______________ _______ .--..- —--,.-- - .-—. - .-. p

TECHNICAL PAPER 361 LFV 

F

~

THE EFFECTS OF MULTIDIMENSIONALITY

ON THE PREDICTIVE AND CONSTRUCT

VALIDITY OF THE LPC SCALE

DDC

Samuel Shlflett , Ronald G. Downey

PERSONNEL & MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

May 1979

Approvsd for public ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o 6 1 3 ()

~

1

. ~~~~L~~

L~L1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FIT

~

T1 T IITTIT

~ 

TEll ‘

~TT’~ 

‘

~

IT

~

TT

~ ~

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operat ing Agency under the Jurisdict ion of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER.

JOSEPH ZEIDNER COlOnel, U S Alifly

Technical Director o flandef

I

NOTICES

DISTRISUTION: Pri.nsry distribution of this report hos been meds by ARI. Pies. sddrsss correspondence

concerning distribution of ,.ports to: U. S. Army Nsuserdt Institute for the Ssh~~iorsI and Socl.l &iancss. I

AT1N: PERI P. 5001 Eisenhovør Avsnu., Alexandria Virginia 22333.

FINAL DI~~OSITION: This ,eport ~

yisy be destroyed often it is no longer needed. Plssss do not return it to

the U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behosiorsi and Social Sciences.

~gfl~ The findings In this report are not to be construed es an off ICISI Deportment of the Army position.

unless so designated by other authorized documeets. 1

j

L ~~.__ 

. 

i ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ 

- 

-

~~~
* Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (tm.., B... Iat.oc ~~

READ INSTRUCI1ONS

______________________________________________ BEFORE COMPLETING_FORM

r GOVT ACCE~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

,5t ~~~ iri

~~r

--

~~~ ~~~ . 

~~

sr -’---~’— ~ y~

ve~~ aJ

((# &‘HE ~~~FECTS OF IULTIDIMENSICNALITY ON THE ~ L.’ PREDICTIVE MID CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE I --

L ...

~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ PCRFO~~

MINO ORG. REPORT NuMSER

~. AtJTHO~~ 5. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMSER(a)

~~ 

Samue l 

~~hiflett , Ronald G./)cwne

~/ --

~~. PERFO~~~INO ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS .T1!ul &OJ UNIT NUNSERS TA~~

j ~

. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral /h) and Social Sciences -.T2Q162~97A766

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria , VA 22333 L_

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAM E AND ADDRESS ..~~ T

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (// May •79 ( Washington , DC 20310 ISU . ....ISR ..T$AGES

32

Tt MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODREU(U ~~fferm.t ft. C nbs115P4 Offissi IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of di . ,.p.,I)

Unclassified

I IS~~ OECLAISIFICATIONIDOWNORADING F I SCHEDULE

IS. DISTRIeUTION STATEMENT (of dii R.pcrf)

Approved for public release; disttibution unlimited

I?. DISTRISUTION STATEMEN T (of lb. .bbl ,.ct ~~lsrid In Block 20. If dIff. ~~

,t ft.. R.po.I)

IL SUPPLcMENTARY NOTES

I

IC. KEY WORDS (C.nllnu. on a. ,. ’.. .Id. H n•cia~~~y .id ldwettfr Sy block .b.t)

Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale

Multidimensionality

4. Implicit personality theory

Leadership

- 

Factor analysis

ZL AS11RACT 4’

~

—’°—— — mw It ...___~~~~ d Id.wify b

~ block i

~~~~~&.,)

&A 32—item Least—Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale was administered to 260 Army

reservists participating in a field training exercise. The LPC scale yielded

a 5-factor structure similar to a coiretonly recurring factor structure reported

in the literature on peer ratings and implicit personality theory . Correlations between LPC factor scores and various performance criteria were examined

for formal leaders, highest endorsed members, and nonendorsed members. Results

suggest that the LPC dimensions are differentially predictive as a function of

the criterion involved and the role of the individual in the team . Results .

~~ .

.-

DO W3 EteTto wov eisso TE 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

— —‘—--———*---..- - .

~

,.. — —-.—-. .—-- .—— -— 
‘“ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

________________________________________

Unclassified

r -

~ SECURITY CLAISIFICATIO I OP THIS PAGEfWbes Bat. t.a.’od’)

20. (continued)

were discussed in terms of item relevance and various psychometric properties

of the LPC scale.

The discovery of this particular 5—factor structure may represent a major step

toward resolving the enigmatic quality of LPC by tying it to existing literature

not dealing specifically with the LPC scale. There may be relationships between

leader behavior and specific LPC dimensions.

The report is written for research psycholog

i1s

:1

j

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(IThon Ba.. &il. ’.d~

t

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- .

—~~ -—~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—~~~~— ——-——-—--- 

~~~~--~~~~~~~~~

TECHNICAL PAPER 361

THE EFFECTS OF MULTIDIMENS1ONA un’

ON THE PREDICTIVE AND CONSTRUCT

VALIDITY OF THE LPC SCALE

N

Samuel Shlflett , Ronald G. Downey,

and Paul J. Duffy

SubmItted by: a Ralph R Canter, Chief

PERSONNEL & MANPOWER TECHNICAL AREA

p

Approved by:

E. Ralph Dusek. Director

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR ThE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VIrginia 22333

Off Ice, Deputy Chief of Staff far Personnel

Department of the Army

May 1979

Army Project Number Leadership 20162107A766

Apprceed for pubiic resale; distribbtlon unlimited.

~ 

-

~~ - . —-- 

— UV~~~~

--

—- ~ ~~~ 

_________________ _______ -- --‘--- , T T 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
- —- .

___ _____ 

- 

_____

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for /

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

.1

~

I

( 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.

~~~~~~~~~ 

. .

~~

-

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ _____ 

~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
-. 

~~~~~‘ø~~~~ rr.__~

_ 

. ~

,.w ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . -•

V • 

. FOREWORD

I

This research, carried out in the Personnel and Manpower Technical

Area of the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), analyzes one of the more cousnon approaches to leadership,

Fiedler ’s contingency model. Specifically , the research examines the

least preferred coworker (LPC) scale , the most critical variable in

Fiedler ’s model . The results suggest that the LPC scale should perhaps

be interpreted along more than the usual single dimension and that there

may be relationships between the scale and aspects of leader behavior .

The research was an in—house effort , responsive to Army Project

2Ql62l07A766 and to special requirements of the Office of the Deputy

Chief of Staff for Personnel. At the time the research was conducted ,

both Samuel Shiflett and Ronald G. Downey were part of the ARI research

staff. Dr. Shiflett is now at New York University , New York City, and

Dr. Downey at Kansas State University , Manhattan , Kans. Robert Ingraham

aided in preparing the questionnaires and related materials, and Frances

Grafton provided statistical assistance. Robert Sulzen helped arrange

and coordinate the data collection and provided insights into the group

processes during the exercise. Frank E . Saal gave helpful coum~

ents on

the paper.

J EPH I

~~ IDNER

chnical Director

Accession For

IS GRA~

&I

DOC TAB

iJoannounoed

Justifioatiofl_

By —

DistributiOfl/

Avail~~!UtY CodeS

Avail and/Or

Dlst spec al

H ___ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ __

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ -

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ - -———— ,---•— —•—---- —._ — ,. .-- . — — . . .

- — ________
~~~~~~~~ — — —•-—-—— -- •- ________________

THE EFFECTS OF MULTIDIMEWSIONALITY ON THE PREDICTIVE

AND CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE LPC SCALE

BRIEF

Requirement:

• To investigate prope rties of the Least Preferred Cowor ker (LPC )

scale as potential predictors of group performance and satisfaction.

• The LPC scale uses an evaluation of a specific individual with whan one • 

• cannot work well, made by each member of a group, to develop a scale or

measure which has been variously interpreted but which has shown fairly

consistent relationships with group performance .

Procedure:

-

• A 32—item version of the LPC scale was administered to 260 Army reservists during a field training exercise. LPC factor scores were examined in relation to performance criteria for formal leaders as well as • the most endorsed and least endorsed group members.

- 

~ Findings:

LPC factor scores appeared interpretable along severa l different

dimensions, and the dimensions seemed to correlate differentially with

varioua criteria. The LPC factor scores yielded a five-factor structure

that is similar to structures found in other fields of psychological research. The respondent’s role within the group appears to have an effect

upon which subscale is related to which criterion.

Utilization of Findings:

Beha -,iora l scientists can gain insight into the complex structure

and potential uses of the LPC from this research .

J

I

t

• - - — U •

~-*•. . 

~~ -• — •

-

~~~~~ ,.- •

•-

JT~— — - ~~~-

~

;.

_ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
w~~•

~—~ - • - -- • ,—-. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~

-•-

-

~ ____- -

~~ •-‘

h - -

H

‘1hz ~~

‘FECTS OP MULTIDIMENSINOALITY ON THE PREDICTIVE

AND CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE LPC SCALE

C~~~~~ftS

Page

INT~~~UCTIOtI 1

)

~ THOD . . 6

Subjects . . . 6 H Preexercise Questionnaire ....... 7

H Postexercise Questionnaire 7

Special Evaluator Questionnaire 8

f RESULTS 8

Psychometric Properties of the LPC Scale 8

Predictive and Concurrent Validity of the LPC Scores • . 14

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . 22

CLUSION 25

REFEP.~~IcES 27

• DISTRIBUTION 31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Two— and five—factor solutions from the varimax

rotations of LPC scales ........ 9

• 2. Correlation matrix of LPC composite scores 11

3. LPC subscale means and standard deviations for four

subgroups and total group .15

4. LPC subscale intercorrelations for four subgroups

Li and total group 15

5. Correlations between unit criteria and old and

• n~., LPC scales . . 17

6. Correlations betwe n LPC subscales and unit

criteria for forma l leader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- 

~~~~~~~

