/. G. Hunt

Leadership-Style Effects at Two

Managerial Levels in a Simulated Organization

A laboratory experiment investigated leadership-style effects of two man- agement levels on team performance and various measures of satisfaction. Twenty-six teams, each headed by an executive, performed a complex problem- solving task. Each team had two interdependent sections, each with a manager and two subordinates. The teams were grouped into four executive-manager leadership-style combinations according to Fiedler's Least Preferred Coworker scale. Criteria were compared for each combination as well as for executive leadership alone and manager leadership alone. The additive combination of executive-manager leadership style predicted performance, but not satisfaction significantly better than either leadership measure alone although executive leadership style was itself significantly related to performance

There has been an increasing emphasis in recent textbook and theoretical literature on the possible differences in leadership re- quirements at different managerial levels (Litterer, 1965; Nealey and Fiedler, 1968; Pfiffner and Sherwood, 1960), but very few empirical studies. Mann (1965) found in a study of hospitals that different leadership styles were required at different managerial levels to satisfy subordinates. Nealey and Blood (1968), in a study of a Veteran's Ad- ministration hospital, found that both satis- faction and favorable performance required different leadership styles at different hier- archical levels. A laboratory study by Misumi and Shirakashi (1966) attempted to examine performance and satisfaction under different first- and second-level leadership- style combinations; however, their manipu- lation of the second-level manager's leader- ship style was not completely successful.

The present study was designed to extend knowledge in this area by considering in a laboratory setting (I) the effects of com- binations of different leadership styles across first and second levels of management on performance and satisfaction; and (2) com- parison of these effects with those which occur when first- and second-level managers' leadership styles are considered separately. The first condition is here called two-level

knowledge, while the second is termed one- level knowledge, where level refers to managerial level.̂

The measure of leadership style used in the present study was Fiedler's (1967) measure of a person's esteem for his least preferred coworker (LPC). A subject is asked to think of the person with whom he has had the most difficulty in working and to describe him using a series of eight-point bipolar adjective scales. High scores indicate that the respondent evaluates his least pre- ferred coworker in a relatively favorable manner. Fiedler (1967, 1970) and others have shown leaders' scores on this variable to be significantly related to group per- formance in a wide variety of groups, the direction of the relationship being a func- tion of the situation in which the leaders operate. Extensive efforts have been made by Fiedler (1967, 1970) to provide a mean-

ly This research was conducted at Southern IUi- nois University at Carbondale and is based on re- finements of an earlier pilot study conducted at the Center for Management Science, University of California at Berkeley as a part of the Workshop in Laboratory Experimental Research in Business Administration and Economics. The author is in- debted to the Ford Foundation, the sponsor of the workshop. He is also grateful to R. Bishop, J. Hill, and W. Vicars for helpful comments on the paper and to J. Reaser and G. Yunker for assistance in the statistical analysis.

476

Iltini: LEADERSHIP-STYLE EFFECTS 477

ingful interpretation of the measure; how- ever, as Fiedler (1970) indieated, it has not been correlated with most personality test seores and various attempts to relate the score to self-descriptions, descriptions by others, or behavioral observations have led to complex or inconsistent results. Thus, Fiedler (1970) has reinterpreted the meas- ure as more data have become available. His 1967 interpretation was that a leader with a high LPC score was primarily oriented toward interpersonal relations while a leader with a low LPC score was primarily oriented toward successful task completion. His 1970 interpretation is that the LPC score reflects a hierarchy of goals. Leaders with high LPC scores have the establishment and maintenance of inter- personal relations as a primary goal with prominence and self-enhancement as a secondary goal. A leader with a low LPC score has as his primary goal the achieve- ment of task and material rewards and as his secondary goal the development of good interpersonal relations. A person will try to achieve both primary and secondary goals in situations where his influence is relatively great; whereas he will stress only his primary goals where he is in an unfavorable or stressful situation where it is not possible to obtain both goals. Differences between leaders with high and low LPC scores are also discussed by Mitchell et al. (1970).

METHOD

Subjects The subjects were 182 male students from

an introductory management course. All were juniors and seniors, and most were business-school students. They were tested for leadership style and mental ability. Leadership style was measured by the previ- ously described LPC scale. Mental ability was assessed by means of the 12-minute Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1966).

