a study of situational leadership theory in a distribution corporation

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

NOTE TO USERS

Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are

available for consultation at the authors university library.

Appendices A through F Pages 95*118

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI'


A Study of Situational Leadership Theory in a Distribution Corporation

ByCorinne A. D. Patrick

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to School of Business and Entrepreneurship

Nova Southeastern University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

2002


UMI Number: 3058557

Copyright 2002 by Patrick, Corinne Angela Deborah

All rights reserved.

__ _

UMIUMI Microform 3058557

Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


A Dissertation entitled

A Study of Situational Leadership Theory in a Distribution Corporation

By

Corinne A. D. Patrick

We hereby certify that this Dissertation submitted by Corinne A. D. Patrick conforms to acceptable standards, and as such is fully adequate in scope and quality. It is therefore approved as the fulfillment of the Dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.

Approved:

Edward Pierce, D.B.A. Chairperson

?//&/>vs#Date

William Hahn, D.B.A. Committee Member

Date

PedroF .Pellet, Ph.D. Committee Member

Mte-

Joseph l/. Balloun; Ph.D. Date 7L .

tctplt of Doctoral Research

I'iM jJ. /Breston Jones, D.B.A. DateAssociate Dfeen, The Wayne Huizenga Graduate School of Business and Entrepreneurship

Nova Southeastern University 2002


ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY IN A DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION

by

Corinne A. D. Patrick

The focus of this research is an analysis in a distribution corporation of supervisors and managers in a third party logistics company. Specific goals of the study were to (a) determine the primary leadership style, (b) to determine the secondary leadership style, (c) determine the style adaptability levels compared to the support and operations groups, (d) determine the style adaptability and compare to the leader vs. the his/hers peers, subordinates and superiors, and (e) to determine style adaptability compared with subordinates in the two groups, support and operations.

The LEAD Self (Hersey & Blanchard, 1996) was used to measure self-perception of four aspects of leader behavior,(a) primary style, (b) secondary style, (c) style range, and (d) style adaptability. The LEAD-Others was used to measure the others-perception of four aspects of leader behavior (a) primary style, (b) secondary style, (c) style range, and (d) style adaptability as perceived by the leaders peers, subordinates, and superiors.

There were 160 LEAD Other surveys issued to subordinates, peers, and superiors. There were 41 LEAD Self surveys, issued to the leaders (13 managers and 28 supervisors). There were seven managers and 11 supervisors from the support function, and six managers and 17 supervisors from the operation group. The findings of the survey show that over 75% of the personnel surveyed fell into the two categories.

According to Situational Leadership Theory, leaders whose scores place the majority of their responses in Styles 1 and 2 tend to be able to raise and lower their relationship behavior but often feel uncomfortable unless they are "calling the shots." These leaders often project in interviews that "no one can do things as well as I can," which often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leader


CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own

product, that where the language of others is set forth,

quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is

given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions or

writing of another.

SignedCorinne A. D. Patrick


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to express my sincere appreciation to all of those who participated in and provided support to me through this academic endeavor. A special thanks goes to my husband, Michael Patrick Sr., for the support and love that he has shown during this process.

I want to thank my chair, Dr. Edward Pierce, for offering initial encouragement, inspiration, technical support, and competence and for being available to me. I would also like to thank Dr. William Hahn and Dr. Pedro Pellet for their insightful comments, cooperation, and support throughout this study.

I would like to acknowledge my co-workers and upper management for their support and patience in completing the survey used for this study. I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to my manager, Richard Dombroski; without his constant support and encouragement, this would not have been possible.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends for supporting and encouraging me to undertake and fulfill this educational endeavor.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables........................................... vii

List of Figures......................................... viii

Chapter

I INTRODUCTION............................................. 1

Background...............................................1Purpose of the Study.................................... 5Theory to be Tested..................................... 6Limitations of the Study................................7Preliminary Research Questions..........................8Significance of the Research............................9Definition of Terms.................................... 10

II LITERATURE REVIEW...................................... 16

Ohio State Leadership Studies..........................18University of Michigan Leadership Studies............. 19Two Independent Dimension of Leadership............... 213-D Management Style Theory............................22Contingency Theory..................................... 28Path-Goal Theory....................................... 31Immaturity - Maturity Theory..........................32Situational Leadership Theory..........................34

Basic C o n c e p t s ...............................35The Basic Model................................39

Research Testing the T h e o r y ......................... 42Summary................................................ 54

III METHODOLOGY........................................... 56

Research Variables..................................... 56Conceptual Framework................................... 57Research Questions and Hypotheses..................... 58Demographic Data....................................... 61Instruments............................................ 62Situational Leadership Theory..........................64Research Domain........................................ 65Population and Sample Size.............................66Data Gathering Instrument and Technique............... 67


Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS................. 69

Composite Profile & Style/Readiness............... 69Research Variables................................. 72Response Rate...................................... 72Conceptual Framework...............................73

Hypothesis testing..................................... 75

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................. 85

Results of Hypotheses Testing..........................86Discussion..............................................91

Limitations of Study...............................91Implications for Future Study..........................92

Appendix...................................................94

A. LEAD Self Survey.....................................95B. LEAD Other Survey.....................................99C. The Style Readiness Matrix.......................... 103D. LEAD Directions...................................... 105E. The SLT Model........................................ 113F. 360-Degree Leadership Style Feedback/Composite

Profile/Interpreting your Results.................. 115G. Analysis of Variables............................... 118H. Additional Hypotheses Tables ...................... 120I. Authorization to use LEAD Self & Other Survey. . . 124

REFERENCES................................................125

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 130


LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Cluster Membership.............................. 77

2. Pearson Correlation............................ 7 9

3. Whitney-Mann Test............................... 81

4. Test Statistics..................................81

5. Whitney-Mann Test............................... 83

6. Krus leal-Wall is Ranks by Distance................83


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Ohio State University Leadership Quadrants . 19

2. Reddin's Complete 3-D Leadership Style............ 27

3. Leadership Style appropriate for various readiness levels.................................. 31

4. Four Levels of Readiness in the Situational Leadership Theory................................. 64

5. Four Levels of Readiness in the Situational Leadership Theory................................. 75

viii


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

Throughout history, people have been captivated with

the ways in which leaders persuade groups of people,

organizations, and even governments to fulfill certain

objectives and to meet specific goals. This captivation

increased researchers' desire to understand effective

leadership, which resulted in a vast amount of literature

on the subject. This research has continually defined and

redefined effective leadership in many ways throughout the

years (Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, & Williams, 1993).

In the 1940s, research on leadership concentrated

primarily on the personality characteristics of the

individual. Toward the late 1950s and 1960s, physical

attributes and the behavior of leaders were also considered

as focal points for leadership. Using this focus,

researchers identified different dimensions of leadership.

