A Study of Situational Leadership Theory in A Distribution Corporation

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NOTE TO USERS
Copyrighted materials in this document have not
been filmed at the request of the author. They are
available for consultation at the authors
university library.
Appendices A through F
Pages 95*118
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI'
A Study of Situational Leadership Theory
in a Distribution Corporation
By
Corinne A. D. Patrick
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Nova Southeastern University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2002
UMI Number: 3058557
Copyright 2002 by
Patrick, Corinne Angela Deborah
All rights reserved.
__ _
UMI
UMI Microform 3058557
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
A Dissertation
entitled
A Study of Situational Leadership Theory
in a Distribution Corporation
By
We hereby certify that this Dissertation submitted by
Corinne A. D. Patrick conforms to acceptable standards, and
as such is fully adequate in scope and quality. It is
therefore approved as the fulfillment of the Dissertation
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Public
Administration.
Approved:
Edward Pierce, D.B.A.
Chairperson
?//&/>vs#
Date
William Hahn, D.B.A.
Committee Member
Date
PedroF . Pellet, Ph.D.
Committee Member
Mte-
Joseph l/. Balloun; Ph.D. Date
7
L .
tctplt of Doctoral Research
I'iMj
J. /Breston Jones, D.B.A. Date
Associate Dfeen, The Wayne Huizenga Graduate
School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Nova Southeastern University
2002
ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY
IN A DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION
by
The focus of this research is an analysis in a
distribution corporation of supervisors and managers in a
third party logistics company. Specific goals of the study
were to (a) determine the primary leadership style, (b) to
determine the secondary leadership style, (c) determine the
style adaptability levels compared to the support and
operations groups, (d) determine the style adaptability and
compare to the leader vs. the his/hers peers, subordinates
and superiors, and (e) to determine style adaptability
compared with subordinates in the two groups, support and
operations.
The LEAD Self (Hersey & Blanchard, 1996) was used to
measure self-perception of four aspects of leader behavior,
(a) primary style, (b) secondary style, (c) style range,
and (d) style adaptability. The LEAD-Others was used to
measure the others-perception of four aspects of leader
behavior (a) primary style, (b) secondary style, (c) style
range, and (d) style adaptability as perceived by the
leaders peers, subordinates, and superiors.
There were 160 LEAD Other surveys issued to
subordinates, peers, and superiors. There were 41 LEAD
Self surveys, issued to the leaders (13 managers and 28
supervisors). There were seven managers and 11 supervisors
from the support function, and six managers and 17
supervisors from the operation group. The findings of the
survey show that over 75% of the personnel surveyed fell
into the two categories.
According to Situational Leadership Theory, leaders
whose scores place the majority of their responses in
Styles 1 and 2 tend to be able to raise and lower their
relationship behavior but often feel uncomfortable unless
they are "calling the shots." These leaders often project
in interviews that "no one can do things as well as I can,"
which often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leader
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own
product, that where the language of others is set forth,
quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is
given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions or
writing of another.
Signed
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to express my sincere appreciation to all of
those who participated in and provided support to me
through this academic endeavor. A special thanks goes to
my husband, Michael Patrick Sr., for the support and love
that he has shown during this process.
I want to thank my chair, Dr. Edward Pierce, for
offering initial encouragement, inspiration, technical
support, and competence and for being available to me. I
would also like to thank Dr. William Hahn and Dr. Pedro
Pellet for their insightful comments, cooperation, and
support throughout this study.
I would like to acknowledge my co-workers and upper
management for their support and patience in completing the
survey used for this study. I want to express my heartfelt
appreciation to my manager, Richard Dombroski; without his
constant support and encouragement, this would not have
been possible.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family and
friends for supporting and encouraging me to undertake and
fulfill this educational endeavor.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables........................................... vii
List of Figures......................................... viii
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION............................................. 1
Background...............................................1
Purpose of the Study.................................... 5
Theory to be Tested..................................... 6
Limitations of the Study................................7
Preliminary Research Questions..........................8
Significance of the Research............................9
Definition of Terms.................................... 10
II LITERATURE REVIEW...................................... 16
Ohio State Leadership Studies..........................18
University of Michigan Leadership Studies............. 19
Two Independent Dimension of Leadership............... 21
3-D Management Style Theory............................22
Contingency Theory..................................... 28
Path-Goal Theory....................................... 31
Immaturity - Maturity Theory..........................32
Situational Leadership Theory..........................34
Basic C o n c e p t s ...............................35
The Basic Model................................39
Research Testing the T h e o r y ......................... 42
Summary................................................ 54
III METHODOLOGY........................................... 56
Research Variables..................................... 56
Conceptual Framework................................... 57
Research Questions and Hypotheses..................... 58
Demographic Data....................................... 61
Instruments............................................ 62
Situational Leadership Theory..........................64
Research Domain........................................ 65
Population and Sample Size.............................66
Data Gathering Instrument and Technique............... 67
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS................. 69
Composite Profile & Style/Readiness............... 69
Research Variables................................. 72
Response Rate...................................... 72
Conceptual Framework...............................73
Hypothesis testing..................................... 75
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................. 85
Results of Hypotheses Testing..........................86
Discussion..............................................91
Limitations of Study...............................91
Implications for Future Study..........................92
Appendix...................................................94
A. LEAD Self Survey.....................................95
B. LEAD Other Survey.....................................99
C. The Style Readiness Matrix.......................... 103
D. LEAD Directions...................................... 105
E. The SLT Model........................................ 113
F. 360-Degree Leadership Style Feedback/Composite
Profile/Interpreting your Results.................. 115
G. Analysis of Variables............................... 118
H. Additional Hypotheses Tables ...................... 120
I. Authorization to use LEAD Self & Other Survey. . . 124
REFERENCES................................................125
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 130
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Cluster Membership.............................. 77
2. Pearson Correlation............................ 7 9
3. Whitney-Mann Test............................... 81
4. Test Statistics..................................81
5. Whitney-Mann Test............................... 83
6. Krus leal-Wall is Ranks by Distance................83
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. The Ohio State University Leadership Quadrants . 19
2. Reddin's Complete 3-D Leadership Style............ 27
3. Leadership Style appropriate for various
readiness levels.................................. 31
4. Four Levels of Readiness in the Situational
Leadership Theory................................. 64
5. Four Levels of Readiness in the Situational
Leadership Theory................................. 75
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background
Throughout history, people have been captivated with
the ways in which leaders persuade groups of people,
organizations, and even governments to fulfill certain
objectives and to meet specific goals. This captivation
increased researchers' desire to understand effective
leadership, which resulted in a vast amount of literature
on the subject. This research has continually defined and
redefined effective leadership in many ways throughout the
years (Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, & Williams, 1993).
In the 1940s, research on leadership concentrated
primarily on the personality characteristics of the
individual. Toward the late 1950s and 1960s, physical
attributes and the behavior of leaders were also considered
as focal points for leadership. Using this focus,
researchers identified different dimensions of leadership.
These dimensions include examinations of distinguishable
1
2
behavior, leadership training, reward and punishment, and
charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the situational and
contingency approaches of the 1960s brought about a
comprehensive approach in which traits or personality
variables, task orientations and structure, leader-follower
relationships, and situational contexts were all measurable
variables through which a leader's effectiveness could be
examined (Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, & Williams, 1993).
Contemporary approaches to leadership research have
concentrated on a blend of variables compiled throughout
the years. Now, not only does this research emphasize the
cognitive effects of leaders on their followers but also
their influence on the organization as a whole through
structural, multicultural, and performance measures.
For the present study, leadership can be defined as a
process of noncoercive social influence, whereby a leader
guides the activities and members of a group toward shared
objectives and goals in an organization. Simply put, the
key to being an efficient manager is effective leadership
(Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson 1996). The concepts of
behavioral science are well intended but often fall short
of the mark. While many researchers have brought forth
good ideas, many have had difficulty in putting the ideas
3
into practice. When studying leader influence, the
behavior of others should not be thought of as a single
event. There is no single formula to apply in every
situation; like any other skill, leadership effectiveness
increases the more one understands and engages in
leadership skills.
Managerial leadership is an interactive relationship
between a leader and a follower in which the leader
attempts to influence the follower to accomplish an
organizational goal or perform a task (Bass & Stodgill,
1990) . Leadership is any attempt to influence the behavior
of another individual or group according to Hersey et al.
(1996) . Hersey et al. refer to leadership as the function
of accomplishing tasks and reaching goals through the
efforts of other people, whereas management is working with
and through others to accomplish organizational goals.
Leadership is considered a much broader concept than
management. According to Hersey et al. (1996), "one can
have a different objective in mind when one attempts to
influence other people" (p.229). Since management is a
special form of leadership that involves the goals of an
organization, consideration should be given to the impact
on the people being influenced. Hersey et al. explain that
in management, the difference between successful and
4
effective leadership attempts often explains why many
supervisors can get results when they are right there
looking over the worker's shoulder. However, as soon as
they leave, output declines, and often such things as
horseplay and scrap loss increase.
According to Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson, (2001)
"to bridge the gap between one-time success and long-term
effectiveness, one needs to develop three skills in working
with people" (p. 124). These three skills often determine
whether leadership attempts will be successful or
unsuccessful, effective or ineffective. Understanding what
motivates people, predicting how people will behave in
response to leadership attempts, and directing peoples'
behavior are all necessary conditions for effective
leadership to occur.
Leadership takes place in an organization or a group
of two persons or more. It is a process of interaction.
The leader uses a variety of ways to influence group
members to devote themselves to a given goal. Overall,
effectiveness depends upon understanding, predicting, and
influencing the behavior of other people.
5
Purpose of the Study
This research looks at the influence of the match (if
any) of manager leadership style and subordinate
associates' perceptions of the leader. The sample for this
research consists of managers, supervisors, and their
subordinates in a distribution corporation. A stratified
random sampling procedure is used. The study focuses on
determining the extent that variations in levels of
leadership can be explained by the variables historically
used by researchers to describe the Situational Leadership
Theory constructs, maturity and readiness. The constructs,
maturity and readiness, are often used interchangeably. In
explaining the change from maturity to readiness, Hersey et
al. (1996) state "during the 1960s the term, maturity, in
reference to assessing people did not seem offensive; it
does now" (p. 585).
The role of leadership in business is significant.
The purpose of this study is to attempt to understand the
impact of leadership style and the adaptability of the
leader. The process for achieving this aim includes
testing the Situational Leadership Theory. If this is a
valid theory that can be used in the distribution
organization, it will be a useful tool for other
organizations to use to understand the role of leadership
6
in their organizations and to develop strategies to improve
leadership style.
Theory to be Tested
The theory tested in this study is the Situational
Leadership Theory. The original model for this approach
was suggested by Reddin (1967) and later adapted by Hersey,
Blanchard, and Johnson (2001). Reddin's (1967) 3-
Dimensional Management Style Theory attempts to match one
of three leadership styles to certain work environments
with the goal of increasing employee output. He identifies
two leadership orientations, relationship orientation and
task orientation. The combination of styles suggests the
existence of two different orientations, which are adapted
by leaders according to the work environment. Hersey et
al. (1996) modify this concept of orientations by
suggesting that leadership styles change with a leader's
readiness, as well as with the readiness of an organization
and its work force. By looking at such components as task
and relationship factors and combining the relative
importance of task and relationship with the level of
readiness, Hersey et al. (1996) developed their four-factor
theory of Situational Leadership.
7
The Hersey et al. (1996) model suggests that effective
leaders are those who can accurately diagnose the essential
variables in each leadership situation and adjust their
leadership style to fit the existing conditions. As the
diversity of leadership situations encountered increases,
the leader must possess more sophisticated diagnostic
skills and a broader range of styles.