Research Design The 182 subjects were assigned to 26 ex-

perimental teams, each composed of 7 sub- jects. A second-level executive headed each team with two Brst-level managers subordi- nate to him, each of whom supervised two

workers. Each team was assigned to one of four executive-manager LPC combinations on the basis of pretest LPC scores. Com- binations were diose shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1. EXECUTIVE-MANAGER COMBINA- TIONS

Number of teams

Least preferred coworker scores

Executives Managers

High Low High Low

High Low Low High

Subjects were also matched according to Wonderlic scores so that mental ability did not differ significantly in combination or within any given team.

This design, in conjunction with the sta- tistical technique discussed later, allows a comparison of two-level versus one-level knowledge effects, that is, a comparison of the effects of both executive and manager together versus the separate effects of each.

Organization Groups Each seven-man team represented a simu-

lated tape-recorder design department of the Acme Company. Figure 1 shows how the teams were organized and the permitted communication channels for task information. Note that there is unlimited interaction al- lowed within each of the two sections within a department, but that communication be- tween sections must follow hierarchical lines. Also, each manager while allowed communications of unlimited frequency and length with the executive, could not meet with the other manager except for a 10- minute period during preliminary planning for the task. While either the executive or manager could initiate interactions, all meet- ings were in the executive's office separated from the managers' work areas.

Description of Task

The task was a modiflcation of a complex problem-solving assignment developed by Robert Swinth at the University of Kansas. It was here used to simulate (J) policy im-

478 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

Executive Tape Recorder Design

Department

Manager Speaker and

Amplifier Section

T Speaker designer

T

Manager Playback Head

and Motor Section

Amplifier designer

Playback head designer

Motor designer

FIGURE 1. ORGANi2iA'noN STRUCTURE AND PERMITTED COMMUNICATIONS CHANNELS

plementation, coordination, and perfor- mance-monitoring functions often performed hy second-level managers, and (2) face-to- face supervision and coordinative functions of first-level supervisors.

The overall departmental task objective was to reach a set of numerical goals as- signed hy top management, who was the experimenter, on each of three criteria of tape-recorder performance—durability, sound quality, and appearance. The same numerical goals were assigned to each of the 26 departments.

Each section functioned essentially as an engineering design unit with the objective of selecting appropriate tape-recorder parts, which in combination with those from the other section would yield the assigned de- partmental values for the three criteria. De- eisions concerning one part, such as a speaker, could not he made without certain information concerning the other parts, in- cluding those in the other section. Such in- formation was obtainable only hy means of the previously described communications channels. Thus, there was a highly inter- dependent task with a functional and geo- graphical division of labor requiring a great deal of coordination at each of the two man- agerial levels.

The roles of the speaker designer and manager in the speaker and amplifier section

illustrate the experimental design and are similar to those of the other participants. The speaker designer could design four types of component speakers—R, S, T, and U. Eaeh speaker type interacted diflFerently when connected with the component am- plifier, playback head, and motor types he- ing designed by others. The speaker designer worked with three suhcomponents: dia- phragm, magnet, and fabric. There were a number of different types of each subcom- ponent, for example, type a, b, c, and d dia- phragms, each interacting with the otlier subcomponent types to produce various levels in pitch, tone, and volume. These levels were expressed in numerical terms. A table was then used to convert these levels for pitch, tone, and volume to speaker nu- merical contributions to the departmental goals of durabihty, sound qualit)', and ap- pearance.

The selection of subcomponent types was restricted in that only certain types could be used to design each of the four speaker types; for example, only diaphragm type a, b, or c could be selected for speaker R. Similar restrictions held for magnet and fabric types. In turn, only certain types of speakers, amplifiers, playback heads and motors could be combined for the tape re- corder. The manager of the section had in- formation ahout which subcomponent types

Hunt: LEADERSHIP-STYLE EFFECTS 479

were permissible for each speaker and am- plifier type. Information about which com- ponent-type combinations were permissible tor the tape recorder was divided between the speaker designer and amplifier designer.

The above restrictions, of course, had to be considered when arriving at numerical contributions from each component. These numerical contributions were then averaged for each section and, at the executive level, die section contributions were averaged to provide the departmental values for the three criteria.

The executive was assigned the role of clarifying the nature of the task and pro- viding the overall coordination necessary to accomplish departmental goals. He was the only one provided with information about the overall task and the specific numerical goals. Everyone else was given only partial information. The executive was also pro- vided with exhibits providing an illustrative sample of the exact kind of detailed infor- mation each manager and designer was given. His role then was to work with his managers to clarify the overall task, deter- mine how to implement the policy direc- tives, and to provide a coordinative role. Coordination was extremely important be- cause of the interdependency of the func- tions and the geographic division of labor, with its accompanying restrictions on com- munications. He also monitored the task performance of each section, since all infor- mation concerning component and subcom- ponent combinations and contributions to departmental goals had to be submitted to him so that he could summarize the infor- mation and turn it in to top management.