These dimensions include examinations of distinguishable

1


2behavior, leadership training, reward and punishment, and

charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the situational and

contingency approaches of the 1960s brought about a

comprehensive approach in which traits or personality

variables, task orientations and structure, leader-follower

relationships, and situational contexts were all measurable

variables through which a leader's effectiveness could be

examined (Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, & Williams, 1993).

Contemporary approaches to leadership research have

concentrated on a blend of variables compiled throughout

the years. Now, not only does this research emphasize the

cognitive effects of leaders on their followers but also

their influence on the organization as a whole through

structural, multicultural, and performance measures.

For the present study, leadership can be defined as a

process of noncoercive social influence, whereby a leader

guides the activities and members of a group toward shared

objectives and goals in an organization. Simply put, the

key to being an efficient manager is effective leadership

(Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson 1996). The concepts of

behavioral science are well intended but often fall short

of the mark. While many researchers have brought forth

good ideas, many have had difficulty in putting the ideas


3into practice. When studying leader influence, the

behavior of others should not be thought of as a single

event. There is no single formula to apply in every

situation; like any other skill, leadership effectiveness

increases the more one understands and engages in

leadership skills.

Managerial leadership is an interactive relationship

between a leader and a follower in which the leader

attempts to influence the follower to accomplish an

organizational goal or perform a task (Bass & Stodgill,

1990) . Leadership is any attempt to influence the behavior

of another individual or group according to Hersey et al.

(1996) . Hersey et al. refer to leadership as the function

of accomplishing tasks and reaching goals through the

efforts of other people, whereas management is working with

and through others to accomplish organizational goals.

Leadership is considered a much broader concept than

management. According to Hersey et al. (1996), "one can

have a different objective in mind when one attempts to

influence other people" (p.229). Since management is a

special form of leadership that involves the goals of an

organization, consideration should be given to the impact

on the people being influenced. Hersey et al. explain that

in management, the difference between successful and


4effective leadership attempts often explains why many

supervisors can get results when they are right there

looking over the worker's shoulder. However, as soon as

they leave, output declines, and often such things as

horseplay and scrap loss increase.

According to Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson, (2001)

"to bridge the gap between one-time success and long-term

effectiveness, one needs to develop three skills in working

with people" (p. 124). These three skills often determine

whether leadership attempts will be successful or

unsuccessful, effective or ineffective. Understanding what

motivates people, predicting how people will behave in

response to leadership attempts, and directing peoples'

behavior are all necessary conditions for effective

leadership to occur.

Leadership takes place in an organization or a group

of two persons or more. It is a process of interaction.

The leader uses a variety of ways to influence group

members to devote themselves to a given goal. Overall,

effectiveness depends upon understanding, predicting, and

influencing the behavior of other people.


5Purpose of the Study

This research looks at the influence of the match (if

any) of manager leadership style and subordinate

associates' perceptions of the leader. The sample for this

research consists of managers, supervisors, and their

subordinates in a distribution corporation. A stratified

random sampling procedure is used. The study focuses on

determining the extent that variations in levels of

leadership can be explained by the variables historically

used by researchers to describe the Situational Leadership

Theory constructs, maturity and readiness. The constructs,

maturity and readiness, are often used interchangeably. In

explaining the change from maturity to readiness, Hersey et

al. (1996) state "during the 1960s the term, maturity, in

reference to assessing people did not seem offensive; it

does now" (p. 585).

The role of leadership in business is significant.

The purpose of this study is to attempt to understand the

impact of leadership style and the adaptability of the

leader. The process for achieving this aim includes

testing the Situational Leadership Theory. If this is a

valid theory that can be used in the distribution

organization, it will be a useful tool for other

organizations to use to understand the role of leadership


6in their organizations and to develop strategies to improve

leadership style.

Theory to be Tested

The theory tested in this study is the Situational

Leadership Theory. The original model for this approach

was suggested by Reddin (1967) and later adapted by Hersey,

Blanchard, and Johnson (2001). Reddin's (1967) 3-

Dimensional Management Style Theory attempts to match one

of three leadership styles to certain work environments

with the goal of increasing employee output. He identifies

two leadership orientations, relationship orientation and

task orientation. The combination of styles suggests the

existence of two different orientations, which are adapted

by leaders according to the work environment. Hersey et

al. (1996) modify this concept of orientations by

suggesting that leadership styles change with a leader's

readiness, as well as with the readiness of an organization

and its work force. By looking at such components as task

and relationship factors and combining the relative

importance of task and relationship with the level of

readiness, Hersey et al. (1996) developed their four-factor

theory of Situational Leadership.


7The Hersey et al. (1996) model suggests that effective

leaders are those who can accurately diagnose the essential

variables in each leadership situation and adjust their

leadership style to fit the existing conditions. As the

diversity of leadership situations encountered increases,

the leader must possess more sophisticated diagnostic

skills and a broader range of styles.

Limitations of the Study

The study examines the leaders and followers at the

group level. Variations in individual levels of readiness

and leader behavior may be obscured by the generalized

perception of the group's perspective.

The LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other are questionnaires. The

LEAD-Self is used to evaluate the leadership behaviors used

when the leader is engaged in attempts to influence the

actions and attitudes of others. The information gathered

with the LEAD-Self provides insight into the current

strengths of the leader and areas for his or her leadership

skill development. This supplies information about which

leadership behaviors one may use and the extent to which

those behaviors meet the needs of others.

The LEAD-Other is used to profile the leadership

behaviors of a person's perception of the leader. The


8information gathered with the LEAD-Other provides insight

into the perception of a leader's attempts to influence.

It supplies information about which leadership behaviors

are used and the extent to which these behaviors match the

needs of others.

Preliminary Research Question

There are three preliminary research questions for

this study. The questions ask: (a) What is the leader's

primary leadership style and what is his or her leadership

adaptability in the distribution corporation? (b) is there

a higher leadership style adaptability score among

subordinates when there is a match of manager leadership

style? and (c) is there a tendency of over-leadership or

under-leadership according to the Readiness Matrix in the

distribution corporation?

The specific research questions are as follows:

1. What is the primary leadership style in a


2. What is the secondary leadership style in a


3. What is the perception of the leader's

leadership style adaptability in the



94. Is there a difference between the support

section and the operations section in their

perception of the overall leadership style

adaptability in the distribution

corporation?

5. Is there a difference in the perception of

the followers' leadership style adaptability

between the support section and operations

section?

Significance of the Research

The findings of this study further the understanding

of organizational leadership in a distribution

organization. The research on situational leadership is

limited; this study provides support for the application of

the Situational Leadership Theory in identifying effective

managers in general and in a distribution organization.

This study has special significance in that it focuses on

the culture of the organization and can be expected to

influence significantly the applicability or non

applicability of the Situational Leadership Theory to

organizations. The identification of effective managers is

a critical task facing all organizations, and any tools


10

that can be identified and used to facilitate this process

should apply to other organizations.