Limitations of the Study
The study examines the leaders and followers at the
group level. Variations in individual levels of readiness
and leader behavior may be obscured by the generalized
perception of the group's perspective.
The LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other are questionnaires. The
LEAD-Self is used to evaluate the leadership behaviors used
when the leader is engaged in attempts to influence the
actions and attitudes of others. The information gathered
with the LEAD-Self provides insight into the current
strengths of the leader and areas for his or her leadership
skill development. This supplies information about which
leadership behaviors one may use and the extent to which
those behaviors meet the needs of others.
The LEAD-Other is used to profile the leadership
behaviors of a person's perception of the leader. The
8
information gathered with the LEAD-Other provides insight
into the perception of a leader's attempts to influence.
It supplies information about which leadership behaviors
are used and the extent to which these behaviors match the
needs of others.
Preliminary Research Question
There are three preliminary research questions for
this study. The questions ask: (a) What is the leader's
primary leadership style and what is his or her leadership
adaptability in the distribution corporation? (b) is there
a higher leadership style adaptability score among
subordinates when there is a match of manager leadership
style? and (c) is there a tendency of over-leadership or
under-leadership according to the Readiness Matrix in the
distribution corporation?
The specific research questions are as follows:
1. What is the primary leadership style in a
2. What is the secondary leadership style in a
3. What is the perception of the leader's
leadership style adaptability in the
9
4. Is there a difference between the support
section and the operations section in their
perception of the overall leadership style
adaptability in the distribution
corporation?
5. Is there a difference in the perception of
the followers' leadership style adaptability
between the support section and operations
section?
Significance of the Research
The findings of this study further the understanding
of organizational leadership in a distribution
organization. The research on situational leadership is
limited; this study provides support for the application of
the Situational Leadership Theory in identifying effective
managers in general and in a distribution organization.
This study has special significance in that it focuses on
the culture of the organization and can be expected to
influence significantly the applicability or non
applicability of the Situational Leadership Theory to
organizations. The identification of effective managers is
a critical task facing all organizations, and any tools
10
that can be identified and used to facilitate this process
should apply to other organizations.
The theory is often cited as a basis for decision
making. Efforts to validate the study have been limited in
scope and have been, for the most part, largely
inconclusive. In accordance with Hersey et al. (2001),
"Situational Leadership suggests that the higher the level
of task-relevant readiness of an individual or group, the
higher the probability that participation will be an
effective management technology" (p.371).
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined for the purpose of the
study:
Ability: Ability is the knowledge, experience, or
skill, or all three that an individual or group brings to a
particular task or activity.
Charismatic Leadership: A leader is perceived as
charismatic when followers make attributions of heroic or
extraordinary leadership abilities upon observing certain
behaviors.
Commitment: This demonstrated duty to perform a task.
Confidence: This demonstrated assurance in the
ability to perform a task.
11
Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness a personality
dimension that describes someone who is responsible,
dependable, persistent, and achievement oriented.
Consideration: This is the extent to which a leader
is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual
trust, respect for subordinates' ideas, and regard for
their feelings.
Distribution corporation: An organization that
logistically distributes products for a customer.
Experience: This is a demonstrated ability gained
from performing a task.
High probability match: Numbers that appear inside
this diagonal row indicate the leadership style selected
that best matches the readiness level in the situation.
Initiating structure: The extent to which a leader is
likely to define and structure his or her role and those of
the subordinates in the search for goal attainment.
Job readiness: The skills and ability to effectively
perform a job (Hersey et al., 1996).
Job maturity: The skills and ability to effectively
perform a job (Hersey et al., 1996).
Knowledge: This is demonstrated understanding of a
task.
12
LEAD: The LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other are instruments
developed at the Center for Leadership Studies and designed
to measure three aspects of leadership behavior: (a) style,
(b) flexibility and (c) adaptability.
Leader-member relations: The degrees of confidence,
trust and respect subordinates have in their leader.
Leadership: Bass & Stodgill (1990) define leadership
as the method or process employed by a leader of a group or
organization to influence the group to establish and
subsequently obtain the goals of the group or organization.
Leadership style: This refers to a behavior pattern
an individual uses when trying to influence the activities
of others.
Life Cycle Theory of Leadership: This is the original
name given to Situational Leadership (Hersey & Blanchard,
1969).
Management Style: The supervisor's or manager's
approach to influencing the subordinate to do a specific
job is called management style (Hersey et al. 1997).
Maturity: Maturity is the situational ability and
willingness of the worker to perform the task required
(Hersey et al. 1996).
Match: Match in this research means the match of
leadership style to maturity. The process of matching used
13
in this study will mimic the process used in the
Situational Leadership Theory.
Motivation: This is a demonstrated desire to perform
a task.
Over-leadership: This occurs when too much guidance
or direction is provided to followers with higher readiness
levels.
Primary leadership style: This is the behavior
pattern used most often when attempting to influence the
activities of others.
Psychological readiness: Psychological readiness is
the willingness to effectively do a job (Hersey et al.,
2001).
Relationship behavior: The extent to which a leader
leads by communicating with a subordinate, exchanging ideas
with a subordinate, and sharing responsibility for goal
accomplishment.
Relationship-oriented: Leaders tend to perform best
in situations that are intermediate in favorableness.
Secondary leadership style: This is a style that a
leader uses occasionally.
Self-efficacy: The perception of the skill level that
people perceive they have to accomplish a specific task is
described as self-efficacy.
14
Situational Leadership Theory (SLT): SLT is a
contingency theory that focuses on followers' readiness.
Skill: Demonstrated proficiency in a task is a skill.
Structure: An aspect of leadership in which the
leader initiates structure for subordinates by assigning
tasks, establishing procedures, clarifying expectations,
and scheduling work is considered structure.
Style range: The total number of quadrants in the SLT
model in appendix F which there are two or more responses.
Style adaptability: The degree to which one is able
to vary his or her style appropriately to the readiness
level of a follower in a specific situation.
Subordinate readiness: This refers to the skills and
ability as well as the willingness to effectively do a job
(Hersey et al., 2001).
Task behavior: This is the extent to which a leader
dictates what each follower is to do, where he or she is to
do it, and how it is to be done.
Task-oriented: Leaders tend to perform best in group
situations that are either very favorable or very
unfavorable to the leader.
Under-leadership: This occurs when use of a
participating or delegating leadership style is used with
followers at low levels of readiness.
15
Willingness: The extent to which an individual or
group has the confidence and commitment is considered
willingness.
Chapter Two reviews the literature. It also covers
the various theories that are used to build the Situational
Leadership Model.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) shows the various
stages of development between a leader and a subordinate in
a controlled environment with variable situations that are
crucial to subordinate readiness levels. Leaders must be
able to effectively navigate various situations while
maintaining a steadfast course toward accomplishing
required goals. Thus, they have become quite accustomed to
using much noncoercive influence to guide members of
workgroups toward shared objectives and common goals within
an organization.
Leaders often boost subordinate workers' feelings of
personal ownership and responsibility for the particular
service or product they help provide or produce. This sort
of leadership has become effective as more and more workers
find themselves in job situations that require them to be
self-directed. Because of the need for the more self
motivated type worker, many leaders have had to evaluate
their leadership skills and abilities.
16
17
The importance of leadership in the private and public
sector has resulted in a large volume of research, which
attempts to understand and explain leadership. In a review
of literature, Gibb (1969) identifies almost 1,000 studies
on effective leadership, and the field has continued to
grow during the last 30 years. A more recent review
(Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994) includes some 100 articles
published since 1969.
The study of leadership has been and continues to be a
dominant part of the literature on management and
organization behavior. A review of scholarly research
introduces multiple variations of leadership patterns
varying from individual traits; behaviors; interaction
patterns; role relationships; follower perceptions;
influence over followers; influence on task goals; as
well as influence on the organizations' culture as a
whole. These approaches to leadership are each
embedded with conceptual weaknesses and a dearth of
cogent empirical evidence (Yuki, 1989, p. 87).
Although an understanding of leadership has been
evasive, significant progress has been made in the study of
leadership traits, behavior, power, and situational factors
(Yuki, 1989) . Leadership styles are now being examined
with an emphasis on keeping the variable situations that
18
must be overcome in mind, while simultaneously meeting
required goals. This means that leadership has to be
viewed as a multi-faceted responsibility where a leader's
power, influence, and behavior are used favorably and
simultaneously, yet intermittently, as the studies below
well indicate.
Ohio State Leadership Studies
The Ohio State University leadership studies focus
specifically on leadership behaviors. The studies
initiated in 1945 by the Bureau of Business Research at
Ohio State University found that leadership styles vary
considerably among leaders (Hersey, et al. 1996). These
leadership studies are responsible for isolating two
independent dimensions of leadership behavior referred to
as initiating structure and consideration. These two
dimensions were identified from a series of 150 questions
that attempted to describe how a leader behaves (Korman,
1966). The questionnaire is entitled the Leader Behavior
Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Korman, 1966). Figure 1
shows the quadrants that were developed for initiating
structure and consideration.
19
t
II
2 2
o u
AC CD
i
o
High Relationship
And
Low Task
High Task
and
High Relationship
Low Relationship
And
Low Task
High Task
and
Low Relationship
(low)
Task Behavior (high)
Figure 1: The Ohio State University Leadership Quadrants
Source: J.K. Hemphill, Leader Behavior Description
(Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1950)
University of Michigan Leadership Studies
The Survey Research Center at the University of
Michigan attempts to approach the study of leadership by
locating clusters of characteristics that seem to be
related to each other and to various indicators of
effectiveness. The studies identify two concepts called
the employee centered leadership style and the job-centered
leadership style (Hersey et al., 1996). Leaders who are
described as employee-centered emphasize the relationship
aspect of their job. This type of leader places importance
on relationships in conjunction with job effectiveness
(Reddin, 1967). He or she believes that it is important to
20
take an interest in everyone, respecting his or her
individuality and personal needs. Job-centered leaders
emphasize production and the technical aspects of the job.
They tend to relate task orientation and technical skill
with job effectiveness; employees are seen as tools to
accomplish the goals of the organization (Hersey et al.,
2001).
The conclusions of the University of Michigan
leadership studies are that more effective leaders: (a)
tend to give employees support and satisfy employees'
needs; (b) adopt the methods of group supervision and
strategy, and (c) tend to set behavior-oriented goals.
Considering the drawbacks of these conclusions, this
research does not consider situational variables. There is
no evidence to show that leader behavior does change in
different situations (Hersey et al., 2001).
Behavioral theories use leader behavior as a dependent
variable and study its relationship with organizational
effectiveness and task satisfaction. The common problem in
Ohio State University and University of Michigan leadership
studies is the lack of concern for situational factors.
Effective leadership takes place in certain situations or
environments; therefore, situational variables are
necessary factors to consider. Because of the
21
methodological weakness of behavioral theories, situational
leadership theories emerged during the 1960s (Hersey et
al., 2001).
Two Independent Dimensions of Leadership
Initiation structure concerns planning as well as
organizing the work and tasks of others (Reddin, 1970) .
This factor is descriptive of the extent to which a leader
goes in initiating and organizing the activities of a group
to define the way the work is to be done. Initiation
structure includes insisting that the group maintains
performance standards, establishes timetables for
accomplishment of tasks, and meets deadlines. The leader
decides in explicit detail what needs to be done and how it
should be done. The leader establishes a chain of command
with clear lines of communication and clear patterns of
work organization. The support provided by the leader is
directed towards defining and structuring the efforts of
subordinates (Bass & Stodgill, 1990).