- 

~~~~~ 

_____ —

_

~

_

:• __ _•

• • 

~~~~ . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

• .- . - . - .
I

CONT~~

ITS (continued)

Page

Table 7. Correlations between LPC subscales and unit

criteria for highest endorsed group member 20

8. Correlations between LPC subscales and unit - • -

• criteria for lowest endorsed group member 21 4

LIST OF FIGURES

I -

Figure 1. Distribution of original 16—item LPC scale (Fiedler,

1967) and new revised 16—item LPC scale 13

I

I

: 1

• I

H

• • t
THE EFFECTS OF MULTIDIMENSIONALITY ON THE PREDICTIVE

AND CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE LPC SCALE

INTRODUCTICN

Fiedler’s (1967) contingency m - - ~ l of leadership effectiveness is

perhaps one of the best—known leadership theories in current psycholog-

• ical and management literature. It is certainly the most controversial

(Ashour , 1973; Fiedler, 1971; Graen , Alvarez , Orris, & Martella , 1970;

Rice, in preparation; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977; Shiflett, 1973). The

j controversy and associated criticisms have often been so intense as to

be emotional rather than intellectual, and the generated research has

often been weak and inconclusive. The model’s problems are extensive

enough so that some recent theoretical and descriptive organizational

psychology texts have ignored Fiedler ’s model (e.g., Lawler, 1973;

Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). Most recent texts, however , devote a - fair amount of space and detail to Fiedler’s model. Further, Fiedler

and Chemers (1974) have published a text that elaborates ~

ipon various

methods for implementing the theory within organizations. More recently,

Fiedler, Chemers, and Mahar (1976) have developed a self-administered,

programed learning manual intended to be used by managers who wish to

try to improve their leadership effectiveness. Half of a Division 14

workshop at the 1976 American Psychological Association (APA ) convention

was devoted to training in the use of the model.

Thus, a controversial model of leadership is being widely offered

as a viable and practical management technique while, at the same time,

major organizational theorists seem to be eschewing it for its many con—

ceptual problems and operational impracticalities.

In all applications of the model , the least preferred coworker

(LPC) measure is required . Perhaps more than any other aspect of the

model, this measure is responsible for most of the problems encountered

in interpreting research findings and in applying the model to the “real

world.” The LPC measure is a highly idiosyncratic measure of leadership

style. It is idiosyncratic because, as Fiedler put it, LPC is “a score

which seemed to correlate with nothing but group performance” (1967,

p. 46).

The uniqueness of the LPC measure makes it indispensable to the ap— • plication of the model because its apparent lack of relationship with

any measures of leadership style or other personality traits means that

there is no known substitute for the measure. Yet no safeguards or precautions have been implemented to minimize all the problems of reactive

measures, in~1uding response falsification and sensitization, among

others. There are not even alternate forms. More importantly, although

perhaps less obviously, this situation also implies that we really do

not know how or why LPC works, even af ter 25 years of research on the

topic. Yet Fiedler, Chemers, and Mahar ’s (1976) manner of using and

1

• ••-- • . - .•• - • • . .

• -•- • ~~~~~ - ••I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

I •~~

• • ~~~ ~~~~~~ - •

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ II

~

_ •

~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

interpreting LPC in their “leadermatch ” approach implies a great deal

of knowledge about the various properties of LPC ; knowledge that has not

been empirically substantiated and that in some cases is clearly contradicted in the research literature.

In order to understand better the problems connected with LPC , it

is useful to recount briefly the evolution of the methodology and inter- - pretive strategies associated with LPC throughout its long history in

r • Fiedler’s research program.

Fiedler ’s leadership measure began as “assumed similarity between

opposites” (ASo) and required respondents to evaluate not only their

least preferred coworker but also their most preferred coworker (MPC). • Difference scores were then obtained , and the summed absolute difference

between ~~C and LPC was interpreted in terms of “social distance. ” Respondents making a high discrimination between MPC and LPC (high ASo)

were defined as having high social distance, and those not making a very

large distinction between LPC and MPC (low ASo) were defined as having

relatively low social distance. In this procedure, each stimulus person

was evaluated on 20 bipolar semantic differential scales.

Although originally developed to study the effectiveness of clinical psychologists (Fiedler , 1951), Fiedler’s research program rapidly

moved into the area of leader effectiveness. When Fiedler discovered

that the LPC measure by itself accounted for most of the variance in the

AS0 scores and seemed to be a stronger predictor of other criteria, he

dropped the MPC measure and the associated AS0 score from his research

program (Fiedler, 1967). Unfortunately , this change in procedure eliminated part of the logic for defining the personal characteristic of social distance which it purported to measure and is largely responsible

for the LPC score appearing to be what Schriesheim and Kerr (1977) call

“a measure in search of a meaning.”

-

• 

When the social distance interpretation was found to be inadequate,

a new interpretation in terms of leader behavioral style was introduced

(Fiedler, 1964) , using the labels and terminology of the Ohio State research program (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) . Thus, “high social distance”

was replaced by “task—oriented, structuring behavior” and “low social

distance” was replaced by “consideration behavior.” Subsequent attempts

to interpret LPC have been in terms of cognitive complexity (Fiedler ,

1971) and motivational hierarchy (Fiedler , 1972) .

It is interesting to note that LPC has rarely been interpreted in

terms of what raters are actually doing when they fill out the LPC questionnaire. That is, LPC is basically a personal evaluation of , or an

attitude toward, a specific individual with whom one is unable to work.

Yet LPC has almost never been interpreted as an attitude measure, or as

a tendency to give negative evaluations in certain contexts, or as a

general attributationa]. tendency (the primary exception to this generaliiation being Fishbein, Landy, and Hatch, 1969). It has instead been interpreted as social distance, or leader behavioral tendency, or cogniti

ve2
r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1ii — —~~~~~~~~“

~~~~~~~~~~~~

complexity, or personal-need hierarchy . All of these interpretations

are hypothetical constructs that mediate between the LPC response and

group performance.

• The reason for these unusual interpretations of LPC is very likely a

• direct result of the fact that there is no obvious reason why LPC works.

That is, there is at present no logical rationale for LPC to predict

group performance in a way that nothing else does. In other words, the

LPC measure is virtually devoid of construct validity. Thus, another

theoretical step must be postulated to explain how LPC, which is a personal characteristic of the leader, gets transformed into group performance . This intermediate step, or intervening variable, has little or

nothing to do with the LPC measure per se and represents a totally wij related construct (such as interpersonal behavior, or cognitive complex—

ity, or motivation, or whatever) that is surmised to be mediating the

LPCJperformance relationship. The nature of this mediating construct

has usually been inferred on the basis of rather scanty information;

hence it is hardly surprising that rather frequent shifts in the proposed nature of the intervening construct occur.

Thus, although contingency approaches to leadership have been gaining acceptance over the past few years, the Fiedler model , which really

opened up the field of leadership to contingency approaches, is in a

very precarious position; this is because it is totally dependent on

LPC, a variable that appears to be unrelated to anything except group • performance and has no obvious or logical reason for having the effect

it does.

The precarious position of Fiedler ’s model becomes even more apparent when one examines the research pertaining to the psychological and

psychometric properties of the LPC measure . The small amount of published research generally suggests that LPC has, to quote Stinson and • Tracy, “some disturbing characteristics” (1974, p. 447) . For example,

Fiedler (1967) indicates test-retest reliabilities ranging from .31 to

.70; Stinson and Tracy (1974) reported a test-retest reliability as low

as .23. Fox (1976) found test—retest reliabilities dropping from .75

• after 4 weeks to .66 after 9 weeks , but reliabilities for individual

items within the LPC scale dropped as low as .36 , and the overall pat—

tern of results prompted Fox to suggest that LPC was probably measuring

a transient rather than a durable state 1976 , p. 460) .

Another problem exists in the nature of the underlying distribution

of LPC scores. In spite of the fact that Fiedler claims the LPC distribution to be normal, Shiflett (1974) reported that the obtained LPC distribution among Army enlisted trainees was serrated, flat, and distinctly nonnormal . Furthermore , unpublished data collected in 1968 from

• university undergraduates by Shiflett indicated that the distribution of - • LPC scores was bimodal and perhaps even trimodal . If this population

distribution is indeed nonnormal, it could help explain the poor correlations between LPC and most other variables by suggesting the existence

of a high degree of attenuation as a result of the nonnormal distribution.

I

_ 

4 • - - • - • • - ~~~ — ‘•~~~ - - ••~~ • •- - _____________

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

~~~~~ • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • •

~~~~~~~~~• - -
An additional problem with the LPC measure, mentioned by Fishbein

,

Landy , and Hatch (1969) and Shiflett (1974) is that of multiple stimulus

objects. Each respondent is instructed to rate a specific individual

with whom he or she has been unable to work well. Thus, there are po— 

-

•

tentially as many different attitude objects as there are respondents

.

This fact must logically mean that a sizable amount of obtained variance

is due to the evaluation of characteristics unique to the specific individuals being evaluated . This fact also suggests that some of the items

within the LPC scale might not even be re1~vant to the general concept

of one’s least preferred coworker. That is, there may be certain charac—

teristics of a particular individual that cause you to decide that he or

she is your LPC , but if those characteristics are not included in the 16

scale items constituting the LPC measure, they will add nothing to the

validity of the LPC score . Similarly, if some of the scales included in

the LPC measure are not relevant to your decision regarding your LPC or

to your evaluations of him or her, then those particular scales add unneeded and irrelevant variance to the measure. With respect to the typical uses of LPC scores, either state of affairs represents error variance . Furthermore , Mitc1~

ell (1970) , Shiflett (1974) , and Stinson and

Tracy (1974) have demonstrated that not all respondents are following instructions correctly , since not everyone is rating a real person . These

problems cannot be alleviated without changing the LPC measure completely, and this is not possible until a better understanding of the underlying processes involved in evaluating, one ’s least preferred coworker is

obtained.

What is particularly intriguing about this situation is that even

though it seems apparent that much of the variance in the LPC measure is

due to the many different ratees, the interpretation of the LPC score has

always been one of assuming that it is reflecting an attribute of the

rater. This apparent paradox seems similar to the situation in the lit- erature on implicit personality theory (Schneider, 1973) in which a wellestablished factor structure of peer evaluation dimensions has been repeatedly replicated in the absence of any real stimulus object (Levy &

• Dugan , 1960; Norman & Goldberg , 1966; Passini & Norman , 1966) . The interpretation of this finding has been to suggest that peer judgments are

reflecting characteristics of the rater (his or her implicit personality

theory) and that these ratings may not be at all related to the person

being rated.

To complicate matters further, several recent fac

tor analytic studies have suggested that the LPC measure may not be unidimensional, although Fiedler treats it in this manner. For example, both Shiflett

(1974) and Yuk l (1970) found two dimensions that were interpreted to

represent task and interpersonal dimensions. Gruenfeld and Arbuthnot

(1968) found results indicating the existence of four dimensions, and

Fox , Hill , and Guertin (1973) found evidence from three different spies that the LPC scales might be defined by as many as six dimensions.

Although the possibility of multidimensionality may produce new

psychometric problems for LPC, it also suggests a solution to many of 4
_--_~~

the dilemmas presented above, for several reasons. A multidimensional

LPC scale would alleviate the problem of multidimensional interpretations of the present unidimensional LPC scale , a problem discussed at

length by Shiflett (1973, 1974). In addition, it suggests a possible

insight into the construct validity issue, i.e., why LPC works. Most of

the studies described above have labeled the underlying factors in terms

of traditional leadership orientations, i.e., task orientation, or interpersona]. relations orientation , etc. These labels appear similar, if

• not identical to, some of the behavioral interpretations of LPC scores

made by Fiedler and his associates.

If these findings hold up, a “logical” relationship between LPC and

group performance can be postulated in terms of the way the leader uses

• the LPC scales. That is, personal needs (task needs, social needs, or

whatever) can be postulated to reflect the manner in which a person

evaluates a coworker along various dimensions, as well as the way the

person acts toward that coworker . And in turn, those actions presumably

affect group performance through the particular focus of the leader’s

behavior in interacting with group members.