The managers, in turn, were required to provide coordinative activities within their section. Their function differed from tliat of the executive in its narrower scope and in their constant contact with both of their de- signers whose work needed to be coordi- nated. Their role was considerably facili- tated if the executive demonstrated a comprehensive grasp of the overall task and provided a systematic approach to overall goal accomplishment; if not, the managers and designers were at a considerable dis- advantage because of the incompleteness of

their interdependent instructions and the communication restrictions.

Scoring of the Task

The task was iterative in nature, and, therefore, four trials were allowed, the first 2 hours long, the second 1 hour, and tbe third and fourth each 30 minutes. At the end of each trial, a department was required to submit its calculated numerical values, to- gether with substantiating data. It was tben to refine these figures for the next ti-ial. If a department reached tbe assigned goals be- fore the end of a trial period, it was di- rected to submit results at that time. New goals were assigned to any department achieving the assigned goals before the end of four trials.

The original intent was to base the per- formance scoring on tbe amount of time required to meet the original goals and any subsequently assigned goals. However, only two teams reached the goals and were as- signed new ones before the end of the last trial, so this procedure could not be used. Instead, a scoring procedure was devised which recognized tiie iterative nature of the task and rewarded teams for their stand- ing at the end of the first trial and for prog- ress toward the goals for each subsequent trial, even though they did not actually achieve the assigned goals. The procedure also provided a bonus for those teams which did achieve the original goals and made progress toward achieving a second set of goals. The assumption behind this scoring procedure was that progress toward the goals indicated a systematic problem-solving approach as opposed to one which might allow a team to come relatively close in an early trial and then not be able eitber to reach the assigned goals or move closer to reaching the goals in later trials.

A team's standing at the end of the first trial and its progress toward the goals was based on three considerations: (1) Was a team able to submit a complete set of goals? (2) If a goal set was submitted, did any goal violate any of the constraints men- tioned earlier? and (3) If an acceptable set of goals was submitted, how close were they in numerical terms to the goals assigned? The last of these considerations was ex-

480 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

pressed as the sum of tbe absolute distance of the goals from the sum of tbe assigned goals. However, ability to submit a com- plete set of goals or constraint violation could be expressed only in discrete yes or no terms, since data-gathering methods did not allow for differential weighting of errors.

Performance scores to reflect the variety of requirements above were assigned as follows:

1. At tbe end of tbe first trial, a team turning in a complete set of goals with no violation of constraints scored 1. If it did not submit a complete set of goals or if there was a constraint violation it scored 0.

2. For each of the three remaining trials, a team received -f-l if it progressed closer to the goals than it was at the end of the previous trial, 0 if it stayed the same, or — 1 if it got worse. For example, a team that did not submit an acceptable set of goals for the first trial and was able to submit such a set for the second, would be given H-l as would a team that progressed numerically closer to the assigned goals between the first and second trials. The values assigned in steps 1 and 2 above were then summed to give an overall score, the measure of per- formance.

3. The two teams which reached the goals during the fourth period and were able to submit figures for the next set of goals assigned were each given a bonus of -1-1 to be added to their score. With the consideration of these bonus points the per- formance scores for the 26 teams ranged from —1 to +4 with a mean of 1.54 and a standard deviation of 1.33.

It should be noted that the relationships between LPC and performance reported in the present study are, with one exception, substantially the same whether or not bonus points are assigned or scoring explicitly in- cludes standings in the first trial or does not include them but uses them as a basis for the calculation of progress toward the goal scores for later trials. The exception pertains to the relationship between manager LPC and performance which differs because in some cases it is significant at slightly better than the .05 level while in others it does not quite meet this level.

It would, of eourse, be desirable to repli-

cate this study with a more refined scoring system. Such a scoring system would prob- ably be relatively complex and might in- corporate differential weightings for errors committed, and so forth. If the task were simplified, time to reach assigned goals might be used with some provision for er- rors. However, results from such a simplified task might differ from those here because the task would be changed.

Experimental Procedures

The sequence of steps involved in this simulation was as follows:

1. The representative of top management took the executive and his two managers to an orientation room, administered a pretest measure of anxiety to them, and gave them an orientation to the simulation by reading from an experimenter's orientation script.

2. The executive and his managers were each given a separate written set of instriic- tions. The executive was sent to his oflBce, and each manager was sent to his work area.

3. The designers were taken to the orien- tation room, oriented in a manner similar to the executive and managers, and given their written instructions.

4. Designers were sent to their work areas and allowed to meet with their man- ager for 5 minutes.

5. Both managers were sent to the execu- tive's ofiice to meet for 10 minutes.

6. Each manager was sent back to his work area and throughout the remainder of the simulation, the earlier discussed com- munication rules were in force.

7. The top management representative notified the executive 15 minutes and again 2 minutes before first-trial results were due.

8. First-trial figures were collected, checked for errors, and the executive was informed as to whether there was an error or not.

9. The executive was left to communicate trial results as he pleased, subject to the general restrictions on interaction, and the procedures in steps 7 and 8 were repeated.

10. A posttest measure of anxiety was ad- ministered, and everyone completed a post- session questionnaire.

11. Participants were debriefed.

Hunt: LEADERSHIP-STYLE EFFECTS 481

Postsession Questionnaires

Participants were asked to complete a number of different items concerning their perceptions of the simulation. Those of rel- evance for the present study were concerned with satisfaction. Various scales of the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) developed at Cor- nell University (Smith et al., 1969) were used. The executives completed JDI scales about their satisfaction with the work and their managers; managers about their work, the executive, and their subordinates the de- signers; subordinates with the work, the manager, and coworkers. Each of these was an 18-item scale. Reliability and validity results are discussed in Smith et al. (1969).

It should be noted that both executive satisfaction with managers and manager satisfaction with subordinates were mea- sured, with a change in directions, by the JDI scale designed to tap satisfaction with coworkers.

Analysis of Data

While this study produced ordinal rather than interval performance data, it was felt tliat the research questions could be most readily answered using parametric multi- variate analysis rather than a nonparametric technique. Anderson (1961) and Boneau (1961) provided considerable justification for tliis conclusion. Also, parametric tech- niques have traditionally been used with JDI satisfaction scales.

The approach used for the analyses was the multiple linear regression analog to a parametric analysis of variance (Bottenberg and Ward, 1963; Kelly et al, 1969), a tech- nique especially suitable for answering the kind of research questions posed in this study.

Since the performance criterion was a team rather than individual score and there were 26 teams, LPC scores of the two man- agers on each team were averaged to pro- vide n = 26. Satisfaction measures at both the manager and subordinate level were also treated in this way. Thus, all analyses are based on an n = 26.

Results are based on a series of compari- sons of various full-regression models against various restricted models for performance

and each satisfaction criterion (Kelly et al, 1969). All the models are based on an initial full model, which takes the form:

Y = E + M–EXM where:

Y = the criterion -E = High + low executive LPC scores

(dichotomized) M = High + low manager LPC scores

(dichotomized)

The E + M term of the model, here called additive effects, includes both executive and manager main effects. The E X M term of the model refiects the effects of the four executive-manager LPC combinations dis- cussed earlier.

The research questions were examined by means of the following steps:

1. The full model was compared against a restricted model which included only the additive effects. This showed whether LPC combination accounted for significantly more criterion variance then additive effects alone; that is, whether there was a significant executive-manager interaction with respect to LPC scores, which would indicate that interactive two-level knowledge is an im- portant predictor.

2. The additive model was compared against zero, to determine whether there were additive two-level effects where inter- active two-level effects were not significant.

3. The additive two-level model was compared, in turn, against an executive LPC model and a manager LPC model. If the additive model was significant in step 2, this would tell whether it predicted signif- icantly better than either executive or man- ager one-level knowledge, which would in- dicate the extent to which each kind of one-level knowledge accounted for uniquely different variance.

4. Executive and manager LPC scores were separately compared against zero to see if one-level knowledge was significant.

The variables for the models based on LPC scores follow:

Two-level

1. (High -t- low executive) + (high -|- low manager)

482 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

2. Executive-manager combinations; high-high; low-low; high-low; low-high

One-level

3. High -t- low executive 4. High -|- low manager

RESULTS Leadership and Performance

Executive-manager combination, that is, variable 2, did not account for a signifi- cantly larger amount of variance in team performance than executive-manager addi- tive effects R] ^ = .316, R̂ = .315̂ DF = 1 and 22, F = .02, p = .878; therefore, it was concluded that executive-manager LPC in- teraction effects were not significant and that additive effects accounted for virtually aU of the variance.

The data further showed that this vari- ance in additive effects was significantly different from zero iR̂ = .315, R^ = .561, DF = 2 and 23, F = 5.28, p = .013; addi- tive two-level effects significantly predicted team performance.