Consideration is concerned with the leader
establishing and maintaining relationships (Reddin, 1970).
This factor describes the extent to which a leader displays
concern for the welfare of the other members of the group.
This includes expressing appreciation for good work,
22
stressing the importance of job satisfaction, maintaining
and strengthening the self-esteem of subordinates by
treating them as equals, making special efforts to help
subordinates feel at ease, being easy to approach, putting
subordinates' suggestions into operation, and obtaining
subordinates' approval on important matters before going
ahead. This leader focuses on building relationships,
establishing friendships, building mutual trust, and
demonstrating interpersonal warmth (Bass & Stodgill, 1990).
3-D Management Style Theory
Reddin (1970) developed his 3-Dimensional Theory of
Leadership Effectiveness (3-D Theory) from the two central
elements of leadership behavior produced by the Ohio State
University Leadership Studies. Reddin developed a four
style typology of task and relationship orientation from
these two elements of behavior. The essence of 3-D Theory
is that the two main elements of leader behavior are tasks
to be accomplished and the relationships with the people
who carry out the tasks. In coordinating tasks, leaders
may emphasize task or relationship behavior in small or
large amounts. Additional aspects of the 3-D Theory are
(a) separated style, (b) dedicated style, (c) related
style, and (d) integrated style.
23
Separated style consists of low task and low
relationship orientation. Thus, it is separated from both
task orientation and relationship orientation. The
dedicated style describes leaders that use high task
orientation, but low relationship orientation. The related
style describes high relationship orientation and low task
orientation, and the integrated style combines a high
amount of task and relationship orientation.
According to Reddin (1967) neither task nor
relationship orientation can be considered effective or
ineffective until the third dimension, behavior demands of
the given situation, is added. The effectiveness of the
leader is determined by the appropriateness of the leader's
task and relationship orientation to the demands of the
situation. Thus, a leader that displays a no task or
relationship orientation style could be considered
effective if that is what the situation requires. This is
true for each of the four typologies identified. Each
style could be effective or ineffective depending on the
situation. As a result, Reddin expands the four basic
styles of typology to 12 by adding four task and
relationship behaviors that are considered less effective
and four that are considered more effective based on their
appropriateness to the situation (Reddin, 1970).
24
The effectiveness of the leader's task and
relationship orientation is based on the leader's ability
to adjust the level of task and relationship behavior to
the demands of the situation (Reddin, 1967). No discrete
combination of task and relationship orientation is
considered more effective than another. Reddin posits that
the effectiveness of any task and relationship behavior is
dependent on the appropriateness of behavior to the demands
of the situation (Reddin, 1970). According to Reddin, to
be effective, a leader needs to know how to read
situations. A situation is comprised of five independent,
all-inclusive elements consisting of organization,
information, technology, subordinates, and superiors
(Reddin, 1970). Though he does not list the leader as one
of the situational elements, the leader is part of the
situation. It is the appropriateness of the leader's
behavior to the situational demands that determines the
effectiveness of the leader's task and relationship style.
Three-D Theory is considered a situational theory that
focuses on both the leader and the follower (Reddin, 1970).
Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1969), in their life
theory of leadership, extend Reddin's leadership findings
by suggesting that leader effectiveness is dependent upon
the readiness level of the follower. "Situational
25
leadership is based on an interplay among (1) the amount of
guidance and direction (task behavior) a leader gives; (2)
the amount of socioemotional support (relationship
behavior) a leader provides; and (3) the readiness level
that followers exhibit in performing a specific task,
function, or objective" (Hersey et al., 1996 p. 442). The
authors concur that all situational elements are
significant in influencing the leader's behavior. However,
emphasis is directed toward the leader's behavior with his
or her followers (Hersey et al., 1996). Leader and
follower relationships should not focus solely on
hierarchical relationships (superior and subordinate) but
should include all organizational relationships (superiors,
subordinates, and coworkers) (Hersey et al., 1996). In the
domain of the psychology of power, these hierarchical
relationships can often weaken an organization as the
desire for short-term gains can tend to dominate the
consideration of long-term benefits (Kets de Vries, Loper,
and Doyle, 1994).
Since situational theory reasons no one best way to
influence people exists, Hersey and Blanchard (2001) infer
that the leadership style that should be applied to a given
situation is dependent upon the readiness level of the
follower (Hersey et al., 1996). The authors define
26
leadership style as "the behavior of the leader as
perceived by the follower" (Hersey et al., 1996, p. 166).
Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996) examine leader
behavior using the two separate and distinctive dimensions
previously developed from the Ohio State leadership studies
and expanded by Reddin's (1967) 3-D Theory.
Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996) created a model
(Figure 2) that resembles the four quadrants advanced by
the Ohio State University studies. They used the term,
task behavior, to represent the initiation of structure
dimension and the term, relationship behavior, to represent
consideration dimension. The four quadrants represent one
of four leadership styles. Each leadership style describes
a behavior pattern that a person will use when attempting
to influence another.
The four basic leadership styles are labeled high task
and high relationship, high task and low relationship, low
task and high relationship, and low task and low
relationship.
27
Developer Executive
Bureaucrat Benevolent
autocrat
More Effective
Related Integrated
Dedicated Separated
Less Effective
Missionary Compromiser
Deserter Autocrat
Figure 2: Reddin's complete 3-D Leadership Style
Source: Adapted from William J. Reddin (1970) Managerial
Effectiveness McGraw Hill Publishers New York.
28
Contingency Theory
Fiedler (1967) and Fiedler, Chemers, and Mahar (1977)
agree that an effective leader will manage both employee
relations and task requirements of the organization.
Fiedler (1967) developed the contingency theory of
leadership effectiveness suggesting that the performance of
a group is dependent on the interaction of leadership style
and situational favorableness. He defines the
favorableness of a situation as "the degree to which the
situation enables the leader to exert his influence over
this group" (Fiedler, 1967, p.13). There are three major
situational variables, which seem to determine whether a
given situation is favorable to leaders. These include (a)
the leader's personal relationship with the member of the
group, (b) the amount of structure that the group has been
given, and (c) the power and authority that the position
provides (Fiedler, 1967).
Fiedler operationalizes the measurement of leader
behavior through an instrument he calls the Least Preferred
Co-Worker Scale (LPC). Using this instrument, respondents
are asked to describe one person with whom they have worked
very well, as well as one person with whom they have worked
very poorly. The questionnaire asks respondents to rank
the relationships on several polar scales. A total of all
29
of the scale scores equals the LPC score. A manager who
exhibits a low LPC score represents an individual with a
task orientation while a high LPC score indicative of a
person who is relationship-oriented (Fiedler, 1967).
The theory attempts to provide an understanding of the
relationship that exists between an effective leadership
style and the readiness level of the group. Readiness is
the ability the follower has to take responsibility for his
or her actions. Subordinate readiness moderates the two
primary aspects of leadership, task and relationship, with
leader effectiveness (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990).
According to contingency theory, as the level of readiness
of the follower continues to increase, the demand for
structure facilitation on the part of the leader decreases,
as does the need for the leader to interact with the group
for socio-emotional support (Blank, Weitzel, & Green,
1990).
Another element labeled, subordinate readiness, also
must be taken into account. Readiness is defined as the
extent to which a follower has the ability and willingness
to accomplish a specific task (Hersey et al., 1996). It is
the responsibility of the leader to assess not only the
readiness of the individual followers, but also of the
group as a whole. All persons tend to be in varying states
30
of readiness. So, the leader must possess the skills to
assess the readiness level of the individual follower and
assign responsibilities accordingly, so that the entire
group accomplishes all required assignments (Nadler &
Tushman, 1990) . These skills include setting goals,
establishing standards, defining roles, and assigning
responsibilities. The skills needed to set goals,
establish standards, define roles, and assign
responsibilities are considered structuring skills and are
fundamental to effective leadership (Hersey et al., 1996).
Figure 3 illustrates appropriate leadership styles
corresponding to the four levels of readiness, according to
Hersey's, Blanchard's, and Johnson's (2001) Situational
Leadership Model. The four levels of follower readiness
are matched to the four situational leadership styles
required by the followers.
31
READINESS LEVEL APPROPRIATE STYLE
R1
Low readiness
Unable and unwilling or insecure
SI
Telling
High task and low relationship behavior
R2
Low to Moderate readiness
Unable but willing or confidant
S2
Selling
High task and high relationship behavior
R3
Moderate to high readiness
Able but unwilling or insecure
S3
Participating
High relationship and low task behavior
R4
High readiness
Able competent and willing confidant
S4
Delegating
Low relationship and low task behavior
R1 SI high S2 2nd S3 3rd S4 low probability
R2 S2 high SI 2nd S3
2nd
S4 low probability
R3 S3 high
s2 2nd
S4 2nd SI low probability
R4 S4 high S3 2nd S2 3 rd SI low probability
Figure 3; Leadership styles appropriate for various
Readiness Levels.
Source: Adapted from Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, LEAD
Questionnaires and Manual (2001).
Path-Goal Theory
According to the Path-Goal Theory (House & Mitchell,
1974), a leader influences a follower's work-goal
accomplishment through "...delegating and assigning tasks
(initiating structure) and being supportive and considerate
of followers' needs (possessing an empathic understanding)"
(p. 81). Before a follower completes a task, the follower
32
naturally considers the "...path instrumentality concerning
the rewards forthcoming as a result of work-goal
accomplishment" (House, 1971, p. 322) . When a follower
"...projects that engaging in certain behavior will result
in a desired reward [he or she] will indeed engage in that
behavior" (House, 1971, p. 325). The follower's
performance is further influenced by the follower's
"...ability to accomplish the task, environmental barriers
to completing the task, and the support necessary from
others to complete the task" (House, 1971, p. 325) . The
leader is the one who determines the extent to which work-
goal (task) accomplishment will be "...recognized and
rewarded with such intrinsic and external rewards as
financial increases, promotion, assignment of more
interesting tasks or opportunities for personal growth and
development" (House, 1971, p. 330).
According to House (1971), the level of task clarity
moderates the amount of leader initiating structure and
consideration. The more ambiguous the task is, the greater
is the amount of structure the leader should exhibit.
Immaturity-Maturity Theory
While Chris Argyris was at Yale, he examined
industrial organizations to determine what affect
33
management practices have had on individual behavior and
personal growth within the work environment. Argyris (1957)
studied personality trait growth from childhood to
adulthood. He finds that there are seven characteristics
of personality trait growth. These are:
1. People approach an active state of adulthood from a
passive state of childhood.
2. People approach an independent state of adulthood
from a dependent state of childhood.
3. People approach a flexible state of adulthood from
an inflexible state of childhood.
4. People approach ever-lasting and stable interests in
adulthood from capricious and shallow interests in
childhood.
5. People approach a broad mind of adulthood from a
narrow mind of childhood.
6. People approach equal status with others in
adulthood from the subordinate status in family and
society in childhood.
7. People approach self-understanding and self-control
in adulthood from a lack of rational self-
understanding in childhood.
In Argyris research the characteristics discussed
above from Immaturity Maturity (IM) readiness to readiness
34
are healthy and on a continuum. They are inhibited and
limited by culture and norms. Argyris states most people
who develop adult-level performance skills or abilities are
unable to be developed to full readiness (Hersey et al.
2001).
Hersey et al., (2001) develop the readiness concepts
of Situational Leadership Theory from Argyris' Maturity-IM
Readiness Theory. They define readiness as the extent to
which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness
to take responsibility to accomplish a specific task.