This approach suggests that the LPC measure may be closely reflecting what is actually underlying the leadership process, but the measure

confounds or obscures the true nature of these processes largely because

of the problems summarized above. The task of the researcher, then, becomes one of studying all aspects of the process of evaluating one’s

least preferred coworker. This approach involves methodological, psychometric, and theoretical issues. For example, Foa, Mitchell, and

Fiedler (1971) and Shiflett (1974) found many more interpersonal relations items than task-oriented items in the LPC scales, along with several indeterminant items.

One way to improve the psychometric characteristics as well as • theoretical meaningfulness of the LPC measure might be to weight equally

the task and Interpersonal dimensions by changing the current scale to

inc Lude the same number of items for each dimension. Of course the

problem is somewhat more complex than this, since the measure may in—

• volve more than two dimensions. It would seem wise to include items

that potentially define other evaluative dimensions. This is especially desirable in lignt of an increasing tendency for theorists to

postulate the existence of more than two leader behavior dimensions in

the context of predicting group performance and satisfaction (e.g.,

House, 1971; Yukl, 1971).

One final problem with the use of LPC to predict leader effectiveness needs to be mentioned. Fiedler (1967, 1973) has proposed that

leaders’ scores from the least preferred coworker scale have a complex

relationship with measures of work group performance. Generally, LPC

has been predicted to have a positive relationship with grouj performance in situations of moderate favorableness for the leader ~

nd a negative relationship in situations of both high and low favorabieness to

the leader. Situational favorableness is usually defined by various

5

L • ••- • 

- - • __ 

~~ •-

——--• --•~~~~~ -•

—-- ~~ -

~~~~~~~
combinations of leader-member relations, leader position power, and task

structure, although a wide variety of other situational characteristics

has also been employed .

Of particular importance in the use of LPC to predict group performance is the fact that it is almost always the leader’s LPC score that is

involved. The implication is clearly that LPC is a measure of some

leadership characteristic and that it exerts its influence on the group • product through the leader. However, with the exception of a couple of

early studies in Fiedler ’s research program on the relationship between

LPC and self-esteem or adjustment (Meyers, 1962; Bishop, 1964), no evidence exists to show that group members’ LPC scores are not just as important as leaders ’ scores.

— 

This concern for the possible effect of member LPC leads to the

recognition of a subtle form of confounding characteristic of virtually

all the laboratory research on LPC. The typical procedure is to assign

leaders from the extremes of the LPC distribution——usually from a rela—

tively small pool-—often consisting of no more than the sample actually

used in the study. This procedure has the effect of artificially eliminating extreme LPC scores from among the group members. Thus group

members will tend to be more moderate in their LPC ratings than will

their leaders. In other words, high LPC leaders and low LPC leaders

will tend to have middle LPC members. The question then can be raised

as to whether any results obtained using these procedures are the result

of leader LPC, or member LPC, or the specific pattern of leader versus

member LPC scores. Tests of the contingency model in ongoing groups

that have an already established leader tend to provide stronger support

for the model than do laboratory studies (Fiedler , 1971), thus tending

to support the argument that the leader’s LPC is the principal source of

the effects attributed to LPC. That issue must be resolved in future

laboratory research.

This report discusses a research project that was designed to address some of the problems outlined above. An expanded series of items

was incorporated into the LPC questionnaire to provide a more comprehensive basis for dimensional analyses of the LPC scores. Several behavioral and group productivity measures were obtained from individuals

in a team situation in order to determine the extent to which the LPC

scores were related to actual group effectiveness for leaders as well as

for team members.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 275 officers and enlisted personnel in the Army Reserves engaged in an annual requirement of 2 weeks of active duty for

training. They were members of a Special Forces unit that normally op

erated in small teams, each consisting of 1]. to 14 people. Data were

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~• • •

~~~~~~~~~ 
collected from a total of 24 teams, but because the data from 1. team

were not usable , the maximum N for data analyses was .

~

.6O . Although team

membership remains fairly stable over the years , there were some m dividuals who had joined the team only for the 2 weeks of training.

reams were organized with a leader , an assistant leader (both off icers), and 9 to 12 enlisted personnel who were specialists in ftve areas

(e.g. , medical)-—two for each specialty. All teams assembled at a central location for an orientation session and were then sent to five sep-

• arate and isolated locations throughout the United States where they engaged in a 2-week field training exercise. Immediately after the commencement of the orientation session , all participants filled out the

preexercise questionnaire described below. Upon completion of the f ield

exercise , the team members filled out a postexercise questionnaire .

Additional data evaluating the exercise were collected from three

separate sources in addition to the team members: (a) from the evaluator, a Regular Army officer assigned to the team during the exercise

for evaluation of team performance; (b) from the controller , a Regular

Army officer assigned to the team for general maintenance duties; and

Cc) from “guerrill as,” non-Special Forces military reservists who oper- —

ated with the Special Forces team and who were to be trained by the

team. All nonteam respondents filled out a special evaluator questionnaire, described below, at the completion of the field exercise.

Preexercise Questionnaire

Th~ initial questionnaire requested a variety of information and

was designed to require not longer than 1 hour to complete. Included

were biographical , demographic , and attitudinal items and a set of peer

nominations of leadership potential of each person on the respondent’s

team. The LPC scale was included in this questionnaire . It consisted

of 32 bipolar items, including the 16 items used by Fiedler (1967) , as

well as items used by Yukl (1970) .

Postexercise Questionnaire

The questionnaire administered at the completion of the 2-week exercise included group atmosphere scales (Fiedler, 1967), a repetition

of the peer ratings , and a series of items asking the participants to

rate their leader on various behaviors and to evaluate how the team’s

tasks were performed.

Six scales were developed from unit member evaluative responses to

a number of specially constructed items describing various aspects of

the exercise (Downey , Duffy , & Shiflett , 1975; Duffy, Downey , & Shif—

lett , 1977) . The scales are labeled unit performance , job satisfaction ,

leade r effectiveness , group cohesion, individual performance , and m di—

vidua l effort. •

• 7

- • - • - ,

~~•- •~~~~•• - ~~~~ —~ t~ • ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - •,-~ - ‘•- • .~-•~•~~~•

• • - - •• •

—a.— -—— — —•-_• _•_, I,

~ •~~~~~~ _• —.‘ ‘•_‘ — •~~

•••-••~~~~~~~~~~ ———— —— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - • ~~~~~ -. - -• -

~~~L .d._ A —. _

~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •- _ _ ~~
~ - • -

~~~~~~

Special Evaluator Questionnaire

This questionnaire was administered at the same time as the postexercise questionnaire and was actually a shorter version of it, containing only the evaluative items on the leader’s and team’s performance. These responses also provided evaluations of various unit

outcomes (Downey , Duffy, & Shiflett, 1975; Duffy, Downey, & Shiflett,

1977) resulting in seven scales labeled morale, early mission effectiveness , mission effectiveness, esprit, mission support effectiveness,

leader effectiveness, and planning effectiveness. —

RESULTS

j Psychometric Properties of the LPC Scale

The 32 LPC scale items were submitted to a principal axes factor

analysis with varimax rotations. All rotations from two through five

factors yielded interpretable factor structures. The two—factor and the

five-factor solutions are shown in Table 1.

The two—factor solution is presented because it rather clearly demonstrates the existence of two underlying dimensions that are conceptually similar to interpretations of LPC by Fiedler (1967) , as well as

being similar to major leadership styles frequently described in the

leadership literature (e.g., Stogdill, 1974). They also confirm the

findings of Shiflett (1974) and Yukl (1970) . These two factors are

labeled Interpersonal warmth and supportiveness and Task-oriented

activities.

Inspection of the rotated three-, four-, and five-factor solutions

indicated that the original two factors were each systematically partitioned into two interpretable factors, and finally a fifth factor was

pulled out of the interpersonal warmth space. Thus, five factors—-

labeled Consideration and Helpfulness, Dependability, Extroversion , Self-sufficiency, and Personal Composure--appeared to best describe the

factor space of the 32 items. These five factors accounted for 50% of

the total scale variance.

The obtained LPC factor structure bears a remarkable resemblance to

the five-factor structure repeatedly found in the research on the effects of rater personality structure on peer evaluation and self-

• evaluations (Fiske , 1949; Norman , 1963; Norman & Goldberg , 1966; Pas—

sini & Norman , 1966; rupes & Christal. 1961) . Our five LPC factors of

Consideration and Helpfulness, Dependability , Extroversion , Selfsufficiency, and Personal Composure are quite similar both in concept

and content to the five factors in Norman ’s research program; he has

labeled the factors, respectively , Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,

Extroversion or Surgency , Culture (inquiring intellect) , and &aotional

Stability. The obvious similarity in these factor structures caused us

to wonder why some of the previous factor analytic studies of the LPC

8

L 

j

•~~~~~~ j :j_ • ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ •

~

LJL.

- ~~~~~~ •
Table l

Two- and Five-Factor Solutions from the Varimax

Rotations of LPC Scales

Two—factor

Scale names

5 solutions Five—factor aolution~ I II I II III IV V

• 1. Pleasant — unpleasant 726 188 256 258 613 —043 360

2. Friendly - unfriendly 729 130 194 203 710 -060 293

3. Accepting — rejecting 597 070 338 110 402 —071 289 4. Close — distant 648 034 427 —074 545 063 088

5. Cooperative -

• uncooperative 500 360 574 357 140 049 226

6. Interesting — boring 561 280 373 004 459 362 121

7. Efficient — inefficient 189 753 395 621 —006 373 035

8. cheerful — gloomy 626 223 144 108 687 197 182

9. Careful — careless 063 692 055 780 079 156 028

10. Energetic - unenergetic 306 531 222 420 518 282 —295

11. Considerate -

inconsiderate 629 269 582 303 285 —030 268

12. Reliable — unreliable 138 667 319 710 —024 153 031

13. Outgoing - shy 219 227 -251 070 601 308 -092

14. Decisive — indecisive 145 710 117 332 152 688 033

15. Cheerful — ill—humored 691 099 172 049 679 073 282

16. Independent - dependent 022 602 046 147 016 748 042

17. Helpful — frustrating 548 396 683 253 144 203 202

18. Enthusiastic —

unenthusiastic 323 417 046 414 612 149 —209

19. Relaxed — tense 578 102 189 —055 212 208 692

20. Warm - cold 799 028 451 -073 630 055 253

21. Supportive — hostile 684 204 474 226 330 —017 432

22. Harmonious - quarrelsome 685 106 361 259 296 -180 598 23. Self—assured — hesitant —022 647 —211 305 086 685 187

24. Open — guarded 528 214 211 —018 366 323 359

25. Clean - dirty 224 486 —115 549 299 140 219

26. Responsible —

irresponsible 171 746 198 801 090 192 082

27. Adaptive — dogmatic 389 393 442 180 009 328 338

28. Resourceful -

unresourceful 329 660 295 252 174 676 177

29 Adjusted — maladjusted 458 562 268 442 173 322 460

30. Calm — excitable 505 239 191 054 093 293 725

31. Interesting - dull 545 356 362 —014 434 503 146

32. Interested in others -

self—absorbed 619 221 715 073 280 133 103

5

ltms e 1—8 and 17—24 are the 16 scales reported by Fiedler (1967). Decimals are omitted .

b

ractor i ~ Interpersonal Warmth and Supportiveness; Factor II — Taskoriented Activities.

c

Factor I Consideration and Helpfulness; Factor II = Dependability ;

Factor III — Extroversion; Factor IV Self—sufficiency; Factor V = Personal Composure . 9

- ______ —

- ~~~,-- —- ________

-• - — ••—-• - — — -•-- •- — ~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~~~~~~~~~ — -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~--
r

scale had not yielded such a factor structure. A si~~~ary review of

these studies indicated that most investigators simply factored the 16—

item LPC scale , and even those adding extra items failed to include

• items that would permit this particular five—factor structure to appear.