The theory is often cited as a basis for decision

making. Efforts to validate the study have been limited in

scope and have been, for the most part, largely

inconclusive. In accordance with Hersey et al. (2001),

"Situational Leadership suggests that the higher the level

of task-relevant readiness of an individual or group, the

higher the probability that participation will be an

effective management technology" (p.371).

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined for the purpose of the

study:

Ability: Ability is the knowledge, experience, or

skill, or all three that an individual or group brings to a

particular task or activity.

Charismatic Leadership: A leader is perceived as

charismatic when followers make attributions of heroic or

extraordinary leadership abilities upon observing certain

behaviors.

Commitment: This demonstrated duty to perform a task.

Confidence: This demonstrated assurance in the

ability to perform a task.


11

Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness a personality

dimension that describes someone who is responsible,

dependable, persistent, and achievement oriented.

Consideration: This is the extent to which a leader

is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual

trust, respect for subordinates' ideas, and regard for

their feelings.

Distribution corporation: An organization that

logistically distributes products for a customer.

Experience: This is a demonstrated ability gained

from performing a task.

High probability match: Numbers that appear inside

this diagonal row indicate the leadership style selected

that best matches the readiness level in the situation.

Initiating structure: The extent to which a leader is

likely to define and structure his or her role and those of

the subordinates in the search for goal attainment.

Job readiness: The skills and ability to effectively

perform a job (Hersey et al., 1996).

Job maturity: The skills and ability to effectively

perform a job (Hersey et al., 1996).

Knowledge: This is demonstrated understanding of a

task.


12

LEAD: The LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other are instruments

developed at the Center for Leadership Studies and designed

to measure three aspects of leadership behavior: (a) style,

(b) flexibility and (c) adaptability.

Leader-member relations: The degrees of confidence,

trust and respect subordinates have in their leader.

Leadership: Bass & Stodgill (1990) define leadership

as the method or process employed by a leader of a group or

organization to influence the group to establish and

subsequently obtain the goals of the group or organization.

Leadership style: This refers to a behavior pattern

an individual uses when trying to influence the activities

of others.

Life Cycle Theory of Leadership: This is the original

name given to Situational Leadership (Hersey & Blanchard,

1969).

Management Style: The supervisor's or manager's

approach to influencing the subordinate to do a specific

job is called management style (Hersey et al. 1997).

Maturity: Maturity is the situational ability and

willingness of the worker to perform the task required

(Hersey et al. 1996).

Match: Match in this research means the match of

leadership style to maturity. The process of matching used


13

in this study will mimic the process used in the

Situational Leadership Theory.

Motivation: This is a demonstrated desire to perform

a task.

Over-leadership: This occurs when too much guidance

or direction is provided to followers with higher readiness

levels.

Primary leadership style: This is the behavior

pattern used most often when attempting to influence the

activities of others.

Psychological readiness: Psychological readiness is

the willingness to effectively do a job (Hersey et al.,

2001).

Relationship behavior: The extent to which a leader

leads by communicating with a subordinate, exchanging ideas

with a subordinate, and sharing responsibility for goal

accomplishment.

Relationship-oriented: Leaders tend to perform best

in situations that are intermediate in favorableness.

Secondary leadership style: This is a style that a

leader uses occasionally.

Self-efficacy: The perception of the skill level that

people perceive they have to accomplish a specific task is

described as self-efficacy.


14

Situational Leadership Theory (SLT): SLT is a

contingency theory that focuses on followers' readiness.

Skill: Demonstrated proficiency in a task is a skill.

Structure: An aspect of leadership in which the

leader initiates structure for subordinates by assigning

tasks, establishing procedures, clarifying expectations,

and scheduling work is considered structure.

Style range: The total number of quadrants in the SLT

model in appendix F which there are two or more responses.

Style adaptability: The degree to which one is able

to vary his or her style appropriately to the readiness

level of a follower in a specific situation.

Subordinate readiness: This refers to the skills and

ability as well as the willingness to effectively do a job

(Hersey et al., 2001).

Task behavior: This is the extent to which a leader

dictates what each follower is to do, where he or she is to

do it, and how it is to be done.

Task-oriented: Leaders tend to perform best in group

situations that are either very favorable or very

unfavorable to the leader.

Under-leadership: This occurs when use of a

participating or delegating leadership style is used with

followers at low levels of readiness.


15

Willingness: The extent to which an individual or

group has the confidence and commitment is considered

willingness.

Chapter Two reviews the literature. It also covers

the various theories that are used to build the Situational

Leadership Model.


CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) shows the various

stages of development between a leader and a subordinate in

a controlled environment with variable situations that are

crucial to subordinate readiness levels. Leaders must be

able to effectively navigate various situations while

maintaining a steadfast course toward accomplishing

required goals. Thus, they have become quite accustomed to

using much noncoercive influence to guide members of

workgroups toward shared objectives and common goals within

an organization.

Leaders often boost subordinate workers' feelings of

personal ownership and responsibility for the particular

service or product they help provide or produce. This sort

of leadership has become effective as more and more workers

find themselves in job situations that require them to be

self-directed. Because of the need for the more self

motivated type worker, many leaders have had to evaluate

their leadership skills and abilities.

16


17

The importance of leadership in the private and public

sector has resulted in a large volume of research, which

attempts to understand and explain leadership. In a review

of literature, Gibb (1969) identifies almost 1,000 studies

on effective leadership, and the field has continued to

grow during the last 30 years. A more recent review

(Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994) includes some 100 articles

published since 1969.

The study of leadership has been and continues to be a

dominant part of the literature on management and

organization behavior. A review of scholarly research

introduces multiple variations of leadership patterns

varying from individual traits; behaviors; interaction

patterns; role relationships; follower perceptions;

influence over followers; influence on task goals; as

well as influence on the organizations' culture as a

whole. These approaches to leadership are each

embedded with conceptual weaknesses and a dearth of

cogent empirical evidence (Yuki, 1989, p. 87).

Although an understanding of leadership has been

evasive, significant progress has been made in the study of

leadership traits, behavior, power, and situational factors

(Yuki, 1989) . Leadership styles are now being examined

with an emphasis on keeping the variable situations that


18

must be overcome in mind, while simultaneously meeting

required goals. This means that leadership has to be

viewed as a multi-faceted responsibility where a leader's

power, influence, and behavior are used favorably and

simultaneously, yet intermittently, as the studies below

well indicate.

Ohio State Leadership Studies

The Ohio State University leadership studies focus

specifically on leadership behaviors. The studies

initiated in 1945 by the Bureau of Business Research at

Ohio State University found that leadership styles vary

considerably among leaders (Hersey, et al. 1996). These

leadership studies are responsible for isolating two

independent dimensions of leadership behavior referred to

as initiating structure and consideration. These two

dimensions were identified from a series of 150 questions

that attempted to describe how a leader behaves (Korman,

1966). The questionnaire is entitled the Leader Behavior

Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Korman, 1966). Figure 1

shows the quadrants that were developed for initiating

structure and consideration.