According to Zander, Thomas, and Natsoulas (1960) the
quality of readiness includes (a) high and achieved goals,
(b) concern for completion of the task rather than for
rewards, and (c) expectation of feedback from the task
rather than from the attitude. The degree of
accomplishment-task, relative readiness influences follower
willingness to be engaged in a challenging task at a
medium-high level (Hersey et al., 2001).
Situational Leadership Theory
Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996, 2001) initially
proposed a Life Cycle Theory of Leadership and later
changed the name to Situational Leadership Theory. The
theory is an expanded combination of the Managerial Grid
35
Model (Blake & Mouton, 1984), the 3-D Theory of Management
(Reddin, 1970), and the Readiness-IM Theory (Argyris,
1957). Situational Leadership Theory emphasizes the
importance of employee characteristics when a leader
chooses a leadership style. Its basic concepts, the model,
and readiness elements are discussed below.
Basic Concepts
After Hersey and Blanchard (1996) reviewed the Ohio
State University studies of task and relationship-oriented
leadership behavior, they argue that in the future,
researchers not only should recognize these determinant
environmental factors, but they should develop a systematic
model of environmental differences related to leadership
behavior. At the same time, Hersey and Blanchard argue
that there is a curvilinear rather than linear relationship
between leader task and relationship-oriented behavior and
other variables. Situational Leadership Theory exhibits a
curvilinear relationship based on task oriented leader
behavior, relationship-oriented leader behavior, and
readiness (Hersey et al., 2001).
Hersey and Blanchard (1996) add the follower readiness
level to the two leader behavior dimensions of task
orientation and relationship orientation to construct a
36
three-dimensional theory. They state that the readiness
level of group members is an effective and important factor
that determines leadership style. Readiness level does not
mean readiness characteristics of an individual or groups
required for task accomplishment. The leader evaluates the
individual and group readiness levels. For example, a
manager may find that one of the subordinates in his or her
department has advanced to a particular level of readiness,
while another subordinate has achieved a different
readiness level. The manager should then adopt different
leadership styles to work with the two subordinates. When
handing over tasks to a subordinate with low readiness, the
manager should have clarified structure, instructed
carefully and specifically, and provided supervision.
Working with a subordinate who is shy and insecure, the
manager should adopt a relationship-oriented leader
behavior. This emphasizes good interaction with the
follower, supporting and helping him or her to develop a
good interpersonal relationship with his or her group, to
be concerned with and to take care of personnel needs. If
the leadership style and readiness level matches,
organizational effectiveness is achieved (Hersey et al.,
2001).
37
Hersey and Blanchard (1996) use task behavior and
relationship behavior to describe concepts similar to
initiating structure and consideration in the Ohio State
University studies. These two behaviors make up four
leadership styles:
1. Sl-Telling: This leadership style is characterized
by above-average amounts of task behavior and below-
average amounts of relationship behavior.
2. S2-Selling: This leadership style is characterized
by above-average amounts of both task and
relationship behavior.
3. S3-Participating: This leadership style is
characterized by above-average amounts of
relationship behavior and below-average amounts of
task behavior.
4. S4-Delegating: This leadership style is
characterized by below-average amounts of both
relationship behavior and task behavior (Hersey et
al., 2001).
Readiness levels consist of different combinations of
ability and willingness that people bring to each task.
Responsibility consists of willingness and ability and can
be divided into four levels. Each level represents a
38
different combination of follower ability and willingness.
The four levels are defined below:
1. Unable and unwilling to take responsibility: The
follower is unable, insecure, and lacks commitment
and motivation.
2. Unable but willing to take responsibility: The
follower lacks ability but is motivated and works
hard.
3. Able but unwilling to take responsibility: The
follower has the ability to perform a task but is
not willing to use that ability.
4. Able and willing to take responsibility: The
follower has the ability to perform and is committed
or able and confident (Hersey et al., 2001, p. 177).
Task-related readiness includes two factors:
1. Job readiness: This relates to the techniques,
knowledge, and ability necessary for the work in
which a person engages, and
2. Psychological readiness: This relates to a person's
self-confidence and self-respect. When people have
high low job-related readiness, it means that they
have high low-job readiness and high low-
psychological readiness (Hersey et al., 2001).
39
The concept of readiness used in the Situational
Leadership Theory refers to job-related readiness. Hersey,
Blanchard, and Johnson (2001) divide readiness into four
levels where (a) R1 equals low job readiness and low
psychological readiness, (b) R2 equals low job readiness
but high psychological readiness, (c) R3 equals high job
readiness and low psychological readiness, and (d) R4
equals high job readiness and high psychological readiness.
The Basic Model
The Situational Leadership Model uses a combination of
four different job-related readiness levels and four basic
leadership styles. The model can be used to assess
follower behavior and to select the most effective
leadership style. For example, two groups of followers
with readiness for accomplishing tasks are at two extremes
respectively. One group has the necessary knowledge,
techniques, confidence, and the dedication to being the R4
level, but another group does not; they belong at the R1
level. When a leader faces R4 followers who have high
ability and willingness to engage in a task, the leader
does not have to give them instruction or use supportive
behavior. They are able and willing to accomplish the
task; the leader may leave them alone. The only thing the
40
leader should do is to supervise on a regular basis to make
sure that everything is under control. The followers need
comments from the leader to make sure that their devotion
has been noticed and appreciated (Hersey et al., 2001).
When a leader has R1 followers who have no ability and
willingness to engage in a task, the leader should clearly
tell them what, when, how, and where to accomplish the
task. This does not mean that the leader does not need to
use relationship-oriented leader behavior. The leader
still needs to be supportive and to engage in two-way
communication in order to help followers understand
instructions. The most successful leadership style is when
a high amount of task-oriented behavior and a low amount of
relationship-oriented behavior is exhibited. This is
equivalent to the SI leadership style (Hersey et al.,
2001).
The job-related readiness of some people falls between
the two extremes and is labeled unable but willing (R2).
These people are not capable; they need leader guidance and
instruction. Because they are trying and working hard, the
leader should support their determination. In this case,
the most successful leadership style is a high amount of
task-oriented behavior and relationship-oriented behavior,
using the S2 leadership style (Hersey et al., 2001).
41
Readiness level 3 followers are well-equipped with the
necessary knowledge and techniques to accomplish the task
but lack confidence or motivation. They do not need a lot
of guidance and instruction, because they know how to
complete the task. What they do need is encouragement to
build their confidence or discussions with the leader to
work things out or both. In this case, the most successful
leadership style is a low amount of task-oriented behavior
and high amount of relationship-oriented behavior or the S3
leadership style (Hersey et al., 2001).
The complete Situational Leadership Model developed by
Hersey and Blanchard in the late 1960s consists of four
job-related readiness levels and four leadership styles.
These are listed below:
1. Leadership Style 1 (high task and low relationship-
oriented behavior) matched with low readiness.
2. Leadership Style 2 (high task and high
relationship-oriented behavior) matched with low and
medium readiness.
3. Leadership Style 3 (low task and high relationship-
oriented behavior) matched with medium and high
readiness.
42
4. Leadership Style 4 (low task and low relationship-
oriented behavior) matched with high readiness
(Hersey et al., 2001, p. 182).
Research Testing the Theory
Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) conducted a survey of the
leadership styles used by 159 managers (leaders) as rated
by their subordinate (followers). According to Hambleton
and Gumpert (1982) the results show that 90% of the
managers who were considered high performers were rated by
subordinates as using a selling (high consideration and
high task) or participating (high consideration and low
task) leadership style. This study supports that Hersey's,
Blanchard's, and Johnson's (1996) Situational Leadership
Theory (SLT) when applied correctly results in significant
gain in job performance (Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982).
However, the leader style-follower readiness level only
matched 29% of the time (Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982).
Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) suggest that "little is known
about the requirements for effective leadership" (p.238)
and that the results of Hersey's and Blanchard's (1988) SLT
are promising. They also encourage further research to try
to replicate the findings.
43
Graeff (1983) examine Hersey's, Blanchard's and
Johnson's (1988) Leader Effectiveness Adaptability
Description "...diagnostic instrument for measuring leader
style, style range, and effectiveness"(p. 289) and
concludes that the instrument is replete with a
contradiction that significantly diminishes the predictive
utility of the instrument. The issue of a reliable
diagnostic instrument is a recurring problem in testing
SLT. Graeff (1983) identifies existing inconsistencies or
contradictions in Hersey's and Blanchard's (1988) LEAD
Instrument for measuring leader style. These
inconsistencies contribute to the model's lack of utility
(Graeff, 1983). Further research of the theory should
include use of reliable diagnostic instruments.
Vecchio (1987) conducts one of the "...first
comprehensive tests of the principles of Situational
Leadership Theory"(p.448). Vecchio studied 303 high school
teachers (followers) and 14 high school principals
(leaders) and found partial support for the SLT. The study
provides strong support for SLT in the area of low follower
readiness requiring high levels of task direction from the
leader (Vecchio, 1987). This is particularly valid for
newly hired teachers. The findings also indicate that
followers at higher levels of readiness respond well to
44
moderate levels of task direction and higher amounts of
consideration (Vecchio, 1987). For teachers at the highest
level of readiness the theory is not predictive, as the
amount of task direction is appropriate. However, there is
a need for greater consideration than the leaders exhibited
(Vecchio, 1987) .
From the findings, Vecchio suggests that another
factor, job category, may be predictive of follower
readiness. In this view, low to high levels of readiness
are representative of low to high levels of job categories
(Vecchio, 1987). Followers with low levels of readiness
held jobs that required less skill. As the degree of skill
increased so did the level of follower readiness. Vecchio
(1987) suggests, "SLT should be studied with an across-jobs
perspective and recognizing that high levels of follower
readiness may obviate the need for supervision rather than
specifying a particular style of supervision" (p. 450).
Goodson, McGee, and Cashman (1989) go one step further
than Vecchio (1987) in testing Hersey's, Blanchard's, and
Johnson's SLT. The purpose of their study is to test the
prescriptions for effective leadership as specified in
Hersey's, Blanchard's, and Johnson's (1988) SLT. In
Goodson's et al. study (1989) interactive effects of
leadership style and follower readiness on employee
45
perception and attitude are examined. The specific
prescriptions offered by the SLT regarding best, second-
best, third-best, and least effective styles are tested for
all four levels of subordinate readiness. The interaction
between leader behavior (initiating structure and
consideration) and follower readiness hypothesized by the
SLT is not supported. No support was found for the best,
second, third, or least leadership style, but the findings
are more consistent with results obtained in traditional
leadership research.
Vecchio (1987) only studied the best matches of leader
style and follower readiness and those that Hersey,
Blanchard, and Johnson (1988) state have the highest
probability of success. Goodson, McGee, and Cashman (1989)
tested all four styles for each of the four levels of
follower readiness. Their study of 450 employees
(followers) and 85 store managers (leaders) of a national
retail chain indicates that "regardless of the style
predicted to be best, second-best, third-best, and least at
any level of follower readiness selling and participative
styles were consistently associated with higher levels of
satisfaction, while telling and delegating were associated
with lower levels of satisfaction" (Goodson, McGee, &
Cashman, 1989, p. 450). An interesting aspect of
46
Goodson's, McGee's, and Cashman's study is that task
behaviors, when combined with supportive behaviors, produce
more positive outcomes suggesting that "consideration was
appropriate for every level of follower readiness" (p.
450). The study further confirms that adaptive behavior is
a necessary function of effective leadership (Goodson,
McGee, & Cashman, 1989).