Our ability to extract this rather cc~~~ n factor structure did not occur

as a result of any deliberate attempt on our part to do So; it resulted

from our rather serendipitous decision to add the items used by Yukl

(1970) to Fiedler’s (1967) original 16 items. Yukl , in turn , had de-

• rived his items from the work of Fishbein , Landy , and Hatch (1969,

1970) , who had asked subjects in a free—response situation to generate

items descriptive of their least preferred coworker. This procedure may

well have allowed their subjects’ implicit personality theory to operate

freely in the generation of items that would eventually permit us to recover that process in an entirely different context .

In the next step of the data analyses, composite scores representing each factor were derived . In order to make the various subscores

directly comparable , an equal n~

.znber of items from each of the first

four factors was selected for inclusion in the composite scores. The

criteria for selection of items were size of loading and the item’s

relative independence of other factors, or simple structure. Four items •

per factor were selected , except for the personal composure factor,

where only three items were selected due to an inadequate number of usable items.

Factor I, Consideration and Helpfulness, was represented by the

following items: Cooperative-uncooperative (5), Considerate—inconsiderate (11), Helpful—frustrating (17), and Interested in others—self—

absorbed (32).

Factor II, Dependability, was represented by these items: Careful—

careless (9) , Reliable—unreliable (12) , Clean—dirty (25) , and Responsible—irresponsible (26) .

Factor III, Extroversion, was represented by the following items:

-

• Pleasant—unpleasant (1), Friendly-unfriendly (2) , Cheerful—gloomy (8) ,

and Cheerful——i 1l—h~

aored (15) .

• Factor TV , Self-sufficiency, was represented by these items:

Decisive-indecisive (14) , Independent—dependent (16) , Self-assuredhesitant (23) , and Resourceful-unresourceful (28) .

Factor V, P rsonal Cc~~ osure , was represented by these items:

Relaxed-tense (19) • aarmonious-quarrelsome (22), and Calm-excitable

(3) .

This proc edur. resul ted in five LPC subdimension scores utilizing

19 of the 32 its.. in the pooi . Eight of the 19 items are in the original 16-item LPC scale set reported by Fiedler (1967) . Two additional

scores were derived by s

~~~ ing the Factor I and III scores to yield a

Consideration and Helpf ulness score and by s

~

.r.ing the Factor II and IV

10

- _____
—- • - - ~~~~~~~ ~~ • _ • ~ _• •

~~~~~7~~~~~~r - .

~~~~~~~~~~.n’~~~~~~flr ~~ - . - -

~~~~~~—-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r -

~~~ - • — • —

~~~l•~-- - -- •-

~~

- -

, I

scores to obtain a Task-oriented Activities score. These two scores,

containing a total of 16 items, were then summed to obtain a new and irsproved 16-item LPC score in which both task and social dimension are

equally represented . These procedures resulted in a set of eight new

LPC—based scores in addition to the original LPC score. The intercorre-

• lations among these scales are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

• Correlation Matrix of LPC Composite Scores

a

• LPC composites LPC composites 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Factor I: Considerate

Helpfulness

2. Factor II: Task-oriented

Activities .46

3. Factor III: Extroversion .56 .34

4. Factor IV: Self—

sufficiency .34 .47 .30

5. Factor V: Personal

Composure .54 .28 .52 .30

6. I plus III: Interpersonal

Warmth .87 .45 .89 .36 .60

7. II plus IV: Task—oriented

Activities .47 .85 .37 .86 .34 .47

8. New LPC .77 .77 .73 .72 .54 .85 .87 — .07

9. Original LPC .78 .51 .84 .51 .70 .92 .60 .27 .88

The five—factor composite scores show a reasonable degree of independence, with the intercorrelations among the scores ranging from .28

to .56. Thus, even though there is variance common to all the f actors--

probably from a general evaluative tendency and common method variance--

there is enough divergence among the scores to support reasonable conf i—

dence that the scores are meaningfully different.

Of particular interest is the high degree of association these

items have with the original 16—item LPC scale used by Fiedler (1967).

The two task-oriented factors are each correlated .51 with the original

LPC score, and their combined score is correlated .60 with original LPC.

Although these are not remarkably high correlations, they are strong

• enough to indicate a definite common basis.

i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -------•~~--- -- --~~~~~~ 

11

:

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L

~~ • 

- 

:

~~~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-
• The interpersonal factors , on the other hand , show remarkably high

correlations with the original LPC score, with Factors I, III, and V

correlating .78, .84, and .70, respectively, with the original LPC score.

Furthermore, the Factor I-Ill combined score is correlated .92 with

original LPC. This value is clearly in the range of the maximum reliability coefficients ever reported for LPC (Fiedler , 1967; Posthuma ,

1970). This value is particularly striking in light of the fact that

only t~~ee items are comunon to both scores. Further, a correlation of

this magnitude, given the measurement error involved, indicates that the -

• 

two variables are nearly indistinguishable and should probably be interpreted as measuring the same thing. In other words, low LPC people

would be labeled as negative interpersonal evaluators instead of as

task-oriented or cognitively simple individuals.

a• 

• Examination of the new 16—item LPC score reveals a pattern of cor—

relations with the subscores similar to what occurred with the original

LPC score except that the patterns are perhaps a bit neater with the new

LPC score. The task factors are nearly equal to the interpersonal factors in their contributions to accountable variance, thus reflecting the

deliberate effort to create an LPC score equally balanced between task

and interpersonal items.

However, in spite of the fact that the task and interpersonal items

are now equally represented in the new LPC score, it still attains a

correlation of .88 with the original LPC score. This latter intercorrelation allows the interpersonal scale to be correlated with supposedly

task—related items to the extent that both subscores share common trait

and method variance. Thus, misinterpretations of the “meaning” of LPC

are highly likely in the absence of sit adequate conceptual model, and

unusual and misleading correlations can easily occur.

Shiflett (1974) reported that LPC had an unusual distribution in

his sample of Army basic trainees. To determine whether this finding

could be replicated , the distributions of the original and new LPC

scores were plotted and are presented in Figure 1.

As can be seen , the distribution of original LPC is nonnormal , containing three distinct modes. The new LPC score is somewhat smoother

but still reflects the existence of three modes. Given an N of 260, and

given the fact that each of the modes is separated from the others by at

least 10 points, it seems unlikely that these modes are an artifact of

the procedures used in this study.

In this regard , it should be mentioned that as the category width

is increased , it is possible eventually to “iron out” the modes as more

and more information is lost in the grosser categorizations. By the

same token, narrowing the category widths results in the LPC distributions taking on a more and more j agged and irregular appearance. It

seems quite clear that LPC is not normally distributed. Figure 1 does

F not , however, suggest enough of a deviation from normality to yield more

than a minor attenuating effect on potential relationships with other

12

_________ 

-
• II& t4

~~~~ I’ 30

I’ ..-~~~~ I’