19

tII2 2 o u AC CD

io

High Relationship

And

Low Task

High Task

and

High Relationship

Low Relationship

And

Low Task

High Task

and

Low Relationship

(low) Task Behavior (high)

Figure 1: The Ohio State University Leadership Quadrants

Source: J.K. Hemphill, Leader Behavior Description (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1950)

University of Michigan Leadership Studies

The Survey Research Center at the University of

Michigan attempts to approach the study of leadership by

locating clusters of characteristics that seem to be

related to each other and to various indicators of

effectiveness. The studies identify two concepts called

the employee centered leadership style and the job-centered

leadership style (Hersey et al., 1996). Leaders who are

described as employee-centered emphasize the relationship

aspect of their job. This type of leader places importance

on relationships in conjunction with job effectiveness

(Reddin, 1967). He or she believes that it is important to


20

take an interest in everyone, respecting his or her

individuality and personal needs. Job-centered leaders

emphasize production and the technical aspects of the job.

They tend to relate task orientation and technical skill

with job effectiveness; employees are seen as tools to

accomplish the goals of the organization (Hersey et al.,

2001).

The conclusions of the University of Michigan

leadership studies are that more effective leaders: (a)

tend to give employees support and satisfy employees'

needs; (b) adopt the methods of group supervision and

strategy, and (c) tend to set behavior-oriented goals.

Considering the drawbacks of these conclusions, this

research does not consider situational variables. There is

no evidence to show that leader behavior does change in

different situations (Hersey et al., 2001).

Behavioral theories use leader behavior as a dependent

variable and study its relationship with organizational

effectiveness and task satisfaction. The common problem in

Ohio State University and University of Michigan leadership

studies is the lack of concern for situational factors.

Effective leadership takes place in certain situations or

environments; therefore, situational variables are

necessary factors to consider. Because of the


21

methodological weakness of behavioral theories, situational

leadership theories emerged during the 1960s (Hersey et

al., 2001).

Two Independent Dimensions of Leadership

Initiation structure concerns planning as well as

organizing the work and tasks of others (Reddin, 1970) .

This factor is descriptive of the extent to which a leader

goes in initiating and organizing the activities of a group

to define the way the work is to be done. Initiation

structure includes insisting that the group maintains

performance standards, establishes timetables for

accomplishment of tasks, and meets deadlines. The leader

decides in explicit detail what needs to be done and how it

should be done. The leader establishes a chain of command

with clear lines of communication and clear patterns of

work organization. The support provided by the leader is

directed towards defining and structuring the efforts of

subordinates (Bass & Stodgill, 1990).

Consideration is concerned with the leader

establishing and maintaining relationships (Reddin, 1970).

This factor describes the extent to which a leader displays

concern for the welfare of the other members of the group.

This includes expressing appreciation for good work,


22

stressing the importance of job satisfaction, maintaining

and strengthening the self-esteem of subordinates by

treating them as equals, making special efforts to help

subordinates feel at ease, being easy to approach, putting

subordinates' suggestions into operation, and obtaining

subordinates' approval on important matters before going

ahead. This leader focuses on building relationships,

establishing friendships, building mutual trust, and

demonstrating interpersonal warmth (Bass & Stodgill, 1990).

3-D Management Style Theory

Reddin (1970) developed his 3-Dimensional Theory of

Leadership Effectiveness (3-D Theory) from the two central

elements of leadership behavior produced by the Ohio State

University Leadership Studies. Reddin developed a four

style typology of task and relationship orientation from

these two elements of behavior. The essence of 3-D Theory

is that the two main elements of leader behavior are tasks

to be accomplished and the relationships with the people

who carry out the tasks. In coordinating tasks, leaders

may emphasize task or relationship behavior in small or

large amounts. Additional aspects of the 3-D Theory are

(a) separated style, (b) dedicated style, (c) related

style, and (d) integrated style.


23

Separated style consists of low task and low

relationship orientation. Thus, it is separated from both

task orientation and relationship orientation. The

dedicated style describes leaders that use high task

orientation, but low relationship orientation. The related

style describes high relationship orientation and low task

orientation, and the integrated style combines a high

amount of task and relationship orientation.

According to Reddin (1967) neither task nor

relationship orientation can be considered effective or

ineffective until the third dimension, behavior demands of

the given situation, is added. The effectiveness of the

leader is determined by the appropriateness of the leader's

task and relationship orientation to the demands of the

situation. Thus, a leader that displays a no task or

relationship orientation style could be considered

effective if that is what the situation requires. This is

true for each of the four typologies identified. Each

style could be effective or ineffective depending on the

situation. As a result, Reddin expands the four basic

styles of typology to 12 by adding four task and

relationship behaviors that are considered less effective

and four that are considered more effective based on their

appropriateness to the situation (Reddin, 1970).


24

The effectiveness of the leader's task and

relationship orientation is based on the leader's ability

to adjust the level of task and relationship behavior to

the demands of the situation (Reddin, 1967). No discrete

combination of task and relationship orientation is

considered more effective than another. Reddin posits that

the effectiveness of any task and relationship behavior is

dependent on the appropriateness of behavior to the demands

of the situation (Reddin, 1970). According to Reddin, to

be effective, a leader needs to know how to read

situations. A situation is comprised of five independent,

all-inclusive elements consisting of organization,

information, technology, subordinates, and superiors

(Reddin, 1970). Though he does not list the leader as one

of the situational elements, the leader is part of the

situation. It is the appropriateness of the leader's

behavior to the situational demands that determines the

effectiveness of the leader's task and relationship style.

Three-D Theory is considered a situational theory that

focuses on both the leader and the follower (Reddin, 1970).

Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1969), in their life

theory of leadership, extend Reddin's leadership findings

by suggesting that leader effectiveness is dependent upon

the readiness level of the follower. "Situational


25

leadership is based on an interplay among (1) the amount of

guidance and direction (task behavior) a leader gives; (2)

the amount of socioemotional support (relationship

behavior) a leader provides; and (3) the readiness level

that followers exhibit in performing a specific task,

function, or objective" (Hersey et al., 1996 p. 442). The

authors concur that all situational elements are

significant in influencing the leader's behavior. However,

emphasis is directed toward the leader's behavior with his

or her followers (Hersey et al., 1996). Leader and

follower relationships should not focus solely on

hierarchical relationships (superior and subordinate) but

should include all organizational relationships (superiors,

subordinates, and coworkers) (Hersey et al., 1996). In the

domain of the psychology of power, these hierarchical

relationships can often weaken an organization as the

desire for short-term gains can tend to dominate the

consideration of long-term benefits (Kets de Vries, Loper,

and Doyle, 1994).

Since situational theory reasons no one best way to

influence people exists, Hersey and Blanchard (2001) infer

that the leadership style that should be applied to a given

situation is dependent upon the readiness level of the

follower (Hersey et al., 1996). The authors define


26

leadership style as "the behavior of the leader as

perceived by the follower" (Hersey et al., 1996, p. 166).

Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996) examine leader

behavior using the two separate and distinctive dimensions

previously developed from the Ohio State leadership studies

and expanded by Reddin's (1967) 3-D Theory.

Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996) created a model

(Figure 2) that resembles the four quadrants advanced by

the Ohio State University studies. They used the term,

task behavior, to represent the initiation of structure

dimension and the term, relationship behavior, to represent

consideration dimension. The four quadrants represent one

of four leadership styles. Each leadership style describes

a behavior pattern that a person will use when attempting

to influence another.

The four basic leadership styles are labeled high task

and high relationship, high task and low relationship, low

task and high relationship, and low task and low

relationship.


27

Developer Executive

Bureaucrat Benevolentautocrat

More Effective

Related Integrated

DedicatedSeparated

Less Effective

Missionary Compromiser

Deserter Autocrat

Figure 2: Reddin's complete 3-D Leadership Style

Source: Adapted from William J. Reddin (1970) Managerial Effectiveness McGraw Hill Publishers New York.


28

Contingency Theory

Fiedler (1967) and Fiedler, Chemers, and Mahar (1977)

agree that an effective leader will manage both employee

relations and task requirements of the organization.

Fiedler (1967) developed the contingency theory of

leadership effectiveness suggesting that the performance of

a group is dependent on the interaction of leadership style

and situational favorableness. He defines the

favorableness of a situation as "the degree to which the

situation enables the leader to exert his influence over

this group" (Fiedler, 1967, p.13). There are three major

situational variables, which seem to determine whether a

given situation is favorable to leaders. These include (a)

the leader's personal relationship with the member of the

group, (b) the amount of structure that the group has been

given, and (c) the power and authority that the position

provides (Fiedler, 1967).

Fiedler operationalizes the measurement of leader

behavior through an instrument he calls the Least Preferred

Co-Worker Scale (LPC). Using this instrument, respondents

are asked to describe one person with whom they have worked

very well, as well as one person with whom they have worked

very poorly. The questionnaire asks respondents to rank

the relationships on several polar scales. A total of all


29

of the scale scores equals the LPC score. A manager who

exhibits a low LPC score represents an individual with a

task orientation while a high LPC score indicative of a

person who is relationship-oriented (Fiedler, 1967).

The theory attempts to provide an understanding of the

relationship that exists between an effective leadership

style and the readiness level of the group. Readiness is

the ability the follower has to take responsibility for his

or her actions. Subordinate readiness moderates the two

primary aspects of leadership, task and relationship, with

leader effectiveness (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990).

According to contingency theory, as the level of readiness

of the follower continues to increase, the demand for

structure facilitation on the part of the leader decreases,

as does the need for the leader to interact with the group

for socio-emotional support (Blank, Weitzel, & Green,

1990).

Another element labeled, subordinate readiness, also

must be taken into account. Readiness is defined as the

extent to which a follower has the ability and willingness

to accomplish a specific task (Hersey et al., 1996). It is

the responsibility of the leader to assess not only the

readiness of the individual followers, but also of the

group as a whole. All persons tend to be in varying states


30

of readiness. So, the leader must possess the skills to

assess the readiness level of the individual follower and

assign responsibilities accordingly, so that the entire

group accomplishes all required assignments (Nadler &

Tushman, 1990) . These skills include setting goals,

establishing standards, defining roles, and assigning

responsibilities. The skills needed to set goals,

establish standards, define roles, and assign

responsibilities are considered structuring skills and are

fundamental to effective leadership (Hersey et al., 1996).

Figure 3 illustrates appropriate leadership styles

corresponding to the four levels of readiness, according to

Hersey's, Blanchard's, and Johnson's (2001) Situational

Leadership Model. The four levels of follower readiness

are matched to the four situational leadership styles

required by the followers.


31

READINESS LEVEL APPROPRIATE STYLE

R1Low readinessUnable and unwilling or insecure

SITellingHigh task and low relationship behavior

R2Low to Moderate readiness Unable but willing or confidant

S2SellingHigh task and high relationship behavior

R3Moderate to high readiness Able but unwilling or insecure

S3ParticipatingHigh relationship and low task behavior

R4High readinessAble competent and willing confidant

S4DelegatingLow relationship and low task behavior

R1 SI high S2 2nd S3 3rd S4 low probability

R2 S2 high SI 2nd S3 2nd S4 low probability

R3 S3 high s2 2nd S4 2nd SI low probability

R4 S4 high S3 2nd S2 3 rd SI low probability

Figure 3; Leadership styles appropriate for various

Readiness Levels.

Source: Adapted from Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, LEAD Questionnaires and Manual (2001).

Path-Goal Theory

According to the Path-Goal Theory (House & Mitchell,

1974), a leader influences a follower's work-goal

accomplishment through "...delegating and assigning tasks

(initiating structure) and being supportive and considerate

of followers' needs (possessing an empathic understanding)"

(p. 81). Before a follower completes a task, the follower


32

naturally considers the "...path instrumentality concerning

the rewards forthcoming as a result of work-goal

accomplishment" (House, 1971, p. 322) . When a follower

"...projects that engaging in certain behavior will result

in a desired reward [he or she] will indeed engage in that

behavior" (House, 1971, p. 325). The follower's

performance is further influenced by the follower's

"...ability to accomplish the task, environmental barriers

to completing the task, and the support necessary from

others to complete the task" (House, 1971, p. 325) . The

leader is the one who determines the extent to which work-

goal (task) accomplishment will be "...recognized and

rewarded with such intrinsic and external rewards as

financial increases, promotion, assignment of more

interesting tasks or opportunities for personal growth and

development" (House, 1971, p. 330).

According to House (1971), the level of task clarity

moderates the amount of leader initiating structure and

consideration. The more ambiguous the task is, the greater

is the amount of structure the leader should exhibit.

Immaturity-Maturity Theory

While Chris Argyris was at Yale, he examined

industrial organizations to determine what affect


33

management practices have had on individual behavior and

personal growth within the work environment. Argyris (1957)

studied personality trait growth from childhood to

adulthood. He finds that there are seven characteristics

of personality trait growth. These are:

1. People approach an active state of adulthood from a

passive state of childhood.

2. People approach an independent state of adulthood

from a dependent state of childhood.

3. People approach a flexible state of adulthood from

an inflexible state of childhood.

4. People approach ever-lasting and stable interests in

adulthood from capricious and shallow interests in

childhood.

5. People approach a broad mind of adulthood from a

narrow mind of childhood.

6. People approach equal status with others in

adulthood from the subordinate status in family and

society in childhood.

7. People approach self-understanding and self-control

in adulthood from a lack of rational self-

understanding in childhood.

In Argyris research the characteristics discussed

above from Immaturity Maturity (IM) readiness to readiness


34

are healthy and on a continuum. They are inhibited and

limited by culture and norms. Argyris states most people

who develop adult-level performance skills or abilities are

unable to be developed to full readiness (Hersey et al.