Goodson's, McGee's, and Cashman's (1989) findings
suggest that followers may need high amounts of
consideration regardless of their readiness level. They
state that the "...implications of their findings [are]
unique to their own sample and the results may not apply to
employees in other types of organizations" (Goodson, McGee,
& Cashman, 1989, p. 458). This warrants further research.
Blank, Weitzel, and Green (1990) examine Hersey's,
Blanchard's, and Johnson's (1988) SLT variable of follower
readiness to determine whether there is a "...difference in
leader effectiveness based on the prescribed relationship
of leader style and follower readiness" (p.584). Their
study examines the underlying assumptions regarding the
theory prescription that subordinates' readiness moderates
the relationship of leader task and relationship behaviors
with indicators of leader effectiveness. The results of
their study of 27 residential hall directors (leaders) of
47
353 residential advisors (subordinates) does not support
the basic underlying assumption of Hersey's and Blanchard's
SLT that the readiness level of the follower is predictive
of the amount of task and relationship behavior that the
leader discharges (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990). Their
results do support that follower readiness is "...an
important situational variable to be considered in
leadership research" (Blank, Weitzel, & Green 1990, p.
588) .
Blank, Weitzel and Green (1990) suggest "more research
is needed to clarify the degree of contribution that SLT
makes to the understanding of leadership" (p.596).
Specifically, the situational variable of follower
readiness is the only variable on which Hersey, Blanchard
and Johnson (1988) focus, but there are other situational
factors such as position power, leader-member relations,
etc. that should be the subject of further research (Blank,
Weitzel, & Green, 1990).
Norris and Vecchio (1992) tested Hersey and Banchard's
SLT using 91 nurses. The results of their study provide
little support for predicting leader behavior founded on
worker readiness levels. However, Norris and Vecchio
introduce that although the elements of structure and
consideration are well established, a problem exists in the
48
use of reliable instruments to measure leadership style.
Correspondingly, the measurement of the readiness levels of
workers is equally as difficult since it is not as well
established. Norris and Vecchio (1992) suggest that the
"...best form for testing SLT may be on jobs that have
relatively few tasks and that are highly correlated in
terms of performance" (p.334). In their findings, the
relationship between performance and leader-member
exchange, performance and maturity, and performance and
satisfaction with supervision approximate the correlations
that were reported by subordinates. The results of the
hierarchical regression analyses are presented for each of
the three criteria. The inclusion of the three-way
interaction term did not significantly increase the
proportion of criterion variance that could be accounted
for. In short, none of the criteria provide support for
the hypothesized three-way interaction.
Mike Smith (1991) examined the training of situational
leadership with engineering managers. The study focuses on
18 hours of a leadership course, which consisted of 12
hours of lecture/discussion and six hours of data analysis
and various applications. Seven power bases are identified
as potential means from which a leader can successfully
influence behavior. The engineer managers present examples
49
of effective use of each power base (Smith, 1991). As in
the distribution corporation, each manager/supervisor
attended a situational leadership training class. Each
year a four-hour refresher course is conducted to ensure
effectiveness of the training.
Cairns, Hollenback, Preziosi, and Snow (1998) focus on
the interaction of the leader's behavior and follower
readiness and then measure it to determine leader
effectiveness. This study of SLT was conducted in an
actual business environment in contrast to a great deal of
previous leadership studies that use an academic laboratory
setting (Kets de Vries et al., 1994). Cairns' et al. study
consists of senior level leaders and followers in service
and manufacturing businesses of large Fortune 100
companies.
The results of the Cains et al. study provide
significant correlation coefficients, which suggest that
the observed independent variables are consistent with each
other. Additionally, a summary of regression analyses
shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis
with analysis on variance on the independent variables
(initiating structure, consideration, and follower
readiness) and the resultant examination of the
significance of these three variables on the performance
50
criteria. The results of omnibus tests reveal no
statistical differences at the alpha. Finally, results of
partitioned tests indicate statistical differences at the
high readiness level, but the mean differences are in the
opposite direction of SLT. The mean differences at the low
readiness level are in the direction of SLT. The study
provide more understanding about SLT and the concept of
matching.
Vries, Roe, and Taillieu (1998) studied the impact of
supervision leadership effectiveness on organizational
behavior. They focus on two studies of insurance agents in
the Netherlands. Moderated regression analysis shows that
need for supervision moderates the relationship between
task-oriented leadership and work stress but not between
task-oriented leadership and job satisfaction.
Miriam Johnson (1998) explored the SLT on staff
interaction with children and youth in the child care
industry and SLT effectiveness in residential group care
settings. Four leadership styles were used to determine
SLT effectiveness. According to her findings, the model
has been criticized for assuming that each subordinate in
the work group is functioning at the same level. Johnson
suggests that in actual work situations the heterogeneity
of followers' readiness might adversely affect a manager's
51
ability to follow the prescriptions of the Situational
Leadership Model. The benefits of the model are: (a)
increased awareness by staff members of their own preferred
leadership style and an interest in learning and practicing
other styles; (b) appreciation of the value of others
preferred styles; (c) increased sensitivity to the changing
needs of clients, both as individuals and as groups; and
(d) increased willingness on the part of staff members to
adjust their behaviors to meet the changing needs of
individual clients, and of client's groups.
York (1996) conducted an empirical examination of
social workers in both leadership and clinical positions in
a variety of social work agencies in two states. The
objectives of his study were (a) to determine the extent to
which social workers placed emphasis upon support and
delegation of responsibility in accordance with the
propositions of the situational model, (b) to determine
whether persons in organizational leadership positions
differed from other social workers on their level of
adherence to the propositions of this model, and (c) to
determine whether persons with higher performance ratings
differ from those with lower performance ratings on their
level of adherence to the SLT model.
52
Responses to York's (1996) survey tend to embrace the
propositions of SLT model that are related to the
delegation of decision responsibility and to reject the
propositions related to supervisory support. Also, social
workers in both leadership and clinical positions in two
states are found to readily embrace two of the three
propositions of the Situational Leadership Model that deal
with the delegation of decision responsibility. They
embrace, to a lesser extent, the third proposition
regarding decision participation. Strongly supported is
the idea that subordinates with high task readiness should
be delegated more responsibility than those with either
moderate task maturity or low task maturity. Supported to
a lesser extent is the idea that staff with moderate task
readiness should be delegated more responsibility than
those with low task readiness. It was also found that
compliance with the propositions of this model were not
predicted by position level, supervisory performance
rating, or the receipt of an above average pay raise.
Ireh and Bailey (1999) examined the relationships
among school superintendents' leadership styles, style
adaptability, and certain characteristics of school
districts identified in the literature as contributing to
the success or failure of planned change in schools. The
53
relationship between leadership style adaptability and
readiness of staff for organizational change are modestly
related to district expenditure per pupil. The analyses
from the first research question show that when acting
singularly and in relationship with other predictor
variables, only district expenditure per pupil is
significantly, positively, and linearly related to
superintendents' leadership style adaptability (Ireh &
Bailey, 1999).
The analysis of results from the second research
question yielded no variables that were statistically
significant related to superintendents' tendency to use as
their predominant leadership style either the telling (SI)
or the selling (S2) leadership style. The results of a
multiple regression indicate that years of experience as an
administrator statistically, significantly contributes to
their tendency to use the participating (S3) style of
leadership. Three variables, years of experience as an
administrator, recruitment status, and type of school
district, make statistically significant contributions to
the prediction of the use the delegating (S4) style of
leadership.
A follow-up analysis was performed to see if selling
and participating superintendents differed significantly
54
with respect to 11 continuous and three dichotomous
variables. The results show no statistically significant
difference between selling and participating
superintendents on any of the independent variables.
Superintendents in this study use participating and selling
leadership styles in leading school employees through
change implementation.
Summary
The study of situational leadership factors has and
continues to be the focus of many academic research studies
(Abdul-Raheem, 1994). The review of the literature
demonstrates that Hersey's, Blanchard's, and
Johnson's(1988) SLT has been used extensively as a method
of training managers. However, "more research is necessary
to clarify the degree of contribution that SLT makes to the
understanding of leadership" (Blank, Weitzel, & Green 1990,
p. 589). Situational leadership opens the lines of
communication between subordinate employees and management,
causes feelings of worth (in regard to work environment) in
subordinates, and makes it possible for personal and
organizational goals to be accomplished through mutual
agreement (Blanchard, 1994).
55
As the work force continues into the 21st Century,
innovative measures have been taken to allow management to
become increasingly aware of the need to be effective in
managing a smarter, sharper workforce. Public and private
industries are increasingly using SLT to train managers to
effectively manage a changing workforce. Chapter III
covers the methodology used to examine the SLT theory in a
distribution corporation.
CHAPTER I I I
METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides a discussion of the survey data
collected and summarizes the results of the data analysis.
It identifies the research questions with their respective
hypotheses and the analytical techniques used. The Center
for Leadership Studies Inc. performed a statistical
analysis using the 360-Degree Leadership Style Feedback,
Composite Profile and the Style/Readiness Matrix software.
Research Variables
Hersey's, Blanchard's, and Johnson's SLT (1996) states
that leadership styles have a significant impact on
employees. A leader can influence subordinates by rating
their readiness from high to low while simultaneously
adopting appropriate leadership styles in accordance with
subordinate readiness. Subordinate readiness can be
regressive due to several variables within the work
environment, and the leader should possess empathy and be
flexible in leadership style and behavioral patterns. For
56
57
example, subordinates with high achievement motivation and
responsibility may show a depressive attitude when they
encounter a specific task. This is a clear example of
regression, and the leader should incorporate measures to
increase supervision while providing detailed instruction
to get subordinates back to the required level of
readiness.
Conceptual Framework
The research structure in this study is based on the
impact of leadership style on employees, which is outlined
in articles discussing Situational Leadership Theory
reviewed in Chapter II. The variable, manager leadership
behavior, consists of four leadership styles:
1. SI: high task and low relationship-oriented
behavior.
2. S2: high task and high relationship-oriented
behavior.
3. S3: low task and high relationship-oriented
behavior.
4. S4: low task and low relationship-oriented behavior.
The situational intermediating variable is subordinate
readiness level, which includes psychological and task
58
readiness levels (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson 2001).
There are four readiness levels:
1. Rl: low-readiness. The subordinate is unable and
unwilling.
2. R2: low-medium readiness. The subordinate is unable
but willing.
3. R3: medium-high readiness. The subordinate is able
but unwilling.
4. R4: high readiness. The subordinate is able and
willing.
Based on Situational Leadership Theory, this study
examines if there is a difference in the variables when
each of the leadership behaviors and readiness levels are
matched e.g., when SI matches with Rl, S2 with R2, S3 with
R3, and S4 with R4 (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson 2001).
The research design tests the Situational Leadership
Theory, questioning whether it lends support to and is
understanding of the impact of leadership styles and
readiness level in a distribution corporation.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following research questions followed by
hypotheses are examined:
59
1. What is the primary leadership style in the
Hoi: There is not a primary style of leadership in
the distribution corporation.
Hai: There is a primary style of leadership in the
2. What is the secondary leadership style in a
H0 2 : There is not a secondary leadership style in
Ha2 : There is a secondary leadership style in the
To test these hypotheses, a K-Means Cluster Analysis
was used. This analysis was used to identify homogeneous
groups within the four leadership styles.
3. What is the perception of the leader's leadership
style adaptability in the distribution corporation?
H0 3 : There is no difference between the leader's
perceptions of his or her leadership style
adaptability compared with the perception ratings
given by his or her peers, followers and bosses in
Ha3 : There is a difference between the leader's
given by his or her peers, followers, and bosses in
To test this hypothesis, a nonparametric rank
correlation test, a cluster analysis, and a Pearson's
correlation coefficient was performed. As an additional
test, a calculation of similarities between variables was
run.