.- 

Ii .

~~~~~ i*.

“~~~ ‘

~ I, I

- I,

• -

I

( p

I

I SC, .4 ~~~

1’•.

.. • • ~

t ~~~~~~~

~

‘

— -

. 

.

I

-• 

—•—~~~ ----.~~~~ 

I 0

/ q.

q.

/ • I

- 0~~

, a.

.— ..—. —~~~ 

— — •1~~~ ~~~~ 

__

0

— .-.---....--- •

~ 

1 • ~~~~~~-.--~~

--.-. -

I

?) NIf l DI$1

Figure 1. Distribution of original 16-item LPC scale (Fiedler, 1967)

and new revised 16-item LPC scale.

13

—

____________ _____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
• 

•—--.•— •.•. ••.---- - • •- -

normally distributed variables. The multimodality of the distribution

suggests that perhaps more than one population is being ccmbined in the

LPC measure , or that more than one concept is being measured. Furthermore , it casts doubt on the adequacy of dichotomizing or trichotomizing

the LPC distribution on the basis of percentiles as is typically done in

Fiedler ’s research program (Fiedler, 1967, 1971; Fiedler, Cheiners, &

Mahar, 1976; Posthuma, 1970). It certainly seems inappropriate to simply

use the 33rd and 67th percentile ranks as cutting scores, given the

rather high probability that the current LPC measure is not adequately

tapping all of the underlying dimensions and given the nonnorinal distribution of LPC scores.

Predictive and Concurrent Validity of the LPC Scores

To determine whether a “leader only” or a “leader—member interaction” approach was more useful in understanding the effects of LPC on

group performance, we divided our sample into four subgroups, drawing

one person from each of the 23 teams to form each of the four subgroups.

The subgroups, labeled as a function of the type of person they contained ,

were identified as: (a) formal leader-—the officer in charge of the unit;

(b) highest endorsed group member--the unit member (including formal

leaders) chosen by the peers as having the highest leadership potential;

(c) lowest endorsed group member--the unit member with the lowest peer

score on leadership potential (in the case of ties, one of the tied members was chosen randomly) ; (d) random group member——a unit member randomly selected from among all group members.

LPC means and standard deviations for the four subgroups and the

total sample (all members of all groups) are presented in Table 3. Because subgroups shared some members (i.e., some leaders were also in the

highest endorsed groups and the random group total), tests of mean dif-

• ferences were not made , but as Table 3 indicates, there were no major

• differences between group means considering the small size of the subgroups (N = 23).

• Table 4 presents the intercorrelations between LPC subscales for

each of the same five groups.

Again , because of overlapping groups, no tests for differences between correlations were made. Intercorrelations among the LPC subscales

do seem to vary across groups. The formal leader group showed the greatest degree of divergence among scales. The results from Tables 3 and 4

seem to support the view that although the level of responding (mean LPC

score) would not be a major influence on differences in predictive abil- ~

• ity of the LPC score across subgroups, there could still be distinct

differences as a function of the degree of divergence among the subscales. The distinction between leaders and nonleaders in the use of

the LPC subscales suggests that leaders may select themselves into leadership positions in a way related to how they use the LPC scales or, alternately, that once they become leaders they tend to change the way

14
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~

______________

— ____ • -- - -

______

V

Table 3

LPC Subscale Means and Standard Deviations for — Four Subgroups and Total Group

Group a LPC scales Formal High peer Low peer Random Total

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Consideration and

• Helpfulness 11.0 3.7 11.4 3.8 11.4 4.5 11.9 5.0 11.5 4.9

Dependability 15.1 5.2 14.4 4.9 14.0 5.6 13.8 4.9 14.8 5.6

• Extroversion 17. 9 4.7 15.9 5.0 14.7 5.7 16.6 5.7 15.6 5.4

Self—sufficiency 15.0 6.5 13. 7 5.6 15.7 5.3 15.9 4.9 15.4 5.7

Personal

Composure 10.3 4.1 9.7 3.9 8.6 3.0 9.8 3.6 9.5 4.0

New LPC 58.8 11.7 55.4 12.7 55.9 16.1 58.1 14.0 57.2 16.1

Old LPC 57.6 103 53. 7 12.9 53.1 15.2 55.7 14.9 54.6 15.8

a

Total group is all group members, N = 275.

Table 4

LPC Subscale Intercorre].ations for

Four Subgroups and Total Group

LPC subscale Group a intercorrelations Formal High peer Low peer Random Total

I with II —10 17 29 37 50*

I with III —11 51* 65* 42* 60*

I with IV 15 46* 57* 29 36*

I with V 37 61* 60* 76* 56*

• II with III 23 22 21 60* 35*

• 

- II with IV 24 13 51* 19 50*

II with V —03 08 11 35 31*

III with IV 06 09 41 —14 33*

III with V 47* 58* 34 51* 52*

IV with V 22 41 40 16 31*

*p< .05.

Note. Decimals have been omitted . I= Consideration and Helpfulness;

II Dependability ; III Extroversion ; IV Self-sufficiency;

p V Personal Composure.

~~ a

Total group is all group members, N — 275.

15 

_ 

4

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

—1—- ____

— ~~~ ~~~~ - — -~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~ -—— ‘-—
-

they perceive those for whom they are responsible. This latter interpretation would offer at least some explanation of the low test—retest

reliabilities, reported by Fiedler (1967, 1971) and Stinson and Tracy

(1974), which usually spanned a period of intervening leadership

experience.

Our interpretation also suggests that the previously mentioned confounding of leader and member LPC scores that often exists in laboratory

• studies may also exist to some degree in field settings; however, in the

• latter case , it may be the leaders themselves who “select themselv

out” of the overall population of LPC scores, thereby causing the 1

~ad—

er’s mean (or configural) LPC score to differ systematically from member

LPC scores. The interaction between leader and member characteristics -

•

on various leadership criteria has been well enough established (Stogdill, 1974) to make the current situation regarding the role of member

LPC one of great concern .

Before examining the correlations between LPC and various criteria,

it is useful to characterize the groups in terms of the situational f avorableness dimension in Fiedler ’s model. Detachments were commanded by

captains, not a particularly powerful rank in the Army . Furthermore,

many of the enlisted personnel--particularly the senior noncommissioned

officers--were older and substantially more experienced than their commanding officers. Therefore , the leader’s position power was judged to

be relatively low.

The field training exercise was a large operation involving a number of different sequential phases that re~uired the coordination of the

unit’s activities with several other military units also participating

in the exercise. On the whole , once the detachments were in the field,

their day-to-day operations were largely at the discretion of the commander and the unit members, with virtually no direction from their central headquarters. The complexity of the operation , with the many al- • ternative ways of handling the various situations encountered , led to a

judgment that the task was relatively unstructured. The voluntary natute

• of the Reserves, plus the enthusiastic reception of this type of outdoor

“action” exercise , led us to conclude that group morale and leader—member

relations were relatively good . This conclusion was confirmed by the

group atmosphere ratings (N = 70.8, S.D. = 6.7).

A situation with low leader position power, an unstructured task,

and relatively good leader-member relations corresponds to octant 4 of

Fiedler’s (1967) model. The model predicts a positive correlation between leader LPC and group performance in this octant.

A comparison of the predictive ability of the old and new LPC

scales is presented in Table 5.

16

— ---- -- - — -
- - 

~~~~~~~~—- ~••~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • • •-• ~~~~~~ -,

______________________ — -— —- - - —~

———‘~~~~~~~

~*

Table 5

Correlations Between Unit Criteria and Old and New LPC Scales

Formal High Low

leaders endorsed endorsed Criteria New Old New Old New Old

LPC LPC LPC LPC LPC LPC

• 

1. Acquaintanceship .14 .16 — .22 — .12 — .26 — .15

j 2. Friendship — .13 — .30 — .28 -.20 — .02 .02 • • 3. Group Atmosphere .2-4 — .01 -.1.2 — .04 .13 .09

4. Morale .10 .10 — .32 — .30 .46* .46*

5. Early Mission

Effectiveness •5j * .18 — .04 — .14 .15 .46

6. Mission Effectiveness .02 .00 -.28 -.28 .35 .26

7. Esprit de Corps -.15 — .09 -.22 .00 .32 .29

8. Mission-Support

Effectiveness 

a 

.39 .28 — .25 — .36 • 47* .50*

9. Leader Effectiveness 1 .28 .10 -.31 -.37 .43 .43

10. Planning Effectiveness .39 .15 .10 — .07 .24 .39

11. Unit Performance .52* .20 .11 — .05 .33 .42*

12. Job Satisfaction b .26 — .23 .04 — .11 — .14 — .04

13. Leader Effectiveness 2 .36 .08 .02 .23 .37 .37

14. Group Cohesion .00 — .17 -.29 -.23 — .04 -.11

1.5. Individual Performance — .10 — .28 — .36 -.33 .05 -.04

16. Individual Effort .48* .46* .10 .03 ~43* .41

• ~p< .05.

< .01.

outside observers.

b

yrom group members.

The prediction of a positive correlation between leader LPC and

group performance received only weak support using Fiedler’s old LPC

measures. Correlations were in the correct (positive) direction, but

only one achieved statistical significance (Individual Effort, r — .46 , p < .05) . Our new LPC measure, however, provided rather strong support

for the model’s prediction. The correlation between new-LPC and early

mission effectiveness was .51 (p < .05) ; with Unit Performance the correlation was .52 (p < .05); and with Individual Effort the correlation

was .48 (p < .05) . It is heartwarming to note that our improved LPC

score was better able to support Fiedler’s model than was his own LPC

• scale. It is also interesting to note that the leaders’ LPC scores were

H 17

•~ ~ - 

—.- — -

~~~~~~ — •.•‘ —. 

•

~—•----——--~• — -

________________________________________________________________ — ~~~~~~~~~~~ --—
not related to either of our direct estimates of leader effectiveness

(items 9 and 13 in Table 5), also confirming findings by Fiedler (1967) . For highest endorsed members, neither LPC scale was able to significant—

ly predict any of the criteria. Among lowest endorsed members, both LPC

scales predicted three criteria. All in all, the new LPC scale, based

on a balanced combination of four subscales, appears to have a slightly

improved predictive ability over the old LPC scale. Interestingly, among

the significant correlations, formal leader LPC is most strongly associated with product and mission-oriented criteria (e.g. , early mission effectiveness and unit performance) , whereas member LPC is more closely

• associated with psychological and auxilliary performance criteria (e.g.,

morale and mission support effectiveness). For both leaders and members, LPC is equally predictive of reported effort.

Of perhaps greater interest-—and certainly more informative—-are

the patterns of relationships between the various LPC subscales and

group outcome criteria. The correlations between the five LPC subscales

and the various outcome measures for three subsamples are presented in

Tables 6, 7, and 8. Because of missing data , the correlations in these

tables are based on N ’s ranging from 14 to 23. Data for the random member subgroup are not presented in tabular form because only 2 correlations (out of 80) were statistically significant. Approximately four

r’ s could be expected to be significant at the .05 level due to chance

alone in each subsample.

.

Table 6 reports the LPC and outcome correlations for formal leaders. Nine of 80 r’s were significant. The Dependability subscale accounts for

six of the significant correlations and indicated that formal leaders who

described their LPC as dependable tended to have more effective and more

cohesive units. On the other hand, negative evaluations of one ’s least

preferred coworker on the Consideration and Helpfulness subscale were associated with higher individual performance and a high level of friendship. The Self—sufficiency subscale produced one significant positive correlation , with early mission effectiveness.

Table 7 reports the LPC and outcome correlations for highest endorsed group members. Seven correlations were significant. Describing

one ’s LPC as Low on Self—sufficiency and Personal Composure was associated with teams high in group solidarity (negative r’s with Morale , Esprit , Group Cohesion, Individual Performance , Friendship, and Group

Atmosphere) .

As Table 8 indicates, low endorsed group members selecting a least

preferred coworker who was high in Consideration and Helpfulness as well

as Dependability were associated with groups high in Mission-Support Sffectiveness, Morale , Leader Effectiveness, and Individual Effort.

Finally, of the five LPC subscales, the Extroversion subscale was

not related to any of the outcome criteria for any of the subgroups.

18

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~
- - -

Table 6

Correlations Between LPC Subscales and Unit

Criteria for Formal Leader

LPC scales

Criteria Considera—

tion and Depend- Extro- Self— Personal

Helpfulness ability version sufficiency Composure

1. Acquaintanceship -.16 .16 .34 .02 .13

2. Friendship _

~ 45* .14 — .05 ‘ .04 — .32

3. Group ktmosphere -.10 •5Q* .29 — .13 -.13

4. Wrale — .05 .07 — .06 .21 -.10

5. Early Mission

-Effectiveness .23 .35 — .08 •57* — .06

6. Mission

Effectiveness — .14 .10 .14 -.07 — .27

7. Esprit de Corps — .15 — .02 .00 — .17 — .29

• 8. Mission-Support

Effectiveness .03 •47* .18 .19 .14

9. Leader

Effectiveness 1

a 01 - •44* .02 .13 — .08

10. Planning

Effectiveness — .12 .36 .29 .22 .10

11. Unit Performance .21 ,49* .19 .28 .07

12. Job Satisfaction — .29 .61** .13 .04 — .35

13. Leader b Effectiveness 2 .01 .25 .09 — .16 .06

14. Group Cohesion -.25 .23 .15 — .15 -.21

15. Individual

Performance _

~ 54** .40 .14 — .29 — .35

16. Individual

Effort .15 .46* .41 .11 .35

*p< .05.

**p< .01.

a

From outside observers.

b

From group members.

:

~

J I

:

~ 1 19 

‘

--

~

• .,•• - •

~~~~~•- -•- •-• -- --- • - - •

- • • ~~~~-•-~~

— • ••--• - - - • - • - ~~~- - •-• • - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

• • •

~~~ -b~~~~~~~

~~ - —~~~~— -~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~——-~~~~— ———
___________________________________

Table 7

Correlations Between LPC Subscales and Unit

Criteria for Highest Endorsed Group Member

LPC scales • . . Considera- Criteria tion and Depend- Extro- Self— Personal

Helpfulness ability version sufficiency Composure

1. Acquaintanceship — .15 — .16 — .07 — .20 — .12

2. Friendship — .23 — .10 — .09 — .31 — . 46*

3. Group Atmosphere -.18 .12 .19 _

~44* -.22

4. Morale — .12 — .17 -.05 _

~ 44* — .38

5. Early Mission

Effectiveness — .24 .15 — .11 .05 — .40

6. Mission

Effectiveness -.05 — .10 — .06 -.43 — .44

7. Esprit de Corps — .02 — .23 .30 _ •54* — .26

8. Mission-Support

Effectiveness — .22 — .03 — .21 — .20 — .21

9. Leader

Effectiveness 1

a — .25 .05 — .24 — .37 — .40

• 10. Planning

Effectiveness .07 .20 .03 -.03 — .03

• 11. Unit Performance -.10 .27 .08 .02 — .13

12. Job Satisfaction — .20 .36 .04 .-.l3 - — .41

13. Leader - b • Effectiveness 2 .04 .00 .27 — .21 —01

14. Group Cohesion -.29 .01 .04 _ .50* _____

- l5.~ Individual

Performance — .28 — .10 — .10 ..46*

16. Individual

Effort .01 .07 .08 .09 .10

*p < .05.

**p< .01.

a

From outside observers.

b

From group members.

20

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____________ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--

~~~~

---

~~~~~~~~~

---

~~~~ 

- - -- - —-~~~- ———------- - 

--

- - • • - • ———— 

—.

