The relationship between leadership dimensions and subordinate satisfaction in a hospital environment

Over the last few decades, leadership has become an increasingly popular area for both theoretical and empirical inquiry. For the last 10 years. the Ohio State leadership scales of initiating structure and consideration have been the leadership dimensions of major interest [l]. A recent review of the initiating structure and consideration literature by Kerr rt al. [Z] cited several advantages of the uses of the scales: “First, the.. scales . . . are theoretically meaningful, and can be linked to other research ‘trials’ in the literature. Second, they (are). . factor-analytically determined. Third, they are descriptive of behaviors which are readily identifiable.. . Fourth, they have a common sense look about them which is appealing to the practicing manager. Finally. numerous studies have used the. scales. and normative data have been accumulated” (Kerr et al.. [2], p. 64). Despite these advantages, Kerr et al. recognize that the history of the relationships between initiating structure and consideration and end result variables such as satisfaction and performance remain inconsistent. These authors propose several propositions to speculate about these relationships, focusing especially on the interaction of the leader behavior variables with several external situational moderators. The ending discussion of the authors aims at a development of “a contingency theory of leadership”. In contrast to the above research, a review of the initiating structure and consideration literature by Korman [3] was more pessimistic, concluding that very little is known as to how these measures would influence work group satisfaction and performance. In summary, despite the considerable amount of research that has focused on the relationships between initiating structure, consideration, and subordinate satisfaction and performance, the results remain inconsistent. Perhaps one explanation of this phenomenon is that these measures and their associated theories have not considered the reinforcing behavior of the leader. Neither initiating structure nor consideration include behaviors of the leader that are enacted in response to (i.e. contingent upon) subordinate performance. In the last few years, an alternate line of research examining leadership as a performance-contingent process has emerged. Operant models of the leadership process have been developed by Sims [4], Mawhinney and Ford [S], and Scott [6]. These operant models of leadership make the assumption that an individual’s work behavior is predominately determined by “contingencies of reinforcement” in the organizational environment. In this light, leadership can be identified as the process of structuring these reinforcement contingencies for subordinates. Though contingencies of reinforcement may come from non-leader sources, it is assumed that the leader will play an important part in developing such contingencies. There are at least two ways in which the leader can help to establish the occasion for a response by the subordinate. The practice of goal specification by the leader is one method by which the supervisor frequently establishes “when”, “where” and “how” a non-routine task is to be accomplished. The second and perhaps more important method of establishing reinforcement contingencies is the administration of a reward by the leader which is contingent upon the performance of the subordinate. Leader reward behavior is the leadership dimension that relates to the consequences of the contingency of reinforcement.