4. Is there a difference between the support section
and the operations section in their perception of
the overall leadership style adaptability in the
Hc4: There is no difference in the perception of
the overall leadership style adaptability between
the support section and the operations section.
61
Ha4: There is a difference in the perception of the
overall leadership style adaptability between the
support section and the operations section.
5. Is there a difference in the perception of the
followers' leadership style adaptability between the
support section and operations section?
Ho 5: There is no difference in the perception of
the followers' leadership style adaptability between
the support section and the operations section.
Has: There is a difference in the perception of the
To test these hypotheses, several analyses were
performed: (a) a correlation analysis of the variable
between the two sections, (b) a nonparametric Kruskal-
Wallis test, and (c) a comparison of medians between the
two sections.
Demographic Data
The following demographic data were obtained from the
respondents in this study: (a) gender, (b) age, (c) manager
62
or supervisor, (d) length of service, and (e) department.
The purpose in collecting these data is to provide further
information in testing leadership style.
Instruments
The survey instruments used in the study are the LEAD-
Self and LEAD-Other instruments. The LEAD-Self and the
LEAD-Other instruments (Hersey et al., 2001) served to
determine the style of leadership in use based on the
leader's perceptions and through the perceptions of his or
her staff. Leaders were assessed through the LEAD-Self and
the staff members through the LEAD-Other, which serves to
validate the perceptions of the leaders.
The LEAD-Self instrument, developed by Hersey and
Blanchard (1974), is available commercially. It describes
1 2 situations involving a leader's immediate subordinates.
Each of the 12 situations presented in the questionnaire
requires the respondent to select from four possible
answers. The respondent is to pick the choice that best
describes his or her probable behavior in the same
situation. Items are scored into four groups with each one
representing a different level of job readiness.
The information that is gathered with the LEAD-Self
provides insight into the leader's current strengths and
63
areas for leadership skill development. It supplies
information about which leadership behaviors are used and
the extent to which those behaviors match the needs of
others (See Appendix A).
The LEAD-Other is a comparison instrument to the Lead-
Self instrument. It records how subordinates perceive
their manager's or supervisor's leadership style,
effectiveness, and adaptability (Hersey and Blanchard,
1974). The information that is gathered with the LEAD-
Other provides insight into subordinates, perceptions of
the leader and the leader's attempt to influence. It
supplies information about which leadership behaviors are
used and the extent to which these behaviors match the
needs of others (See Appendix B). Figure 4 shows the
appropriate leadership style corresponding to the four
levels of readiness, according to Hersey's and Blanchard's
(1974) Situational Leadership Model.
64
t
oi
O
>
<
X
u
a
O.
5
P
<
1
S3 S2
Participating
SELLING
High Relationship &
Low Task
High Task & High
Relationship
S4 SI
DELEGATING TELLING
Low Relationship &
Low task
High Task Sc.Low
Relationship
TASK
(LOW) (HIGH)
Able & Willing Able But Unable But Unable &
Unwilling or Willing or Unwilling or
or Confident Insecure Confident Insecure
R4 R3 R2 R1
V------Y------' v------Y----- '
fOLLONER DIRECTED LEADER DIRECTED
FOLLOWER READINESS
Figure 4; Four levels of readiness in the Situational
Leadership Theory.
Source: Center for Leadership Studies.
Situational Leadership Theory
The researcher conducted a test of the basic
assumptions of Hersey's and Blanchard's (1974) Situational
65
Leadership Theory. The basic assumption of Hersey's and
Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory is that task
leadership and follower readiness level moderates
relationship behaviors. The level of follower readiness
determines the appropriate amount of task leadership and
relationship behavior. As the level of follower readiness
changes, the amount of task leadership and relationship
behavior should change as well.
As leader task relationship behavior matches follower
readiness, the effectiveness of this behavior will be
manifested in follower performance and satisfaction with
the leader. An appropriate test of Situational Leadership
Theory would examine matches of task leadership and
relationship behavior and follower readiness in different
types of organizations and at different levels within the
organization.
Research Domain
This researcher collected leader and follower
relationship data in different types of departments within
a major distribution corporation. The test consisted of a
stratum of supervisors and managers that participated in a
sponsored initiative. The study is relevant, since it
provides a leader and follower hierarchy and to this
66
researcher's knowledge is in a setting that has not been
the subject of previous study.
Population and Sample Size
From 1998 to 2001, approximately 220 professional
supervisors and managers of a major distribution
corporation in a major metropolitan city covering a
geographical area of the United States participated in
Situational Leadership Training. These professionals
worked in a warehouse environment with shifts in the
shipping and receiving area.
The organization can be categorized into technology,
consumer, chemical, and direct shipment sectors. Forty-one
managers and supervisors from the technology sector were
issued the LEAD-Self survey. Approximately 220 supervisors
and managers from various sectors were trained in the
Situational Leadership Theory training, provided by the
corporation. The LEAD-Other survey was issued to 41
superiors, 42 associates, and 77 subordinates.
Attempting to obtain a sampling ratio of 10%,
stratified random sampling techniques were used for this
study. The questionnaires were coded so that the completed
forms from workers and managers could be matched.
67
Data Gathering Instrument and Technique
Each participant was asked to complete the LEAD survey
and return it within three weeks. In addition, each
manager/supervisor was given three to five LEAD-Other
questionnaires for their employees to rate them on their
leadership styles and the effectiveness of their
leadership.
Data collection was achieved by inter-office mail.
The questionnaire was distributed to various personnel
selected to participate in this study. Telephone, personal
contacts, and email followed up initial contact. It was
anticipated that the data could be collected over an eight-
week period.
There are two implications of this research. The
first is the utility of subordinate and associate input in
leadership effectiveness evaluations. Second is
discovering the need for leader development through 360-
Degree Leadership Style Feedback.
The validity and reliability of the survey instruments
were interpreted at the Center for Leadership Studies
located in Escondido California. The analysis of LEAD data
was first presented in Paul Hersey's (Hersey et al., 2001),
"Situational Leadership: Some Aspects of Its Influence on
Organizational Development," doctoral dissertation,
68
University of Massachusetts, 1975. From the analysis of
LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other data were generated from a sample
of over 20,000 leadership events from 14 cultures according
to Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson(2001). Of the
respondents, 2 , 0 0 0 middle managers from industry and
education were interviewed. The interviews included self-
perception of leader's style along with those of peers and
subordinates. The following chapter provides a detailed
analysis and interpretation of the results of the research
study.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
This chapter provides the data collected and
summarizes the results of the data analysis. The Center
for Leadership Studies Inc. provided a statistical analysis
using the 360-Degree Leadership Style Feedback. A
discussion of this software appears in the next section,
followed by a discussion of the ANOVA and regression
procedures and findings with respect to the five
hypotheses. The .05 level of significance is used in all
of the statistical tests.
Composite Profile & Style/Readiness Matrix Software
The 360-Degree Leadership Style Feedback provides a
snapshot of the leadership tendencies at one point in time;
it provides a clearer understanding of how to make
decisions. The 360-degree leadership analysis provides an
opportunity to identify the leader's strengths and areas
where the leader can improve communication with others.
There are three key steps in the process of scoring the
69
70
LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other surveys; they are feedback,
interpretation, and application.
The matrix (Appendix C) is a map of the LEAD-Other
feedback. It is designed to help visually identify
patterns of leader behavior. The leader is able to see how
a response to different readiness levels is meeting
follower's needs or is missing the target. The matrix is
two-dimensional; leadership styles are represented on the
left side, and readiness is plotted along the bottom.
There is an "x" for each answer given in the LEAD-Other
profiles.
The two key points the matrix considers are Style
Frequency and Style/Readiness Matches. Style Frequency
consists of looking at the matrix horizontally. Each row
contains a number representing the total number of "x's" in
each box including style frequency number and style total
or the number of times others chose that particular style
as the one they believe the leader would have used. This
reveals the style the leader used most often and with which
he or she is most comfortable and the leader style range,
as well as those styles that the leader does not use often.
Style/Readiness Matches looks at the matrix
vertically; the leader will see the styles others perceive
that he or she uses in response to each readiness level.
71
This will quickly give a picture of the leader tendencies,
show when styles have been used appropriately, and when
follower readiness levels are mismatched to leadership
style.
The LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other instruments are each
comprised of 1 2 situations representing different
circumstances, levels of group readiness, and alternative
leadership styles. Readiness and style are incorporated as
follows: Rl, R2, R3 and R4 are each represented in three
different cases. The four alternative actions from which
to choose represent each of the four leadership styles.
When the LEAD-Self is completed, the alternative style
that most closely describes how to handle the situation is
chosen. The individual that completed the LEAD-Other
survey chose the alternative style they believe would most
closely describe the response to his or her situation.
Complete information for the tabulation of scoring is
described in Appendix D.
The LEAD Directions for Self-Scoring and Analysis (see
Appendix D) describe the style profile and style
adaptability based on self-perception data from the LEAD-
Self. The Composite Profile includes all the tabulated
feedback retrieved from the completed LEAD-Other
instruments (see Appendix F). The profile represents the
72
average in each style quadrant and average adaptability
score. There are nine small models for the feedback from
each LEAD-Other. The Style/Readiness Matrix includes a
two-dimensional matrix that shows the style frequency and
how often the style is a match with the readiness level in
the situation. There is an "x" for every response from the
completed LEAD-Other as well as a numeric total in each
box. See Appendix F for a sample of 360-Degree Leadership
Style Feedback, Composite Profile, and Interpreting your
Results.
Research Variables
The demographic data obtained from the respondents in
this study includes gender, age, position, length of
service, and department. Other variables that were used
are subordinate ratings, leader adaptability, self-style,
primary leadership style, secondary leadership style, self
adaptability, boss style, follower style, leader
adaptability, and associate style. See Chapter I for
definitions and Appendix G for the Analysis of Variables.
Response Rate
The test organization is in the technology,
consumer, chemical, and direct shipment fields. There are
73
a total of 61 exempt employees (managerial positions) at
the site; forty-one managers and supervisors were surveyed.
The LEAD-Self survey was issued to 41 leaders. The LEAD-
Other survey was administered to 41 superiors, 42
associates, and 77 subordinates. A total of 201 surveys
were distributed, and a total of 2 0 1 surveys were returned
for a response rate of 1 0 0 %.
Conceptual Framework
The research structure in this study is based on the
variable of manager-leader behavior, which consists of four
leadership styles:
1. SI: high task-and low relationship-oriented
behavior.
2. S2: high task-and high relationship-oriented
behavior.
3. S3: low task-and high relationship-oriented
behavior.
4. S4: low task-and low relationship-oriented behavior.
The situational intermediating variable is subordinate
readiness levels, which includes psychological and task
readiness levels (Hersey, et al. 2001). There are four
types of readiness levels:
74
1. Rl: low-readiness. The subordinate is unable and
unwilling.
2. R2: low-medium readiness. The subordinate is unable
but willing.
3. R3: medium-high readiness. The subordinate is able
but unwilling.
4. R4: high readiness. The subordinate is able and
willing.
Based on Situational Leadership Theory, this study
examined whether there is a difference in the variables
when each of the leadership behaviors and readiness levels
are matched e.g., when SI matches with Rl, S2 with R2, S3
with R3, and S4 with R4 (Hersey, et al., 2001). This
research tested the Situational Leadership Theory,
examining the support and understanding of the impact of
leadership styles and readiness level within a distribution
corporation. Figure 5 graphically depicts the four
leadership styles and readiness levels.