Table 8

Correlations Between LPC Subsca les and Unit

• Crit .ria for L~~ est Endorsed Group Member

• LPC scales

Canaidera- Criteria tion and Depend— Extro- Self— , Personal

Helpfulness ability version sufficiency Composure

S 1. Acquaintanceship .05 — .20 — .21 — .38 — .03

2. Friendship .19 -.1.1 — .03 — .06 .01

3. Gro up Atmosphere .08 .06 .08 .17 .11

4. Morale .62** .26 .27 .28 •43*

5. Early Mission

Effectiveness .29 — .03 .38 — .15 .35

6. Mission

• Effectiveness .44 .37 -.04 .32 .32 • 7. Esprit de Corps .37 .04 .25 .34 .38

8. Mission-Support

Effectiveness •45* .46* .30 .23 .36

9. Leader -

Effectiveness .46* .42 .29 .17 .30

• 10. Planning

Effectiveness .47 .16 .22 — .08 .37

11. Unit Performance .28 .30 .23 .20 .33

12. Job Satisfaction — .09 — .09 .01 -.26 .02

13. Leader b Effectiveness 2 .32 .21 .34 .25 .12

14. Group Cohesion .06 .04 — .19 — .01 .06

15. Individual

[ Performance .05 .18 -.09 .02 .01

16. Individual

Effort .32 ~43* .23 .31 .12

< .05.

-C .01.

5

Frcs outside observers.

b

From group a~~~ers.

21

- I — -- -•—--- • • _‘_-.__-_ —— •- - ,I

~~

-_ - - --‘•- ,-!.a ~~~~~~~~~ .... aaa.- ..

~~ -— - •
- - 

- -

-

DISCUSSION

When examining the LPC subdimensions and their relationship to group

criteria within the various subgroupings, one has the distinct feeling

that the LPC dimensions should be describing the actor-respondent rather

than his least preferred coworker; perhaps they are. When people select

their least preferred corworker, they prestinably select that person with

whom they had the greatest difficulty working in a group situation. The

particular reason for having difficulty working with someone undoubtedly

varies greatly from person to person . Thus,’ when the raters actually

evaluate their least preferred coworker on the LPC items, they quite possibly find that some of the items are relevant to their decision to select that particular person , while other items are not at all relevant to

• the decision. That is. any individual , including a least preferred coworker, is made up of many different characteristics, only a few of which

may have had a negative effect on the rater. Furthermore, because people

do vary, the characteristics relevant to the selection of one person’s

LPC may be completely irrelevant to the selection of another person’s

LPC.

This fact has a definite implication for the distribution of scores

on a given LPC item. When an item is relevant for selecting a particular

least preferred coworker, the resulting distribution of scores would be

expected to cluster at the negative (low) end of the item scale , since

prestis&bly the negative aspect of that characteristic was the reason for

the selection of a negative stimulus object (i.e., LPC). When an item

is not relevant , however, the distribution of item scores would be expected to resemble the population distribution for that item and perhaps

be more or less syimnetrically and normally distributed across the entire

range.

A further implication of the pres~

atption that items constituting

the LPC scale vary in decision relevance is the distinct possibility

that relevance is at least partially a function of the rater’s own personality characteristics , especially with respect to leadership style.

To the extent that people use themselves as anchors (consciously or un-

• consciously ) for assessing others, their own personal traits are likely

• to be used as positive anchors when assigning relatively negative ratings

to someone with whom they have had difficulty working. Therefore, traits

that are valued highly by the rater will tend to receive low scores for

one’s least preferred coworker, whereas traits that are not highly valued

will tend to receive more moderate scores.

The data from this study suggest that people make their evaluations

along at least five dimensions, which have been repeatedly identified in

a variety of other contexts. The dimension labels used here have strong

behavioral overtones and suggest the possibility that this approach to

LPC may bring us a step closer to understanding the nature of the behavioral link between group performance and leader traits. The data

also suggest a means whereby the rather confusing literature on implicit

personality theory (Rosenberg & Sedlak , 1972; Schneider , 1973) can

22

• 

-~~~~~ - -~~~~ - , --- - -

~~~~

— p ~~~~~~S — ~~ —
—

2 1

perhaps be tied more closely to behavioral tendencies; we have demonstrated in Table 1 that the recurring five-factor structure found in our

data can be seen as emerging from (or collapsing into) a two-factor

space where one dimension represents task—oriented behavior and the orthogonal dimension represents interpersonal behaviors.

Our data further suggest that the various LPC subdimensions may be

differentially relevant to group processes depending upon the role of

the individual within the group, as well as the group output criterion.

Thus, for the formal leader we find that the dimensions of Dependability

and Self-sufficiency are positively related to various task—effectiveness

criteria. Combining this finding with the implication suggested above ,

that people use themselves as anchors, indicates that leaders who value

• dependability and self-sufficiency (and therefore give low scores to

their LPC on these dimensions) were associated with groups low in taskeffectiveness and satisfaction measures. It is as if the leader were

unable to utilize the group effectively because of too much selfreliance--that is, the leader would be rated as relatively high on Dependability in a peer ratin g setting .

The formal leader Consideration and Helpfulness scores are nega—

tively related to the personal friendship and individual performance

criteria, suggesting that formal leaders who value this trait and who

pres~

isab1y would be ranked higher on this trait (while at the same time

they are giving their LPC low scores), are associated with groups reporting high levels of friendship and individual performance.

On the other hand, in the case of the high endorsed member, who

might be thought of as an informal leader, we find that Self-sufficiency

and Personal Composure are negatively correlated with vaxious interpersonal criteria. The negative correlations suggest tha t r aters see a lot

of these characteristics in their least preferred coworkers and there—

• fore that they evalua te these traits negative ly in others as well as in

themselves.

• Thus , the most effective informal leaders were, in the present

case, the gocioemotional leaders who downplayed self—sufficiency and independence . The negative correlations suggest that a rela tively powerful (sociometrically overchosen ) subordinate who is self—sufficient and

personally composed or aloof , may cause friction and conflict to develop

in the group since his action may be perceived as antagonistic to the

formal leader ’s role.

In contrast, the low endorsed group member, a label not meant to

imply re~.ation or negative evaluation but rather to describe the individual who is “just one of the guys,” shows another salience pattern involving Consideration and Helpfulness and Dependability . These are the

same dimensions tha t were salient for the formal leader, but here the

sign of the Consideration and Helpfulness correlation is positive,

whereas for the formal leader it was negative , suggesting that these

23

I 

~~

—~~ -• ----— -- •-- ---—- -- S— -- - - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
~ 1

*

characteristics of the noninfluential members must be complementary to

those of the leader for maximtin group effectiveness.

The data in Table 5 support the view that the relationship between

LPC and unit performance is indeed primarily a leader-specific relationship. However, we have found that the LPC scores for both leaders and

members, as well as the specific LPC subdimensions, -are differentially

predictive of various criteria as a function of the individual’s role in

the group. These findings raise an interesting question: If the situation, including the roles, were changed, would the formal leader’s inferred positive orientation toward dependability still be functional in

facilitating group effectiveness?

Our suggestion that LPC dimension scores are measuring probable be-

• havioral modes of the leader represents a rather large inferential leap

and is one that of course must be subjected to future research . Nevertheless, we are able to garner some modest support for this interpretation from a study of Air Force officer candidates reported by Tupes

(1957). Using a cluster technique, Tupes grouped peer ratings of traits

into seven clusters, five of which correspond roughly to the five factors reported here as well as by other investigators previously cited. Tupes’ procedures were such that only a rough comparison can be made,

but based on a table of cluster weights (Tupe s, 1957, p. 16) it appears

that, for his sample, peer ratings of Agreeableness-Helpfulness were

positively related to a standard officer performance rating obtained at

least 1 year later. Dependability was negatively related to this same

criterion. Both findings support our assertion that these LPC dimensions may be reflecting the effect of relevance of behavioral style of

the rater on team performance, and in the directions suggested . Tupes’ data also indicated that Extroversion was unrelated to the officer performance criterion , also corroborating our findings. On the other hand,

Tupes found a positive relationship between Personal Composure and performance, but we were unable to find any relationship involving this

dimension.

The aultidiisensionality of LPC more and more seems to be an established finding. Failure to properly account for this fact, by neither

eliminating nonpredictive dimensions nor assuring inclusion of predictive dimensions, substantially reduces the predictive capacity of LPC.

Explanations and interpretations of the LPC scale suffer accordingly.

The discovery of a possible trimodal distribution suggests that certain

combinations of subdimensions may occur with greater frequency than

others. This finding has implications for defining high, middle, and

low LPC, as well as for the manner in which LPC is interpreted psychologically. Present measurement techniques and theory are totally m ade-

• quate for explaining this phenomenon, and this problem may represent a

fruitful in. of future research.

Also alluded to was the problem of multiple attitude objects. The

fact that there are as many different least preferred coworkers as there

are raters undoubtedly introduces a great deal of noise (completely

24

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~ •. ~~~ i

~~~~~•~~~~~ __~ ~~~~~~~~~~ 
~ — - - - — —•--—- -—

~

- - 

I ~ 

-- 

irrelevant variance) into the LPC measuring system. Indeed , the recognition of this fact makes one wonder that LPC is able to work at all.

That is, it is surprising that the “signal to noise” ratio is large

enough to provide any predictive power under any circ~

mtstances.

This problem leads to the final issue of the relevance of the

scales in selecting a least preferred coworker. In all likelihood only

some of the LPC dimensions or scales were relevant in a rater’ s determination, and others were of no concern at all to the rater in choosing

an LPC. To what extent does the combining of relevant LPC scales with

irrelevant LPC scales moderate, obscure , or attenuate the relationship

of the LPC score with other variables? And what is the effect of combining raters who were responding to relevant characteristics (i.e., the

characteristic was important in choosing an LPC) with raters who were

responding to what were, for them, irrelevant characteristics?