2001).

Hersey et al., (2001) develop the readiness concepts

of Situational Leadership Theory from Argyris' Maturity-IM

Readiness Theory. They define readiness as the extent to

which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness

to take responsibility to accomplish a specific task.

According to Zander, Thomas, and Natsoulas (1960) the

quality of readiness includes (a) high and achieved goals,

(b) concern for completion of the task rather than for

rewards, and (c) expectation of feedback from the task

rather than from the attitude. The degree of

accomplishment-task, relative readiness influences follower

willingness to be engaged in a challenging task at a

medium-high level (Hersey et al., 2001).

Situational Leadership Theory

Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996, 2001) initially

proposed a Life Cycle Theory of Leadership and later

changed the name to Situational Leadership Theory. The

theory is an expanded combination of the Managerial Grid


35

Model (Blake & Mouton, 1984), the 3-D Theory of Management

(Reddin, 1970), and the Readiness-IM Theory (Argyris,

1957). Situational Leadership Theory emphasizes the

importance of employee characteristics when a leader

chooses a leadership style. Its basic concepts, the model,

and readiness elements are discussed below.

Basic Concepts

After Hersey and Blanchard (1996) reviewed the Ohio

State University studies of task and relationship-oriented

leadership behavior, they argue that in the future,

researchers not only should recognize these determinant

environmental factors, but they should develop a systematic

model of environmental differences related to leadership

behavior. At the same time, Hersey and Blanchard argue

that there is a curvilinear rather than linear relationship

between leader task and relationship-oriented behavior and

other variables. Situational Leadership Theory exhibits a

curvilinear relationship based on task oriented leader

behavior, relationship-oriented leader behavior, and

readiness (Hersey et al., 2001).

Hersey and Blanchard (1996) add the follower readiness

level to the two leader behavior dimensions of task

orientation and relationship orientation to construct a


36

three-dimensional theory. They state that the readiness

level of group members is an effective and important factor

that determines leadership style. Readiness level does not

mean readiness characteristics of an individual or groups

required for task accomplishment. The leader evaluates the

individual and group readiness levels. For example, a

manager may find that one of the subordinates in his or her

department has advanced to a particular level of readiness,

while another subordinate has achieved a different

readiness level. The manager should then adopt different

leadership styles to work with the two subordinates. When

handing over tasks to a subordinate with low readiness, the

manager should have clarified structure, instructed

carefully and specifically, and provided supervision.

Working with a subordinate who is shy and insecure, the

manager should adopt a relationship-oriented leader

behavior. This emphasizes good interaction with the

follower, supporting and helping him or her to develop a

good interpersonal relationship with his or her group, to

be concerned with and to take care of personnel needs. If

the leadership style and readiness level matches,

organizational effectiveness is achieved (Hersey et al.,

2001).


37

Hersey and Blanchard (1996) use task behavior and

relationship behavior to describe concepts similar to

initiating structure and consideration in the Ohio State

University studies. These two behaviors make up four

leadership styles:

1. Sl-Telling: This leadership style is characterized

by above-average amounts of task behavior and below-

average amounts of relationship behavior.

2. S2-Selling: This leadership style is characterized

by above-average amounts of both task and

relationship behavior.

3. S3-Participating: This leadership style is

characterized by above-average amounts of

relationship behavior and below-average amounts of

task behavior.

4. S4-Delegating: This leadership style is

characterized by below-average amounts of both

relationship behavior and task behavior (Hersey et

al., 2001).

Readiness levels consist of different combinations of

ability and willingness that people bring to each task.

Responsibility consists of willingness and ability and can

be divided into four levels. Each level represents a


38

different combination of follower ability and willingness.

The four levels are defined below:

1. Unable and unwilling to take responsibility: The

follower is unable, insecure, and lacks commitment

and motivation.

2. Unable but willing to take responsibility: The

follower lacks ability but is motivated and works

hard.

3. Able but unwilling to take responsibility: The

follower has the ability to perform a task but is

not willing to use that ability.

4. Able and willing to take responsibility: The

follower has the ability to perform and is committed

or able and confident (Hersey et al., 2001, p. 177).

Task-related readiness includes two factors:

1. Job readiness: This relates to the techniques,

knowledge, and ability necessary for the work in

which a person engages, and

2. Psychological readiness: This relates to a person's

self-confidence and self-respect. When people have

high low job-related readiness, it means that they

have high low-job readiness and high low-

psychological readiness (Hersey et al., 2001).


39

The concept of readiness used in the Situational

Leadership Theory refers to job-related readiness. Hersey,

Blanchard, and Johnson (2001) divide readiness into four

levels where (a) R1 equals low job readiness and low

psychological readiness, (b) R2 equals low job readiness

but high psychological readiness, (c) R3 equals high job

readiness and low psychological readiness, and (d) R4

equals high job readiness and high psychological readiness.

The Basic Model

The Situational Leadership Model uses a combination of

four different job-related readiness levels and four basic

leadership styles. The model can be used to assess

follower behavior and to select the most effective

leadership style. For example, two groups of followers

with readiness for accomplishing tasks are at two extremes

respectively. One group has the necessary knowledge,

techniques, confidence, and the dedication to being the R4

level, but another group does not; they belong at the R1

level. When a leader faces R4 followers who have high

ability and willingness to engage in a task, the leader

does not have to give them instruction or use supportive

behavior. They are able and willing to accomplish the

task; the leader may leave them alone. The only thing the


40

leader should do is to supervise on a regular basis to make

sure that everything is under control. The followers need

comments from the leader to make sure that their devotion

has been noticed and appreciated (Hersey et al., 2001).

When a leader has R1 followers who have no ability and

willingness to engage in a task, the leader should clearly

tell them what, when, how, and where to accomplish the

task. This does not mean that the leader does not need to

use relationship-oriented leader behavior. The leader

still needs to be supportive and to engage in two-way

communication in order to help followers understand

instructions. The most successful leadership style is when

a high amount of task-oriented behavior and a low amount of

relationship-oriented behavior is exhibited. This is

equivalent to the SI leadership style (Hersey et al.,

2001).

The job-related readiness of some people falls between

the two extremes and is labeled unable but willing (R2).

These people are not capable; they need leader guidance and

instruction. Because they are trying and working hard, the

leader should support their determination. In this case,

the most successful leadership style is a high amount of

task-oriented behavior and relationship-oriented behavior,

using the S2 leadership style (Hersey et al., 2001).


41

Readiness level 3 followers are well-equipped with the

necessary knowledge and techniques to accomplish the task

but lack confidence or motivation. They do not need a lot

of guidance and instruction, because they know how to

complete the task. What they do need is encouragement to

build their confidence or discussions with the leader to

work things out or both. In this case, the most successful

leadership style is a low amount of task-oriented behavior

and high amount of relationship-oriented behavior or the S3

leadership style (Hersey et al., 2001).