75
t
Oi
O
>
<
X
a
aa
cu
X
t/J
p
<
u
1
S3 S2
Participating
SELLING
High Relationship &
Low Task
High Task St High
Relationship
S4 SI
DELEGATING TELLING
Low Relationship &
Low task
High Task A Low
Relationship
TASK
(LOW) (HIGH)
Able & Willing Able But Unable But Unable &
Unwilling or Willing or Unwilling or
or Confident Insecure Confident Insecure
R4 R3 R2 Rl
V J V J
V ----- Y -----
FOLLOWER OIRZCTZO LEADER DZMCTSP
FOLLOWER READINESS
Figure 5: Four levels of readiness in the Situational
Leadership Theory.
Source: Center for Leadership Studies.
Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1
76
Hypothesis 2
H0 2 : There is not a secondary leadership style in
Ha2 : There is a secondary leadership style in the
To determine differences between the styles of
leadership, a K-Means Cluster Analysis was used. This
analysis categorized the respondents' style into four
homogeneous groups, which is graphically displayed in
Figure 5.
The research identified the primary leadership style
used most frequently within the test organization is the
S-2, selling style. The results revealed that the second
frequently used leadership style is the S-l telling style.
Table 1 displays the details of the findings. The
results reject the null hypothesis for both hypotheses 1
and 2. There are differences between the primary and
secondary leadership styles.
77
Table 1
Cluster Membership
Respondent Style Profile Cluster Distance
1 1 & 2 1 6.568
2 1 & 2 4 4.566
3 1 & 2 2 6.891
4 1 & 2 4 5.272
5 1 & 2 2 4.138
6 1 & 2 4 6.530
7 2 & 3 4 9.125
8 1 & 2 1 4.106
9 1 & 2 4 5.332
1 0 1 & 2 2 4.675
1 1 2 & 3 4 3.465
1 2 1 & 2 2 5.363
13 1 & 2 2 4.596
14 1 & 2 4 4.856
15 2 & 3 3 6.976
16 1 & 2 3 7.303
17 1 & 2 1 4.840
18 1 & 2 4 5.100
19 2 & 3 4 7.814
2 0 1 & 2 1 5.127
2 1 1 & 2 2 4.713
2 2 1 & 2 2 6.108
23 1 & 2 4 5.252
24 1 & 2 4 5.212
25 1 & 2 2 4.160
26 2 & 3 4 7.477
27 1 & 2 4 4.691
28 2 & 3 4 5.400
29 1 & 2 4 5.840
30 1 & 2 2 4.225
31 1 & 4 1 5.880
32 1 & 2 2 2.736
33 1 & 2 2 3.889
34 1 & 2 1 4.536
35 1 & 2 1 4.598
36 2 & 3 4 5.840
37 1 & 2 4 5.750
38 1 & 2 4 4.953
39 1 & 4 3 4.243
40 1 & 2 4 4.543
78
Hypothesis 3
given by their peers, followers and bosses in the
To test this hypothesis, a nonparametric rank
correlation test, a cluster analysis and a Pearson's
correlation coefficient was performed. A two-tailed test
was selected. In addition, a calculation of similarities
between variables was run.
The Pearson's correlation in Table 2 shows no linear
relationship between the leader's perception of his or her
leadership style adaptability and the perception ratings
given by his or her peers, followers, and bosses. In
addition, a nonparametric rank correlation (see Appendix
H), also referred to as a Spearman's rank coefficient, was
run and supports rejection of the null hypothesis.
79
Table 2
Pearson Correlation
Self
Adapt#
Associate
Adapt#
Boss
Adapt#
Follower
Adapt
Follower
Adaptl
Follower Adapt2
Self Adapt# Pearson
Correlation
1.000 .077 .130 .183 .227 -.017
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.638 .425 .264 .335 .951

Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
445.975 31.800 83.175 80.923 49.700 -2.200
Covariance 11.435 .815 2.133 2.130 2.616 -.157
N 40 40 40 39 20 15
Associate
Adapt#
Pearson
Correlation
.077 1.000 .012 .012 -.217 -.326
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.638
.939 .944 .358 .235

Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
31.800 384.400 7.400 4.692 -34.000 -30.000
Covariance .815 9.856 .190 .123 -1.789 -2.143
N 40 40 40 39 20 15
Boss Adapt# Pearson
Correlation
.130 .012 1.000 .239 -.213 .489
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.425 .939
.143 .366 .064

Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
83.175 7.400 922.775 147.846 -66.800 96.200
Covariance 2.133 .190 23.661 3.891 -3.516 6.871
N 40 40 40 39 20 15
Follower
Adapt
Pearson
Correlation
.183 .012 .239 1.000 -.181 .358
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.264 .944 .143
.445 .191
Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
80.923 4.692 147.846 437.692 -34.400 39.200
Covariance 2.130 .123 3.891 11.518 -1.811 2.800
N 39 39 39 39 20 15
Follower
Adapt1
Pearson
Correlation
.227 -.217 -.213 -.181 1.000 -.190
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.335 .358 .366 .445
.497
Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
49.700 -34.000 -66.800 -34.400 245.800 -25.000
Covariance 2.616 -1.789 -3.516 -1.811 12.937 -1.786
N 20 20 20 20 20 15
Follower
Adapt2
Pearson
Correlation
-.017 -.326 .489 .358 -.190 1.000
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.951 .235 .064 .191 .497
Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
-2.200 -30.000 96.200 39.200 -25.000 105.600
Covariance -.157 -2.143 6.871 2.800 -1.786 7.543
N 15 15 15 15 15 15
80
Hypothesis 4
Ho4: There is no difference in the perception of the
To test this hypothesis, a correlation analysis of
the perceptions of the overall leadership style
adaptability between the support group and the operations
group was performed. In addition, a nonparametric Kruskal-
Wallis test and a comparison of means between the two
groups of the organization (l=support, 2 =operations) was
examined.
The findings reveal that there is a difference in the
leadership style adaptability perceptions between the two
groups. The correlation analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis
test (Appendix H) supports the findings that there are
differences between the two groups. As an additional test,
a comparison of mean ranks (Whitney-Mann test) was examined
and is displayed in Tables 3 and 4.
81
Table 3
Whitney-Mann Test Ranks
Ops/Sup N Mean Sum of
Rank Ranks
Ldr 1 17 24.62 418.50
Adapt
2 24 18.44 442.50
Total 41
Table 4
Test Statistics
___________________ Ldr Adapt
Mann-Whitney 142.500
U
Wilcoxon W 442.500
Z -1.631
Asymp. Sig. .103
(2 -tailed)
Grouping Variable: Ops/Sup
The z score was -1.631. This further supports the
rejection of the null hypothesis. The reason for the use
of the Whitney-Mann procedure was based on the fact that
the sample was drawn from an identical population (the
organization) and a further test was desired by this
researcher to support the other tests.
Hypothesis 5
82
The findings revealed that there is a difference in
the followers' leadership style adaptability between the
two groups. The correlation analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis
test (Appendix H) supports the findings that there are
differences between the two groups.
As an additional test a comparison of mean ranks by
distance was examined. The findings support the rejection
of the null hypothesis. The correlation analysis (Appendix
H), the Whitney-Mann (Table 5), and the Kruskal-Wallis
(Table 6 ) show the details of the test. These examinations
support the findings that there are differences between the
two groups.
83
Table 5
Whitney-Mann Test
Group Follower
Adapt
Follower
Adapt1
Follower
Adapt2
Support Mean 23.1250 21.6667 27.0000
N 16 3 1
Std.
Deviation
3.3838 2 . 8 8 6 8
Operations Mean 21.8333 23.1176 2 1 . 0 0 0 0

N 24 17 14
Std.
Deviation
3.4220 3.7397 2.3534
Total Mean 22.3500 22.9000 21.4000
N 40 2 0 15
Std.
Deviation
3.4235 3.5968 2.7464
Table 6
Kruskal-Wallis Ranks by Distance
Group N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Follower Support 16 23.50 376.00
Adapt
Operations
Total
24
4 0
18.50 444.00
Adapt1
Operations
Total
17
2 0
1 0 . 8 8 185.00
Adapt2
Operations
Total
14
15
7.50 105.00
In summary, a primary and a secondary leadership style
exists. This research further supports the Hersey,
Blanchard, and Johnson (2001) Situational Leadership
Theory. According to the results, over 75% of the leaders
whose scores placed them into the Style 1 & 2 categories
84
are individuals who are able to raise and lower their
relationship behavior.
There are differences between the leader's perceptions
of his or her leadership style adaptability. This
indicates that the perceptions of the followers, peers, and
bosses are different in comparison to the leaders'
perceptions. These findings are based on low Pearson's
correlations (associate = .077; boss = .130, follower =
.183, follower = .227, follower =-.017).
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to understand the impact
of leadership style and the adaptability of the leader
within a distribution organization. The process for
achieving this included testing the Situational Leadership
Theory. In this study, the researcher examined the
leader's style and leader's style adaptability in a
distribution organization. The purpose of the examination
was to determine the extent of the perception of the
leader's leadership style by the leaders' associates,
superiors, and followers.
According to Hersey et al. (2001), the theory for
Situational Leadership proposes that as a leader moves up
the various levels of leadership styles, he or she
increases the relationship behavior of the followers'
readiness levels. In this study, the researcher determined
that a positive relationship does exist between
subordinates' evaluation rating on leader's leadership
style adaptability with the perception of the leader's
85
86
leadership style adaptability. The results of this study,
therefore, provide support for the Hersey and Blanchard
Situational Leadership Theory. This chapter discusses the
results of hypothesis testing, limitations of study, and
the implications for future research.
Results of Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Ho2: There is not a secondary leadership style in
Ha2: There is a secondary leadership style in the
The primary leadership style that is used most
frequently is the S-2, selling style. The second
frequently used leadership style is the S-l telling style.
The findings revealed that the null hypothesis is
rejected for both Hypotheses 1 and 2. It was established,
based on the research that a primary and a secondary
leadership style exists in the organization. Over 75% of
87
the leaders that were studied were categorized in the 1 - 2
style profile, which indicates that they tend to be able to
raise and lower their relationship or supportive behavior,
according to the Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2001) SLT.
Further insight on this style from Hersey, Blanchard, and
Johnson (2001) is that these leaders also tend to feel
uncomfortable unless they are calling the shots. They tend
to feel comfortable when they are in control and providing
structure and direction. This style tends to be effective
with low to moderate levels of readiness. It is often an
extremely effective style for leaders in crisis situations,
where time is an extremely scarce resource. Leaders with
this style, when crisis or time pressures are over, often
are not able to develop people to their fullest potential.
Hypothesis 3
88
given by their peers, followers, and bosses in the
Based on the findings, the null hypothesis was
rejected. Therefore, there are differences in the
perception of the leader's style adaptability compared to
the perception of the follower's style adaptability,
associated style adaptability, and boss style adaptability.
The findings are based on the low correlation scores. The
leader's adaptability scores in comparison to his or her
follower, associate, and boss are different from how the
leader views him or herself. Most leaders may perceive
themselves with a high style adaptability score, whereas
their followers, associates, and bosses may perceive them
with a much lower score.
Hypothesis 4
89
A comparison of means between the two groups of the
organization (l=support, 2=operations) was tested. The
findings support rejection of the null hypothesis.
It was found that there are differences between the two
groups in the organization. The tests revealed that the
support group scored higher in comparison to the operation
group in the style adaptability score. The support group
scored in the moderate range, which indicates that a leader
reads and responds well to a several readiness levels.