Clearly, the first condition , relevance , tells us something about

the values of the person selecting the LPC, and in all probability will

lead to relatively negative LPC scores. The second condition, irrelevance, tells us something about the least preferred coworker, uninfluenced by rater values, and thus could lead to scores anywhere on the

item dimensions, all of which is error variance in terms of the construct validity of the LPC scale • It is also possible that knowing

which scales are relevant and which are not relevant may be a more important source of information than the actual rating assigned by the

evaluator. This particular line of thought can also be found in Fishbein, Landy, and Batch (1969, 1970). Rice (in preparation) has concluded that the LPC score is probably an attitude measure that reflects

basic differences in the personal values of high and low LPC persons.

A somewhat different approach to the problem of scale relevance has been

discussed by Kerr (1974). The problem, of course, is that current methodology provides no way to determine directly which scales are relevant

for which raters. Future research might well simply ask the raters if a

particular scale played a role in determining their LPC.

CONCLUSION

When one pauses to reflect upon LPC—-the unusual measurement pro—

cedure, the torturously complex attempts to explain what it does and

why, the incredible nimther of problems with it illustrated here and in

a variety of other papers—-one realizes what an absolutely atrocious

measure it really is. And yet it works. Therefore, ignoring it or

avoiding it will not make it go away. This fact is attested to by the

ever—growing interest in its practical application to real—life settings

as well as continuing research interest in the measure (Rice , in prepa-

• ration) . Whatever direction this research takes, there is clearly a

need to create a closer fit between what a rater is actually doing when

evaluating a least preferred coworker, and the multitudinous interpretations and explanations of why the score is related to group performance. When this is accomplished, and when the underlying processes are clearly

25

• - - 

~~~~ - 

-----: • :L—- -•: ~~~~~ ~:: • T.
understood , new and more adequate assessment procedures can be developed

to replace LPCI To this end , our data seem to represent a major step

forward in understanding the dynamics and meaning of the LPC score. In

relating it to an extant body of research on implicit personality theory,

- we may finally be denying LPC its dubious distinction of being a measure - in search of a meaning that correlates with nothing but group performance.

— I

- -•
- - -~~~~~~ - -

~~~-—--- ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~- - .--~~~~~~~~~~ - - •

_____________ _____________ 

WIR~~CES 

Ashour, A S The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness : An L

4 Evaluation . Organizational Behavior and H~

aLan Performance, 1973,

10, 338—356 .

Bishop, D. U. Relations Between Task and Interpersonal Success and

Group Member Adjustment (Technical Report No. 18) . Urbana , Ill.:

Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, 1964.

Doimey, R. G., Duffy, P. J., & Shiflett, S. Criterion Performance

Nsasur.. of Leadership and Unit Effectiveness in Small Combat Units.

j ARI Research Memorandum 75—9, August 1975.

Duf fy, P. J., Downey, R. G., a Shiflett , S. rnstruct Validity of

Leadership Effectiveness Measures. Paper presented at APA annual

• convention, San Francisco , 1977.

Fiedler , F. E. A Method of Objective Quantification of Certain Countertransference Attitude .. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1951, 7,

101—107.

4 Fiedler, F. E. A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

(Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press, 1964, pp. 149—190 .

Fiedler , F. B. A Theory of Leadersh~p Effectiveness, New York : McGrawHill, 1967.

— Fiedler, P. B. Validation and Extension of the Contingency Model of - Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of Repirical Findings. Psycho—

• logical Bulletin , 1971, 76, 128—148 .

Piedler , F. E. Personality , Motivational Systems, and Behavior of High

and Low LPC Persons. Human Relations , 1972, 25, 391-412.

• Fiedler , F. E., a Chemers, 14. 14. Leadership and Effective Management.

Glenville, Ill.: Scott, Foreeman , 1974.

Fiedler , F. B., Chemers, 14. 14., & Mahar , L. Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept. New York: Wiley, 1976.

Fishbein, K., Landy, B., & Hatch, G. A Consideration of ~ ,o Assumptions

• Underlying Fiedler’ a Contingency Model for Prediction of Leadership

Effectiveness. American Journal of Psychology, 1969, 82, 457—473.

Pishbein, K., Landy, B., & Hatch , G. Some Determinant , of an Individual’ s Esteem for His Least Preferred Coworker: An Attitudinal

• 

- Analysis. Human Relations, 1970, 22 , 173—188.

_ ___ - IT -

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~

•—-

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

••- - -

~~~~~~

•

~~

- 

~~

•- --

~~~~~ 

-

~~~ 

-
Fiske, D. U. Consistency of the Factorial Structures of Personality

Ratings from Different Sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1949, 44, 329—344.

Poa, U., Mitchell, T. R., & Fiedler, F. B. Differentiation Matching.

Behavioral Science, 1971, 16, 130—142.

Fox, W. N. Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations for LPC Scales:

Instrument Refinement. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19,

450—461.

Fox, W. N., Hill, U. A., & Guertin, W. H. Dimensional Analysis of the

Least Preferred Coworker Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,

j 1973, 57, 192—194.

Graen, G., Alvarez, K. 14., Orris, J. B., & Martella , J. A. Contingency

Model of Leadership Effectiveness: Antecedent and Evidential Results. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 285-296.

Gruenfeld , L. W., & Arbnthnot, J. Field Independence , Achievement

Values, and the Evaluation of a Competency Related Dimension on

the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) Measure . Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 1968, 27, 991—1002.

House , R. J. A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 2, 321—339.

Kerr , 5. Discussant Coements (to paper by Chemers and Rice) . In 3. C.

Hunt and L. L • Larson (Eds.), Contingency Approaches to Leadership.

Carbondale , Ill.: Southern Illinois Unversity Press, 1974.

Lawler, E. B., III. Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, Calif.:

Brooks/Cole, 1973.

Levy , L. H., & Dugan , R. D. A Constant Error Approach to the Study of

Dimensions of Social Perception . Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1960, 61, 21—24.

Meyers, A. B. Team Competition , Success, and the Adjustment of Group

Members. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65,

325—332.

Mitchell , T. R. Leader Complexity and Leadership Style. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 166—173.

Norman, W. T. Toward an Adequate Taxonomy of Personality Attributes:

Replicated Factor Structure in Peer Nomination Personality Ratings.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 574—583.

28

— _

~~~~~.L ~~~
- -

~~~~~~ .

- - ~~~~-~~~~~~~~ -•

~~~~~ - -— - • —- - ~ -—~~—•—--•-—- , -~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ---~~

— ~ - I.- - •-——

Norman , W. T., a Goldberg, L. R. Raters, Ratees, and Randomness in

Personality Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 681-691.

Passini , F. T., & Norman, U. T. A Universal Conception of Personality

Structure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4,

44—49.

Porter, L. U., Lawler, B. B., III, & Hac3~~an , J. H. Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

- • Posthuma, A. B. Normative Data on the Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale

(LPC) - and the Group Atmosphere Questionnaire (CA) (Technical Report 70-8) . Seattle: Organizational Research , Department of Psychology, University of Washington, 1970. (AD 714248) .

Rice, R. W. Psychometric Properties of the Esteem for Least Preferred

Coworker (LPC) Scale. Academy of Management Review, in preparation.

Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. Structural Representations of Implicit Personality Theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology. New York : Academic Press, 1972.

Schneider , D. 3. Implicit Personality Theory : A Review. Psychological

Bulletin, 1973, 79, 294—309.

Schriesheim , C. A., & Kerr, S. Theories and Measures of Leadership: A

Critical Appraisal. In 3. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership : The Cutting Edge. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977.

Shiflett, S. C. The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness : Some

Implications of its Statistical and Methodological Properties. Behavioral Science, 1973, 18, 429—440.

Shiflett, S. C. Stereotyping and Esteem for One ’s Least Preferred Coworker. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 55—65.

Stinson , 3. B., & Tracy , L. Some Disturbing Characteristics of the LPC

Score. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 27, 477—485.

Stogdill, R. M . Handbook of Leadership . New York: Free Press, 1974.

• Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement (Research Monograph No. 88). Columbus, Ohio:

Ohio State University, 1957.

29

- — —~~ •- . -~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I— ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • 

— —-- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
em -.

~~~ ~~- -

~~ 

-

~ ~~~

- - -

~~ 

- - -- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •—.•~~•-- 

—

• Tupes, B. C. Relationship Between Behavior Trait Ratin gs by Peers and

Later Officer Performance of USAF Officer Candidate School Graduates (Research Report AFPTRC—TN—57—l25). Lackland Air Force Base,

Tex.: Personnel Laboratory, Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, 1957.

Tupes , B. C., & Christal, R. E. Recurrent Personality Factors Based on

Trait Ratings (Research Report ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force

Base , Tex. : Personnel Laboratory , Aeronautical Systems Division,

Air Force Systems Coistand, 1961.

Yukl, C. Leader LPC Scores: Attitude Dimension and Behavioral Correlates. Journal of Social Psychology, 1970, 80, 207-212.

Yukl , G. Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance. 1971, 6, 414—440.

/

/ 30

________ 

I,

~ 

~~~~~•, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :

~~~ 7~~~~~~

- -

~~.

:: _

~

••

