ed Psychology 1962, 46, 375-

384.RAMSO, W. W. The construction and analysis of a leadership behavior rating form.J our na l o ] A pp l i e d P s y c ho l ogy 1958, 42, 409-415.I%EILLY, A. J. The effects of different leadership styles on group performance: A fieldexperiment. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Conven-tion, Washington, D. C., Sept. 1, 1969.RosEN, R. A. I-I., & 1RosE~, R. A. A. Suggested modification in job satisfaction cur-veys. P e r s onne l P s y c ho logy 1955, 8, 303-314.


26/27

BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP 4 9Ross, I. C., Z,~'DER, A. Need satisfactions and employee turnover. P e r s onne l P s y -chology, 1957, 10, 327-338.ROWLA~TD, K. M., SCOTT, W. E. PSychological attributes of effective leadership in a

formal organization. Personne l Psychology , 1968, 21, 365-378.SALES, S. M. Supervisory style arid productivity : Review and theory. P e r s onne l P s y -chology, 1966, 19, 275-286.SAMPLE, J. A., WILson-, T. R. Leader behavior, group productivity, and rating ofleast preferred eoworker. Journal o] Personal i t y and Soc ia l Psychology , 1965, 1,266-270.SCHACHTER, S., WILLERMA~T, B., FESTI~,TGER,L., I-IYMAZV, R. Emotional disruptionand industrial productivity. J our na l o ] A pp l i e d P s y c ho l ogy , 1961, 45, 201-213.SCHAEFER, R. H. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work. PsychologicalMonogr aph , 1953, 67, (14, Whole No. 364).SCHOE~FELD, E. Authoritarian management: A reviving concept. Personne l , 1959, 36,21-24.SEASHORE, S. Group cohes iveness in the indus tr ial work group. Ann Arbor: Institutefor Social Research, University of Michigan, 1954.SHAW, M. E. A comparison of two types of leadership in various communication nets.Journal o f Abnormal and Soc ia l Psychology , 19'55, 50, 127-134.S~;~h'NZR, E. W. Relationships between leadership behavior patterns and organiza-tional-situational variables. Personne l Psychology , 1969, 22, 489~I94.SOLE~, A. R. An evaluat ion of two at titudinal approaches to delegation. Journal o fA pp l i e d P s y c ho l ogy , 1958, 42, 36-39.STANTO~, E. S. Which approach to management--democratic, authoritar ian, or . . .?Personne l Admini s t ra t ion , 1962, 25 (2), 44-47.STO~DILL, R. M., GOODE, O. S., ' DAY, D. R. New leader behavior description sub-scales. Journal o] Psychology , 1962, 54, 259-269.SrOaDILL, R. M., GOODE, O. S., DAY, D. R. The leader behavior of corporationpresidents. Personne l Psychology , 196,3, 16, 127-132.STOaDILL, R. M., G00DE, O. S., DAY, D. R. The leader behavior of presidents oflabor unions. Perso~ne l Psychology , 1964, 17, 49~57.STRAUSS, G. Some notes on power equalization. In H. J. Leavitt (Ed.), The socialscience o] organizations: Po ur pers pec tives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hail, 1964.TosI, H. A re-examination of personality as a determinant of the effects of partici-pation. Personne l Psychology , 1970, 23, 9,1-99.TAN~CE>-BAUX, A. S. The relationship between personality and group structure. Un-published doctoral dissertation. Syracuse University, 1954.Taow, D. B. Autonomy and job satisfaction in task-oriented groups. Journal o] Ab-normal and Social Psycholo.gy, 1957, 54, 204-209.VRoo~, V. t I. Some personal ity determinants of the effects of participation. Jou~, nalo] Abnormal and Soc ia l Psychology , 1959, 59, 322-327.VROOM, V. It . Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.VR00~, V. tI. , M.4N>~. F. C. Leader authoritar iall ism and employee attitudes. Pe~ -sonne t Psychology , 1960, 13, 125-140.WOODWAaD, J. Industrial orga)zizatio.~a: Theory and practice. London: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1965.YtrKL, G. A. Conceptions and consequences of leader behavior. Paper presented at


27/27

44 G RY YUKL

t h e a n n u a l c o n v e n t i o n o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i at io n , N e w p o r tB e a c h , J a n u a r y , 1 9 6 9 a ) .Y rz K b, G . A . A s i t u a t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r l e a d e r s . Educational andPsychological Measurement 1969, 29 , 515-518 b) .Y C K L, G . A . L e a d e r L P C s c o r es : A t t i t u d e d i m e n s i o n s a n d b e h a v i o r a l c o r re l a te s .Journal o] Social Psychology 1970, 80, 207-212.

R E C EIV E D: A p r i l 2 9 , 1 9 7 0

Documents

Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership