8/10/2019 4395873

1/12

Personality and Situational

ffe ts

on Leader

ehavior^

STEPHEN G GREEN

University of Washington

DELBERT M NEBEKER

United States Navy

M A L A N B O N I

University of Washington

Tiiis paper exam ines Fiedler s proposed relationship

between leader beitavior and two variables related to tire

Contingency Model. Tlie evidence strongly suggests tiiat

under stress in a threatening situation, leaders witii iiigii

Least Prefered Coworker (LPC) scores are more inter-

personally oriented witiie low LPC leaders are more task

oriented.

Altho ugh Fiedler s contingency model of leadership effectiveness (1 9 6 7 )

has proven to be particularly successful in delineating the conditions unde

which leaders are relatively effective, it has experienced considerable dif

ficulty in providing a behavioral explanation for these differences. This

theory posits a contingen t relationship betw een leadership perform ance and

a leadership style measure referred to as the esteem for the Least Preferred

Coworker (LPC). This measure results from leaders rating their least pre

ferred coworker on a set of bipolar adjectives scales such as friendly

unfriendly, and efficientinefficient. De pen ding o n whether the lead e

describes his LPC in relatively positive terms or in a negative fashion, he

is classified as either a high LPC leader or a low LPC leader, respectively

The empirical model postulates that low LPC leaders perform best in eithe

very favorable or very unfavorable situations; the high L PC leader perform

better in situations w hich are interme diate in favorability. Fo r Fiedler

purpose, situational favorability is classified by using three dichotomou

dimensions:

Stephen G. Green is a doctoral student at the University of Washington, Seattle, Wash

8/10/2019 4395873

2/12

1976

Volume 19 Number 2

185

(a ) The degree to which there are positive feelings in the group (gro up

atmosphere, G A ) ; 6 F ve F

(b ) The amou nt of structure in the task (task structure, T S ); and,

(c ) Th e leader's pow er as a function of his position (position power, P P ) .

These three elements combine to form eight octants, with octant one

(positive GA; high TS; high PP) being most favorable and octant eight

(poor GA; low TS; low PP) least favorable for the leader.

The interpretation of what leader behavior results in these differences in

effectiveness is not so clear. Originally, Fiedler (1961) viewed LPC as a

leadership trait or style measure, with high LPC leaders being inter-

personally oriented and low LPC leaders task oriented. However, when

support for this interpretation could not be found empirically, Fiedler began

to look for an alternative explanation (B ass, Fiedler Krueger 1964-

Bishop, 1964).

In an attempt to account for inconsistent data, Fiedler came to a motiva-

tional interpretation of LPC (1973). He argued that LPC is a motivational

index which corresponds to a leader's hierarchy of goals. This hierarchy is

arranged with the leader having both primary and secondary goals, the

satisfaction of the primary goals allowing the leader to pursue his secondary

goals.

For the high LPC leader, interpersonal relations are primary, and

prommence and self-enhancement (gained through task-relevant behavior)

are secondary. On the other hand, for the low LPC leader, task accomplish-

ment is a primary goal and good interpersonal relations a secondary goal.

A reanalysis by Fiedler (1972) of a number of studies yielded some support

for this interpretation of the LPC leader's behavior (e.g., Fiedler, Meuwese

Oon k, 1 96 1; Hawley, 196 9) . In favorable situations, the high L PC

leaders attended to the task and low LPC leaders behaved in a relationship

onented manner. Conversely, when the situation was unfavorable, the high

LPC leaders became interpersonally oriented and the low LPC leaders were

task oriented.

Fiedler suggests that the factor which moderates the behavior of the

leader is the threat inherent in the situation and the concomitant stress to

the leader (1972). Intuitively, this notion is appealing and somewhat

compelling. It would seem reasonable that the situations which threaten the

leader and stress him would cause him initially to seek the primary goals in

his motivational scheme. Implicit in this conception is the assumption that

under low threat, nonstressful conditions the leader is more likely to pursue

his secondary goals. Th us the empirical support presented by Fiedler (1 9 7 2)

is interpretable if we can assume the favorable situations were less threaten-

ing than the unfavorable. This conclusion seems warranted by Fiedler's

8/10/2019 4395873

3/12

186

Academy of Management Journal

Jun

lying dimension interacting with the leader's motivational goals. In addition

since the paucity of empirical evidence on the behavioral correlates of LPC

may be the result of unstandardized observations, this study provided the

opportunity to observe the behavior of high and low LPC subjects unde

standardized and controlled conditions.

The hypotheses tested in this study are founded upon Fiedler's interpreta

tion that there is an interaction between the personality of the leade

(measured by LPC) and the situation in which he acts. In general, it i

believed that in a situation which is threatening to the leader (and thu

a high stress condition), the high LPC leader will be interpersonall

oriented and the low LPC leader task oriented. On the other hand, in situa

tions of low threat (therefore, nonstressful), the high LPC leader will b

task oriented and the low LPC leader interpersonally oriented. In effect, th

two types of leaders will pu rsue their prim ary goals in stressful situation

and their secondary goals in nonstressful situations. The major hypothese

are:

Hypothesis In conditions of low stress,iowLPC leaders will be mo

interpersonally oriented and less task oriented than hig

LPC leaders.

Hypothesis 2In conditions of high stress, high LPC leaders will b

more interpersonally oriented and less task oriented tha

iow LPC leaders.

Hypothesis 3Across all situations, high LPC leaders will be mo

interpersonally oriented and less task oriented than io

LPC leaders.