The question still remained as to whether additive two-level knowledge would predict significantly better than one-level knowl- edge. The data showed that additive two- level knowledge did indeed predict better than one level knowledge R̂ = .315, R̂ = .170, DF = 1 and 23, F = 4.88, p = .037 and Rl = .315, R̂ = .145̂ DF = 1 and 23, F = 5.69, p = .026; therefore, LPC scores of executives and managers each appeared to contribute a relatively unique source of variance. The results also indicated that even though two-level knowledge predicted better than one-level knowledge, executive knowledge alone would predict significantly better than zero R| = .170, Rg = – -412, DF = 1 and 24, F = 4.90, p = .037; while manager alone did not quite reach the .05 significance level R̂ = .145, R̂ = .381, DF = 1 and 24, F = 4.08, p = .055. Figure 2 throws further light on these findings. It may be read in the same way as an inter- action diagram often shown when analysis of variance has been used. It is significant that the curves for managers with high and

low LPC scores are parallel to each otlier rather than being nonparallel or crossing each other as they would if there were a significant interactive effect. Also, there is a positive relationship between LPC scores and performance at the managerial level and a negative relationship at the executive level.

Leadership and Satisfaction of Executives and Managers

Neither two-level nor one-level knowl- edge signifieantly predicted executive satis- faction with either the work or managers. Likewise, manager satisfaction with the work and with subordinates was not signif- icantly related to LPC scores. However, manager satisfaction with the executive was significantly related to LPC scores. Consid- eration of the effects of all the models leads to the conclusion that one can predict man- ager satisfaction with the executive as well with manager LPC scores alone as with two- level knowledge R̂ = .165, R̂ = .161, DF = 1 and 23, F = .11, p = .746, and that managers with high LPC scores are signif- icantly more satisfied with the executive than managers with low LPC scores R̂ = .161, R̂ = .401, DF= 1 and 24, F = 4.61, p = .042. At the same time, executive LPC scores alone had no significant effect on manager satisfaction with the executive R̂

= .004, DF = 1 and 24, F = 0.09, p = .762.

Leadership and Subordinate Satisfaction The effects of LPC scores were not signif-

icantly related to either subordinate satis- faction with the manager or coworker. Sub- ordinate work satisfaction was, however, significantly related to executive LPC score alone R̂ = .221, R = .470, DF = 1 and 24, F = 6.80, p = .015 while none of the other LPC effects quite reaches the .05 significance level.

Summary For no criterion did the interaction be-

tween executive and manager LPC scores add a significant amount of variance beyond that accounted for by executive-manager additive effects. Two-level additive knowl- edge predicted team performance signifi-

Hunt: LEADERSHIP-STYLE EFFECTS 483

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

81.6 Manager LPC

score high

Manager LPC ^ score low

ID

i 1-2 u

: !

.8

.6

.4

.2 0

I

Low High

Executive LPC Scores

FIGURE 2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LPC SCORES OF EXECUTIVE AND MANAGER AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

cantly better than either LPC score alone, although, executive LPC scores alone would also significantly predict performance. Spe- cifically, executives with low LPC scores and managers with high LPC scores had the best performing groups while the poorest performing groups were found with execu- tives with high LPC scores and managers with low LPC scores.

Performanee was the only criterion for whieh two-level knowledge predicted better than one-level knowledge. Manager LPC scores alone were significantly positively re- lated to manager satisfaction with the execu- tive while executive LPC scores alone were significantly positively related to subordinate

work satisfaction. No other satisfaction mea- sure was significantly related to LPC scores.

DISCUSSION Implications for Organizational Design

These results suggest that in the present organization, one should employ managers with high LPC scores and executives with low LPC scores to improve performance. This would, of course, be the same hiring decision that would be made if one-level knowledge had been significant and two- level additive knowledge had not. However, here one can also increase performance by pairing managers with high LPC scores with either kind of executive (see Figure

484 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

2); likewise, one can pair executives with low LPC scores with either kind of man- ager, because each makes a relatively unique contribution to the variance accounted for. Thus, one can now improve the performance of a poorly performing group with an ex- ecutive having a high LPC score by pairing him with a manager with a high LPC score, whereas, if two-level knowledge were not significant, he could not do this. Similarly, one can improve performance of groups led by managers with low LPC scores by pair- ing these managers with executives with low LPC scores.

However, companies which place a heavy emphasis on internal promotion from the first to the second managerial level would have a mucb greater problem than those where the first-line supe

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?

Order Plagiarism Free Answer Here

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Are there Discounts?

All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Hire a tutor today CLICK HERE to make your first order

Related Tags

Academic APA Writing College Course Discussion Management English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature MLA