The complete Situational Leadership Model developed by

Hersey and Blanchard in the late 1960s consists of four

job-related readiness levels and four leadership styles.

These are listed below:

1. Leadership Style 1 (high task and low relationship-

oriented behavior) matched with low readiness.

2. Leadership Style 2 (high task and high

relationship-oriented behavior) matched with low and

medium readiness.

3. Leadership Style 3 (low task and high relationship-

oriented behavior) matched with medium and high

readiness.


42

4. Leadership Style 4 (low task and low relationship-

oriented behavior) matched with high readiness

(Hersey et al., 2001, p. 182).

Research Testing the Theory

Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) conducted a survey of the

leadership styles used by 159 managers (leaders) as rated

by their subordinate (followers). According to Hambleton

and Gumpert (1982) the results show that 90% of the

managers who were considered high performers were rated by

subordinates as using a selling (high consideration and

high task) or participating (high consideration and low

task) leadership style. This study supports that Hersey's,

Blanchard's, and Johnson's (1996) Situational Leadership

Theory (SLT) when applied correctly results in significant

gain in job performance (Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982).

However, the leader style-follower readiness level only

matched 29% of the time (Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982).

Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) suggest that "little is known

about the requirements for effective leadership" (p.238)

and that the results of Hersey's and Blanchard's (1988) SLT

are promising. They also encourage further research to try

to replicate the findings.


43

Graeff (1983) examine Hersey's, Blanchard's and

Johnson's (1988) Leader Effectiveness Adaptability

Description "...diagnostic instrument for measuring leader

style, style range, and effectiveness"(p. 289) and

concludes that the instrument is replete with a

contradiction that significantly diminishes the predictive

utility of the instrument. The issue of a reliable

diagnostic instrument is a recurring problem in testing

SLT. Graeff (1983) identifies existing inconsistencies or

contradictions in Hersey's and Blanchard's (1988) LEAD

Instrument for measuring leader style. These

inconsistencies contribute to the model's lack of utility

(Graeff, 1983). Further research of the theory should

include use of reliable diagnostic instruments.

Vecchio (1987) conducts one of the "...first

comprehensive tests of the principles of Situational

Leadership Theory"(p.448). Vecchio studied 303 high school

teachers (followers) and 14 high school principals

(leaders) and found partial support for the SLT. The study

provides strong support for SLT in the area of low follower

readiness requiring high levels of task direction from the

leader (Vecchio, 1987). This is particularly valid for

newly hired teachers. The findings also indicate that

followers at higher levels of readiness respond well to


44

moderate levels of task direction and higher amounts of

consideration (Vecchio, 1987). For teachers at the highest

level of readiness the theory is not predictive, as the

amount of task direction is appropriate. However, there is

a need for greater consideration than the leaders exhibited

(Vecchio, 1987) .

From the findings, Vecchio suggests that another

factor, job category, may be predictive of follower

readiness. In this view, low to high levels of readiness

are representative of low to high levels of job categories

(Vecchio, 1987). Followers with low levels of readiness

held jobs that required less skill. As the degree of skill

increased so did the level of follower readiness. Vecchio

(1987) suggests, "SLT should be studied with an across-jobs

perspective and recognizing that high levels of follower

readiness may obviate the need for supervision rather than

specifying a particular style of supervision" (p. 450).

Goodson, McGee, and Cashman (1989) go one step further

than Vecchio (1987) in testing Hersey's, Blanchard's, and

Johnson's SLT. The purpose of their study is to test the

prescriptions for effective leadership as specified in

Hersey's, Blanchard's, and Johnson's (1988) SLT. In

Goodson's et al. study (1989) interactive effects of

leadership style and follower readiness on employee


45

perception and attitude are examined. The specific

prescriptions offered by the SLT regarding best, second-

best, third-best, and least effective styles are tested for

all four levels of subordinate readiness. The interaction

between leader behavior (initiating structure and

consideration) and follower readiness hypothesized by the

SLT is not supported. No support was found for the best,

second, third, or least leadership style, but the findings

are more consistent with results obtained in traditional

leadership research.

Vecchio (1987) only studied the best matches of leader

style and follower readiness and those that Hersey,

Blanchard, and Johnson (1988) state have the highest

probability of success. Goodson, McGee, and Cashman (1989)

tested all four styles for each of the four levels of

follower readiness. Their study of 450 employees

(followers) and 85 store managers (leaders) of a national

retail chain indicates that "regardless of the style

predicted to be best, second-best, third-best, and least at

any level of follower readiness selling and participative

styles were consistently associated with higher levels of

satisfaction, while telling and delegating were associated

with lower levels of satisfaction" (Goodson, McGee, &

Cashman, 1989, p. 450). An interesting aspect of


46

Goodson's, McGee's, and Cashman's study is that task

behaviors, when combined with supportive behaviors, produce

more positive outcomes suggesting that "consideration was

appropriate for every level of follower readiness" (p.

450). The study further confirms that adaptive behavior is

a necessary function of effective leadership (Goodson,

McGee, & Cashman, 1989).

Goodson's, McGee's, and Cashman's (1989) findings

suggest that followers may need high amounts of

consideration regardless of their readiness level. They

state that the "...implications of their findings [are]

unique to their own sample and the results may not apply to

employees in other types of organizations" (Goodson, McGee,

& Cashman, 1989, p. 458). This warrants further research.

Blank, Weitzel, and Green (1990) examine Hersey's,

Blanchard's, and Johnson's (1988) SLT variable of follower

readiness to determine whether there is a "...difference in

leader effectiveness based on the prescribed relationship

of leader style and follower readiness" (p.584). Their

study examines the underlying assumptions regarding the

theory prescription that subordinates' readiness moderates

the relationship of leader task and relationship behaviors

with indicators of leader effectiveness. The results of

their study of 27 residential hall directors (leaders) of


47

353 residential advisors (subordinates) does not support

the basic underlying assumption of Hersey's and Blanchard's

SLT that the readiness level of the follower is predictive

of the amount of task and relationship behavior that the

leader discharges (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990). Their

results do support that follower readiness is "...an

important situational variable to be considered in

leadership research" (Blank, Weitzel, & Green 1990, p.

588) .

Blank, Weitzel and Green (1990) suggest "more research

is needed to clarify the degree of contribution that SLT

makes to the understanding of leadership" (p.596).

Specifically, the situational variable of follower

readiness is the only variable on which Hersey, Blanchard

and Johnson (1988) focus, but there are other situational

factors such as position power, leader-member relations,

etc. that should be the subject of further research (Blank,

Weitzel, & Green, 1990).

Norris and Vecchio (1992) tested Hersey and Banchard's

SLT using 91 nurses. The results of their study provide

little support for predicting leader behavior founded on

worker readiness levels. However, Norris and Vecchio

introduce that although the elements of structure and

consideration are well established, a problem exists in the


48

use of reliable instruments to measure leadership style.