METHO

Subjects

Sixty male subjects from the University of Washington undergradua

psychology subject pool were administered a battery of personality tes

including the LPC scale. Their mean LPC score (16-item version) wa

62 .1 , which did not differ significantly from normative findings (Posthum

1970). Eighteen subjects scored in the upper third of the distribution an

were chosen as high LPC subjects. Fifteen subjects scored in the low

third of the distribution and were chosen as low LPC subjects (a total o

33 subjects). This selected sample of subjects then participated in a labor

tory experiment. Participation was encouraged by extra class credit.

Stress

Manipulation

8/10/2019 4395873

4/12

1976 Voiume 19 Number 2

8

correlations between scores on this test and such constructs as I.Q. or need

achiev em ent had been shown in curren t studies. Finally, they were in-

formed that a high score on their test could result in their returning for

another study for which they would be paid. The other instructions, devised

to minimize threat to the leader (low stress), informed the group that they

were participating in leadership research and that the test they were about

to take was merely in its developmental stages. The subjects were asked to

relax, as this was only an exploratory test and there was no correct or

incorrect response. Thus, an attempt was made to induce two conditions of

stress within a leadership situation by manipulating the threat of the test

atmosphere.

The Task

Each subject listened to a tape-recorded committee meeting as if he were

in the meeting as its chairman. The meeting was divided into scenes, each

scene dealing with a somewhat different problem relevant to the context of

the meeting. As a scene was terminated, a cue for the subject-chairman to

respond to the discussion was given. Each subject was given a short time to

respond as if he were actually speaking to the committee. At the end of this

allotted time period, the group discussion would fade back into the next

scene. The subject's responses were taped as the major dependent variable

providing seven samples over a variety of different issues and problems

within a single controlled situation. (To strengthen the stress manipulation,

the high stress group was given only 20 seconds to reply while the low stress

Ss were given 40 seconds to respond. Nevertheless, Ss almost always had

sufficient time to reply.)

The script was developed to present the subjects with a variety of situa-

tions in which they could support or reject individual or group ideas, deal

with an argument, deal with a lack of information, and act or not act in a

\yarm and friendly manner. On the basis of Fiedler's categorization of situa-

tions,

it was anticipated that the committee meeting itself would be an

unfavorable situation. The group atmosphere would be moderate to low,

the task unstructured and the leader's power position low. This methodology

seemed genuinely to engage the subjects, as concern for the group's prob-

lems often was evident in their taped responses; thus, it was not uncommon

for the subjects to use the names of committee members in their responses

to the group.

easures

In addition to the taped responses, other measures were taken. After the

8/10/2019 4395873

5/12

188 Academy of Management Journal June

as committee chairman on an adapted Leader Behavior Description Ques-

tionn aire (Ha lpin W iner, 1 9 5 7 ); in part two , they answered several

questions to ascertain suspicion and the stressfulness of the situation.

A rating system was employed to classify the dependent measurethe

Ss' taped responsesas either interpersonal or task oriented. The classifica

tion and ratings were based on five interpersonal and six task orientation

criteria which had been derived from the major LBDO items defining

consideration and initiation of structure. The following items served as

the operational definition for the dependent variables:

Interpersonal orientation Io)

1. He looks out personally for individual grou p mem bers.

2.

He consults the group on any actions.

3 . He backs members in their actions or ideas.

4. He is friendly and appro acha ble.

5. He tries to put group mem bers at ease when talking with them .

Tasii orientation To)

1. He expresses his attitudes, opinions an d /o r ideas to the group .

2.

He rules with an iron hand .

3. H e emphasizes the use of uniform proced ures.

4.

He criticizes poor work or ideas.

5. He makes certain his part (as the ch airm an ) is clearly unde rstood b

the members.

6. He lets group mem bers know w hat is expected of them .

A five-point scale from very true to not true was used for each of the 11

LBDO items, with four independent judges' ratings being averaged for

each subject. The totals for the averaged ratings of the interpersonal and

task items were summed across the scenes. This process provided a single

me asure of each dimension for each subject. The internal reliability (N un -

nally, 1967) of the interpersonal items as rated by the judges was .88 and

.74 for the task items. The interjudge reliability obtained an average inter-

correlation of .79.

R SULTS

Validation of M anipulation

In order to evaluate the stress manipulation, a chi-square test was

generated by classifying the subjects into high and low manipulated stress

groups and into stressed and not stressed groups based on their response

to the posttest questionnaire. A chi-square of 2.19 (n.s.) was obtained

8/10/2019 4395873

6/12

Voiume 19, Number 2 189

ambiguous nature

of

the committee task, the virtually powerless position

of

the chairman and thecommittee's lowgroup atmosphere X = 49 00)

created an extremely unfavorable situation for theleader. Therefore the

groups were combined

and

treated

as

essentially facing

the

same

unfavor-

able situation as leaders, makingitimpossibleto test hypothesis 1; thusthe

total mo tivation hierarchy can not be examined with this study. Nevertheless

duetothe small am ountof empirical evidence availableon thebehaviorai

correlatesofLPCin standardized situations,it was felt that combiningthe

data would answer valuable questions.

An

understanding

of

what leader

behaviors are associated with LPC types in this unfavorable situation would

help test part of Fiedler's interpretation aswell asgenerally dem onstrate

the behaviorai implicationsofL P C .

Analysis of the Leader's Overall Behavior

Using the obtained dependent measures, Ntests were performed between

the high and low LPC leader groups,

in

that the Ss were now considered

as

all facinganunfavorable situation . Significant differences were found, with

the high LPC leaders being more interpersonally oriented

t 2.3S;p