~~~ ~

-

~~~

-- 
r

~~ ~ mt~~

DI STtIIUTION

ARI Distribution List

4 0*50 (M&RA) 2 HQUSACDEC, Ft Ord, AnN: Litwaiy

2 HODA IDAMI.CSZ) 1 HOUSACOEC. Ft Ord, ATTh: ATEC-EX--E -Hum Factors

1 HOOA (DAFE-PBRI 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Hwiaon, ATTN: Library

1 HOOA IDAMA-AR) 1 USAPACDC. Ft Benjamin Harrison. ATTN: ATCP—HR

- - 1 HODA (OAPE-IIRE.PO) 1 USA Comm-Elect Sell, Ft Mcnmouth. ATTN: ATSN—EA

1 HQOA ISGRO ID~ I USAEC. Ft Mommouth. ATTN: AMSE . - CT-- HOP

I HODA IDAMI-DOT-C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL-PA- P

1 HODA (DAPC-PMZ-A) I USAEC, Ft Monmouth. ATT’N: AMSEL--SI-CB

I HOOA IOACH-PPZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTh: C, Fad Div Br

1 HODA (OAPE-HREI I USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy , Aberdeen. ATTN: AMXSY--P

1 HODA (DAPE-MPO’C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen. ATTh: SAREA-- BL--H

I HODA (DAPE-OW) 1 USA Ord Cu & Sch. Aberdeen. ATTN: ATSL-T’EM--C

1 HODA IDAPE-HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen, ATTN: Library/Dir

1 HODA (D*PE-CPS) 1 USA Combat A,ms Tng Sd, Ft Binning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HOOA IDAFD-MFAI 1 USA Infantry Hum Rich UnIt. Ft Binning. ATTN: Chief

1 HODA (DARD-ARS-P) 1 USA Infantry Sd, Ft Banning. ATTN: STEBC-TE--T

• 1 HOOA (DAPC-PAS-Al 1 USASMA. Ft Bliss, ATIN: ATSS—LRC

I HODA (DUSA OR) 1 (iSA Air Del 5th, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA dO - ME

1 1-IODA IDAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Del Scb, Ft SItu , ATTN: Tech Lits

1 HOt)A (DASGI - 1 USA Air Del Sd. Ft Bliss, ATT N FILES

1 HODA IDA1OPI) 1 USA Air Del Sd, Ft Bliss. ATTN: STEBO—PO

1 Chief, Consult Div (DA-OTSG), Adeiphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College. Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: Lib

1 Mit Aest Hum Ret, 000R&E . OAO (E&LS) I USA Cmd & General Sd College , Ft Leavenwo rth, ATTh: AT~~ —SE-1

I ItO USARAL , APO Seattle , ATFN: ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA -OI-TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act. Ft Leavenworth, AnN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act. Ft Leavenworth. AnN: CCS

1 Dir, Army Stf Studies Ole. ATTN: OAVCSA DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cntht 0ev Act. Ft Leavenworth. ATIN: ATCASA

1 Ott Chief of Sd, Studies Ofc I USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO—E

1 ()CSPER, ATTN : CPS/OCP I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act, Ft Leavenworth, A fl’N: ATCACC-4.l

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, A1TN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM. Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: AMSEL—NV—SO

• 1 Th. Army Lib, Pentagon, ATrN: ANRAL 3 USA Computar Sys Cmd, Ft Belvolr, ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ole, Aiit Sect of the Army I R&D) I USAMERDC. Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STSFB—DO

I Tech Support Ofc, OJCS 1 USA ~ng Sch, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: Library

1 USASA, Arlington, A flN: IARD-T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: ETL TO—S

1 USA Rtcfs Ofc, Dwham, ATTN: Life Scicnces Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STINFO Canter

2 IJSARIEM, Nalidi, ATTh: SGRD-UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Betvoir, ATIN: ETL- -051.

I usAl rc,lldbiyto,,,AurN: !;TFTC MO A I lJSA llltelligl’no Ct,&Sdl,Fl Hlkduiice,ATTN: CTD MS

I USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: ATSU-CTO-OM I USA Intelligence Cs, & Selu, Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATS—C1’D-MS

I USAIMA. Ft Bragg, A TTN: Marquat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATIN: ATSI-TE

• I US WAC Cu & Sell, Ft McClellan, ATTN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch, Ft Huedbucs, AnN: ATSl—TEX-GS

1 US WAC Cu & Sell, Ft McClellan, ATTh: Tog Dir I USA Intelligence Cu & 5Gb, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—CTS--OR

1 USA Caiart,rmsster Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch, Ft Huadhuca, ATTh: ATSI-CTD--OT

1 Intelligence Material 0ev Ole, EWL, Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Cu & ScIs, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI-.-CTD--CS

1 USA SE Signal Sdi, Ft Gordon , ATTN: ATSO-EA I USA Intelligence Cu & ScIs , Ft Hu.dhuca, ATTN: DASfSRD

1 USA Chaplain Cf r & Sn , Ft Hamilton, ATTN: ATSC-TE-RD 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & 5th. Ft Huachuca, ATTN : ATSI—TEM

1 USAISCH, Ft Eustis, ATTN: Educ Adv isor I USA Intelligence Ct, & Sch, Ft Huadhuca, ATTN : Library

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barrack s , ATm: Lib 1 CDR, HO Ft Huachuca, AUN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR . Netiropsychialty Div 2 COB, USA Electronic Prig Grd. ATTN : STEEP MT—S

1 DLI , SDA, Monterey I HO, TCATA. AiTh: Tedt Libraty

1 USA Concept Anal ~çcy. Bethesda, ATm: MOCA-MR 1 HO, TCATA. A’rrN: AT CAT.OP’O. Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethesda, ATTh: MOCA-JF I USA R.cniitingCmd, Ft Sheridan, ATTh: USARCPM-P

1 USA Arctic Test Cu. APO Seattle. A rTN: STEAC-PL’MI I Senior Anny Mr., USAFAGOD/TAC. Elgmn AF Aux FM No. g

1 USA A,ct,c Tess Ctr, APO Seestle, ATTh: ~MSTE-PL’1S I 140, USARPAC. OCSPER. APO SF 95558, ATTN: GPPE-SE

I USA A.,.,amanl Cud, Redstone Anenal, ATTN: ATSK.TEM 1 Stlmson L

~ , Academy of Health Sciences, Ft San Houston

I USA Arntmm...t Cmd. Rods lalend. ATTN: *MSAR’TOC 1 Marine Corps Inst . ATTN: Dean-MCI

1 FAA.NAFEC. Atlamic City, ATm: Library I HO, USMC, Comm.nd.nt ATTN: Code MTMT

I FAA-NAFEC, Atlantic City, A fl’N: Human Engr Br I HO, USMC, Conwnend.nt. ATTN: Code MPI-20.2S

1 FAA M,cn utlcal Cu, Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC-440 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTh: Adiniselon

2 USA FM Arty Salt, Ft Sill. *TTN: Llbra,y 2 USCG Aeedeney. New London, ATTN: Libraly

1 USA Armor 5th, Ft Knox, ATTN: Library 1 USd0 Training Ct,, NY, ATTN: CO

1 USA Armor 5th, Ft Knox, AT1’N: ATSS’Dl-E 1 USd0 Training Ct,, NY, ATTN: Educ Sec Ofc

I USA Armor Sell, Ft Knox , ATTN: ATS8-DT-TP 1 USd0, Peydud Bus Br, DC, ATTh: OP 1/52

1 USA Armor Selu, Ft Knox, ATTN: ATS8-CD AD 1 140 MId Range Sr. MC Out, ~~

avetico. ATTh: P58 Dlv

31 A - - - - - s- — 3- -

’’ ‘‘ - - - -S-a. -- ,. - - - - ,rn- • - -

~~~~ t •

~

•

~

__ . .:__ • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- 

-
- ~~~~~~~~~~~

I US Mat ine Corp. Liaison Oft, ANd. Alexandria. ATTN: AMCGS-F I Del & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine, Canada

I USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, ATTh: ATRO--ED 1 AIR CRESS. Keneington, ATTN : Info Sys Sr

$ USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, AflN: ATPR--AD 1 MiIita.rp.ykologisk Tjeneete, Cepenhagen

I USATRADOC. Ft Monroe, ATTN: AT’TS-EA 1 MilItary Attache, French Embassy, ATTh: Doe Sac

1 USA Forces Cud, Ft McPherson, ATTN: Library 1 Medecin Chef, C.E,R.PA,-Aisenel, Toulon/Naval France

2 USA Aviation Teat Sd, Ft Bucker, ATTN: STEBG-PO 1 PrIn Scientific Off. Aptul Hunt Engr Rich Dlv, Ministry

1 USA *4Cy for Aviation Safety, Ft Ruckw, ATTN: ).lbrary of Defense, New Delhi

1 USA Agmy for Aviation Safety, Ft Ruclier, ATTN: Educ Mvisor 1 Pert Rich Ofc Library, AKA, Israel Defense Forces

I USA Aviation Sell, Ft Ruciser, ATTh: P0 Drawer 0 1 Ministeris van Oefensha, 000P/KL Afd Socieel

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cud, St Louis, ATTR: AMSAV—ZDR Psydhologiadhe Zalsan, The Hague, Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Syt Test Act., Edwards AFB, ATTN: SAVTE—T

I USA Air Del ScIs, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEM

I USA Air Motility Rids & Div Lab, MoRale FM, ATTh: SAYDI -AS

I USA Aviation Salt, Bee Tog Mgi, Ft Bucker, AT1’N: ATST-T-RTM

-~ 

- 1 USA AvIation 5th, CO. Ft Bucker, ATTN: ATET-O—A

I HO, DARCOM, Alexandria, ATTh: AMXCD—TL

1 HO, DARCOM. Alexandria, ATTN: COB

• 1 US Military Academy, Wstt Paint, ATTN: Serials Unit

I US Military Academy, Weit Point, A T1’N: Ofc of Milt Ldrshp

1 US Military Academy, W.it Point, ATTN : MAOR

I USA Standardization Gp, UK, FPO NY , ATm: MASE-GC

• I Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATTh: Code 452

3 Ole of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATTN: Code 468

I Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATm: Code 450

1 Ole at Naval Ruth, Arlington, ATTN: Coda 441

1 Naval Aeroupc Med Bee Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Acaus Sell Div

1 Naval Mroupc Med Ret Lab. Pensacola, ATTN: Code 1.81

1 Naval Mroupc Med Ret Lab, Pensacola, ATTh: Code LB

1 Chief of NavPers, ATm: Pars.OR

1 NAVAIRST& Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ct,

1 Nay Oceanographic, DC, AflN: Code 6261, Cit

~ ts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal, AT TN: Doe Cu

1 NavAirSysComn, A fl’N: AIR-53I3C

1 Nsv BuMed,ATTh : 713

I NavHalloopterSubSqua 2. FPO SF 91501

I AFHRI.(FT) WIftIatns AFB

1 AFHRL ITT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL(AS) WPAFB.OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks AFB

1 AFHRL (DOJN) Lackland AFB

I HOUSAF IINYSD)

I HOUSAF (OPXXA)

I AFV’TG (HO) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB. OH

2 AF Inst of Tech, VIPAFB, 044, A’T’TN: ENE/SL

I ATC (XPTD) Randolph AFB

I USAF ArroMert Lilt, Brook s AFB (SUL—41, ATTN: DOC SEC

I AFOSR (Nil, Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFB. ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Bel Scn

5 NavPers & Dev Ctr, San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychiatric Rich Unit, San Diego

• 1 Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATI’N: Ret Lab

1 Nay TrngCen, San Diego, ATI’N: Code 9000-Ub

1 NavPostGr.Sdi. Monterey, ATTN: Code 6BAa

I NavPo.tGraSct,, Monterey, ATm: Code 2124

1 Nav TrngEqulpCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib

1 US Dept of Labor. DC, ATTN: Manpower Adrnin

I US Dept of Justice, DC. ATFN: Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Stir of Standards, DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section

I Nat Clearing House for MH—lnfu, Rockvllle

1 Denver Federal CU, Lakewoud, ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Doetenentatlon Canter

4 DIr Psych, Army Nq, RuseeN Ole., Canberra

Scientific Mvv, Mit Sd, Army Mg, Russell Ole., Canberra

I Nil aid Air Attache, Austrian Embassy

I Centre d. fladt..c h. Des Facleurs, ltumalne dale Defense

Nationale, Snswle

2 Cai.diai Joint Staff Wahingion

1 CIAIr SWI, Royal Canadian AF, A’fl’N: Pars Std Anal Br

3 Chief, Cenadian Del Rich Staff, ATTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 $r tnh Del Staff, British Embassy, Washington

32

---- — . a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~