Correspondingly, the measurement of the readiness levels of

workers is equally as difficult since it is not as well

established. Norris and Vecchio (1992) suggest that the

"...best form for testing SLT may be on jobs that have

relatively few tasks and that are highly correlated in

terms of performance" (p.334). In their findings, the

relationship between performance and leader-member

exchange, performance and maturity, and performance and

satisfaction with supervision approximate the correlations

that were reported by subordinates. The results of the

hierarchical regression analyses are presented for each of

the three criteria. The inclusion of the three-way

interaction term did not significantly increase the

proportion of criterion variance that could be accounted

for. In short, none of the criteria provide support for

the hypothesized three-way interaction.

Mike Smith (1991) examined the training of situational

leadership with engineering managers. The study focuses on

18 hours of a leadership course, which consisted of 12

hours of lecture/discussion and six hours of data analysis

and various applications. Seven power bases are identified

as potential means from which a leader can successfully

influence behavior. The engineer managers present examples


49

of effective use of each power base (Smith, 1991). As in

the distribution corporation, each manager/supervisor

attended a situational leadership training class. Each

year a four-hour refresher course is conducted to ensure

effectiveness of the training.

Cairns, Hollenback, Preziosi, and Snow (1998) focus on

the interaction of the leader's behavior and follower

readiness and then measure it to determine leader

effectiveness. This study of SLT was conducted in an

actual business environment in contrast to a great deal of

previous leadership studies that use an academic laboratory

setting (Kets de Vries et al., 1994). Cairns' et al. study

consists of senior level leaders and followers in service

and manufacturing businesses of large Fortune 100

companies.

The results of the Cains et al. study provide

significant correlation coefficients, which suggest that

the observed independent variables are consistent with each

other. Additionally, a summary of regression analyses

shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis

with analysis on variance on the independent variables

(initiating structure, consideration, and follower

readiness) and the resultant examination of the

significance of these three variables on the performance


50

criteria. The results of omnibus tests reveal no

statistical differences at the alpha. Finally, results of

partitioned tests indicate statistical differences at the

high readiness level, but the mean differences are in the

opposite direction of SLT. The mean differences at the low

readiness level are in the direction of SLT. The study

provide more understanding about SLT and the concept of

matching.

Vries, Roe, and Taillieu (1998) studied the impact of

supervision leadership effectiveness on organizational

behavior. They focus on two studies of insurance agents in

the Netherlands. Moderated regression analysis shows that

need for supervision moderates the relationship between

task-oriented leadership and work stress but not between

task-oriented leadership and job satisfaction.

Miriam Johnson (1998) explored the SLT on staff

interaction with children and youth in the child care

industry and SLT effectiveness in residential group care

settings. Four leadership styles were used to determine

SLT effectiveness. According to her findings, the model

has been criticized for assuming that each subordinate in

the work group is functioning at the same level. Johnson

suggests that in actual work situations the heterogeneity

of followers' readiness might adversely affect a manager's


51

ability to follow the prescriptions of the Situational

Leadership Model. The benefits of the model are: (a)

increased awareness by staff members of their own preferred

leadership style and an interest in learning and practicing

other styles; (b) appreciation of the value of others

preferred styles; (c) increased sensitivity to the changing

needs of clients, both as individuals and as groups; and

(d) increased willingness on the part of staff members to

adjust their behaviors to meet the changing needs of

individual clients, and of client's groups.

York (1996) conducted an empirical examination of

social workers in both leadership and clinical positions in

a variety of social work agencies in two states. The

objectives of his study were (a) to determine the extent to

which social workers placed emphasis upon support and

delegation of responsibility in accordance with the

propositions of the situational model, (b) to determine

whether persons in organizational leadership positions

differed from other social workers on their level of

adherence to the propositions of this model, and (c) to

determine whether persons with higher performance ratings

differ from those with lower performance ratings on their

level of adherence to the SLT model.


52

Responses to York's (1996) survey tend to embrace the

propositions of SLT model that are related to the

delegation of decision responsibility and to reject the

propositions related to supervisory support. Also, social

workers in both leadership and clinical positions in two

states are found to readily embrace two of the three

propositions of the Situational Leadership Model that deal

with the delegation of decision responsibility. They

embrace, to a lesser extent, the third proposition

regarding decision participation. Strongly supported is

the idea that subordinates with high task readiness should

be delegated more responsibility than those with either

moderate task maturity or low task maturity. Supported to

a lesser extent is the idea that staff with moderate task

readiness should be delegated more responsibility than

those with low task readiness. It was also found that

compliance with the propositions of this model were not

predicted by position level, supervisory performance

rating, or the receipt of an above average pay raise.

Ireh and Bailey (1999) examined the relationships

among school superintendents' leadership styles, style

adaptability, and certain characteristics of school

districts identified in the literature as contributing to

the success or failure of planned change in schools. The


53

relationship between leadership style adaptability and

readiness of staff for organizational change are modestly

related to district expenditure per pupil. The analyses

from the first research question show that when acting

singularly and in relationship with other predictor

variables, only district expenditure per pupil is

significantly, positively, and linearly related to

superintendents' leadership style adaptability (Ireh &

Bailey, 1999).

The analysis of results from the second research

question yielded no variables that were statistically

significant related to superintendents' tendency to use as

their predominant leadership style either the telling (SI)

or the selling (S2) leadership style. The results of a

multiple regression indicate that years of experience as an

administrator statistically, significantly contributes to

their tendency to use the participating (S3) style of

leadership. Three variables, years of experience as an

administrator, recruitment status, and type of school

district, make statistically significant contributions to

the prediction of the use the delegating (S4) style of

leadership.

A follow-up analysis was performed to see if selling

and participating superintendents differed significantly


54

with respect to 11 continuous and three dichotomous

variables. The results show no statistically significant

difference between selling and participating

superintendents on any of the independent variables.

Superintendents in this study use participating and selling

leadership styles in leading school employees through

change implementation.

Summary

The study of situational leadership factors has and

continues to be the focus of many academic research studies

(Abdul-Raheem, 1994). The review of the literature

demonstrates that Hersey's, Blanchard's, and

Johnson's(1988) SLT has been used extensively as a method

of training managers. However, "more research is necessary

to clarify the degree of contribution that SLT makes to the

understanding of leadership" (Blank, Weitzel, & Green 1990,

p. 589). Situational leadership opens the lines of

communication between subordinate employees and management,

causes feelings of worth (in regard to work environment) in

subordinates, and makes it possible for personal and

organizational goals to be accomplished through mutual

agreement (Blanchard, 1994).


55

As the work force continues into the 21st Century,

innovative measures have been taken to allow management to

become increasingly aware of the need to be effective in

managing a smarter, sharper workforce. Public and private

industries are increasingly using SLT to train managers to

effectively manage a changing workforce. Chapter III

covers the methodology used to examine th

a study of situational leadership theory in a distribution corporation

Documents

copyright owner

proquest information

dissertation requirements

learning company

dissertation copies

north zeeb road

poor quality illustrations

best copy available