Generally, according to Hersey et al. (2001), leaders in
this range have a readiness level whereby they misdiagnose
or they have a style that they do not use or both.
According to Hersey et al. (2001) another possibility
exists whereby the styles based on task are a frequent part
of the job and sometimes do not slow down to consider
readiness.
The operations group fell into the low adaptability
score, which indicates that the leader relies on heavy
concentrations of limited influence strategies. Per Hersey
et al. (2 0 0 1 ) this may work if they only experience a
limited variety of readiness levels. This range can also
indicate that a leader is trying a variety of styles,
hoping to find one that works instead of focusing on
readiness.
90
Hypothesis 5
H0 5 : There is no difference in the perception of the
The findings support rejection of the null
hypothesis. A comparison of means between the two groups of
the organization (l=support, 2 =operations) was tested.
It was revealed that there are differences between the two
groups in the organization. The followers' support group
scored higher in the style adaptability score in comparison
to the followers' operations group. The scores indicated
that the support group fell into the low-moderate style
adaptability. This is an indication that the leader
usually reads and responds well to several readiness
levels. The operations group fell into the low style
adaptability, which indicates that the leader is trying a
variety of styles, hoping to find one that works instead of
focusing on readiness.
91
Discussion
In this study, the researcher further supported the
Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2001) Situational
Leadership Theory. The LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other was used
to determine the leadership style and adaptability of the
leader.
The leaders differ in their ability to vary their
style to accommodate different situations. While style
range indicates the extent to which the leader is able to
vary his or her style, style adaptability reflects the
degree to which his or her changes in styles are
appropriate to the level of readiness of the people
involved in different situations.
Limitations of Study
The results of this study are based the areas of
leader's style, leader's style adaptability, and the
perception of the leader's associates, followers, and
superiors. In the past year, the distribution corporation
has undergone significant restructuring, and the
organization would only allow the use of the Hersey and
Blanchard leadership effectiveness and adaptability survey.
Any other surveys measuring other variables were
prohibited. First line managers and middle managers were
92
the only ones surveyed. The organization recommended that
upper management be excluded from the study.
In past studies, Norris and Vecchio (1992) recommended
testing Hersey's and Blanchard's (1974) Situational
Leadership Theory's " . . . three-way interaction (leader
task, leader relationship and follower readiness level)
using a hierarchical regression approach"(p. 335) the
researcher did not utilize this recommended methodology.
The follower readiness level was not surveyed, and the
researcher was not looking for causation; therefore, this
methodology was not used.
Implications for Future Research
This study used the construct of the leader's style
and leader's adaptability to provide a measurable construct
to Situational Leadership Theory. For this study, the
researcher defined leader style and leader style
adaptability using the perception of the leader's peers,
subordinates, and superiors.
Future research should include other distribution
corporations. Other areas to focus on could be the
perception of the leader's subordinates, peers, and
superiors solely. A pre- and post-survey should be done
within a limited time frame to determine the effectiveness
93
of the LEAD-Self and LEAD-Other survey. Further research
should include other corporations.
In summary, "the evidence from research clearly
indicates that there is no single all-purpose leadership
style. Successful leaders are those who can adapt their
behaviors to meet the demands of their own unique
situation" (Hersey, 1997).
94
APPENDIX
LEAD-Self Survey
LEAD-Other Survey
Style Readiness Matrix & Leadership
Pattern
LEAD Directions
The SLT Model
360-Degree Leadership Style
Feedback/Composite Profile/Interpreting
your Results
Analysis of Variables
Additional Hypotheses Tables
Authorization to use LEAD-Self & LEAD-
Other Survey
NOTE TO USERS
Copyrighted materials in this document have not
been filmed at the request of the author. They are
available for consultation at the authors
university library.
Appendices A through F
Pages 95-118
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
118
Appendix G
Analysis of Variables
A Test of Situational Leadership Theory
Authors Symbol Metrics
Hersey Blanchard Variable
Leader Behavior
High task, High relationship
High task, high relationship
High relationship, low task
Low task, low relationship
Subordinate Readiness Level
Unable & unwilling/insecure
Unable & willing/confident
Able but unwilling/insecure
Able and willing/confident
51 See appendix E
52 See appendix E
53 See appendix E
54 See appendix E
R1 See appendix E
R2 See appendix E
R3 See appendix E
R4 See appendix E
Effact Variabla (rating by leader, boss, subordinate, & associate)
Primary leadership style Used to test Hoi
Associate style, boss style, and follower
style, is the perception of the leaders
associate (peers), boss, and follower and how
they view the leaders primary leadership style,
self style is the perception of the leader
him/her self and how they view their primary
leadership style, this is determine by the
Hersey 360 feedback survey.
Secondary leadership style Used to test H0 2
119
Style adaptability
Support/Operation Section
Support/Operations
Subordinate Rating
Associate sec, boss sec, and follower sec, is
the perception of the leaders associate
(peers), boss, and follower and how they view
the leaders secondary style of leadership, self
sec is the perception of the leader him/her
self and how they view their secondary
leadership style, this is determine by the
Hersey 360 feedback survey.
Used to test H03, H04 & H05
Associate adapt., Boss adapt., and follower
adapt., is the perception of the leaders
associate (peers), boss and follower
adaptability and how they view the leaders
adaptability to vary their style appropriately
to the demands of a given situation, self
adapt. Is the perception of the leaders him/her
self and how they view their selves to vary
appropriately to the demands of a given
situation. This is determine by the Hersey 360
feedback survey.
Used to test Ho4 & H05
The leaders overall adaptability score, which
is combine with the leader, associate, boss and
follower is compared between the support and
operations section to determine if there is a
difference between the two groups.
Used to test H05
Support section and operations section
adaptability variable is the perception
of the followers adaptability score and
how they view the leaders adaptability in
comparison to the support and operations
section.
120
Appendix H
Additional Hypotheses Tables
H03, Non Parametric Rank Correlation/Spearman's Rank Coefficient
Correlation
Self
Adapt#
Associate
Adapt#
Boss
Adapt#
Follower
Adapt
Follower
Adapt1
Follower
Adapt2
Spearman's
rho
Self Adapt# Correlation
Coefficient
1.000 .017 .135 .221 .269 -.130
Sig. <2-
tailed)
.917 .406 .176 .251 .643

N 40 40 40 39 20 15
Associate
Adapt#
Correlation
Coefficient
.017 1.000 .023 .089 -.302 -.319
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.917 .889 .591 .196 .247
N 40 40 40 39 20 15
Boss Adapt# Correlation
Coefficient
.135 .023 1.000 .202 -.192 .505
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.406 .889 .219 .417 .055
N 40 40 40 39 20 15
Follower
Adapt
Correlation
Coefficient
.221 .089 .202 1.000 -.177 .360
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.176 .591 .219 .454 .187
N 39 39 39 39 20 15
Follower
Adapt1
Correlation
Coefficient
.269 -.302 -.192 -.177 1.000 -.142
Sig. (2-
tailed)
.251 .196 .417 .454
.613
Nl 20 20 20 20 20 15
Follower
Adapt2
Correlation
Coefficient
-.130 -.319 .505 .360 -.142 1.000
Sig. 12-
tailed)
.643 .247 .055 .187 .613
N 15 15 15 15 15 15
H03 A calculation of Similarities between variable
Proximity Matrix
Correlatio
n between
Vectors of
Values
Associate
Adapt#
Boss
Adapt#
Follower
Adapt
Follower
Adaptl
Follower
Adapt2
Self
Adapt#
Associate
Adapt#
.006 -.178 -.236 -.326 -.135
Boss
Adapt#
.006 .218 -.347 .489 -.002
Follower
Adapt
-.178 .218 -.465 .358 .131
Follower
Adapt1
-.236 -.347 -.465 -.190 .160
Follower
Adapt2
-.326 .489 .358 -.190 -.017
Self
Adapt#
-.135 -.002 .131 .160 -.017
This is a similarity matrix
121
HO3 Cluster Analysis
Cluster Membership
Case 4 Clusters
Associat
e Adapt#
1
Boss
Adapt#
2
Follower
Adapt
1
Follower
Adapt1
3
Follower
Adapt2
1
Self
Adapt#
4
H I E R A R C H I C A L C L U S T E R A N A L Y S I S
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine
C A S E
Label Num
FOLLOW3 3
FOLLOWS 5
ASS0CI2 1
SELF_ADA 6
F0LL0W4 4
BOSS ADA 2
Ho4 Kruskal-Wallis Test
Ranks
Ops/Sup N Mean
Rank
Ldr
Adapt#
1 17 24.62
2 24 18.44
Total 41
0 5 10 15 20 25
+----------- +---------- +----------- +---------- +---------- +
122
Test Statistics
Ldr
Adapt#
Chi-Square 2.660
df 1
Asymp.
Sig.
.103
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: Ops/Sup
Ho4 Comparison of Means
Frequencies
Ops/Sup
1 2
Ldr
Adapt#
> Median 11 9
<= Median 6 15
Test Statistics
Ldr Adapt#
N 41
Median 22.4000
Chi-Square 2.94 8
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .086
Yates' Continuity
Correction
Chi-Square 1.960
df 1
Asymp. Sig. .162
a Grouping Variable: Ops/Sup
Frequencies
Ops/Sup
1 2
Ldr Adapt# > Median 11 9
<= Median 6 15
123
Hos Correlation Analysis
Correlations
Ops/Sup Follower
Adapt
Follower
Adapt1
Follower
Adapt2
Ops/Sup Pearson
Correlation
1.000 -.187 .148 -.564
Sig. (2-tailed) .247 .534 .029
Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
9.951 -12.400 3.700 -5.600
Covariance .249 -.318 .195 -.400
N 41 40 20 15
Follower
Adapt
Pearson
Correlation
-.187 1.000 -.181 .358
Sig. (2-tailed) .247 .445 . 191
Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
-12.400 457.100 -34.400 39.200
Covariance -.318 11.721 -1.811 2.800
N 40 40 20 15
Follower
Adapt1
Pearson
Correlation
.148 -.181 1.000 -.190
Sig. (2-tailed) .534 .445 . .497
Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
3.700 -34.400 245.800 -25.000
Covariance .195 -1.811 12.937 -1.786
N 20 20 20 15
Follower
Adapt2
Pearson
Correlation
-.564 .358 -.190 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .029 . 191 .4 97
Sum of Squares
and Cross-
products
-5.600 39.200 -25.000 105.600
Covariance -.400 2.800 -1.786 7.543
N 15 15 15 15
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Ops/Sup 1.59 .50 41
Follower Adapt 22.3500 3.4235 40
Follower Adaptl 22.9000 3.5968 20
Follower Adapt2 21.4000 2.7464 15
CENTER
FOR
LEADERSHIP
STUDIES
230 W. THIRD AVE.
ESCONDIDO.
CALIFORNIA
92025-4160
PH: 760/741-6595
FAX 760/747-9384
www.siruarionol.com
April 10, 2002
Corinne Patrick
2027 Wildwood Ridge Drive
Missouri City, TX 77489
Dear Corinne,
This letter is to confirm the conversation we had back in January of 2001. You
have purchased and used our Situational Leadership Assessments, the L E A D
5<?//rand L E A D along with the scoring utility with our permission. As
discussed, please include only original copies in your thesis - neither photocopies
nor digital/web versions are permitted. I know you understand the importance
of protecting this Intellectual Property.
I want to congratulate on all your hard work - and for taking the time to visit us
last spring! I've worked with dozens of graduate students over the last ten years
- your dedication and thoroughness are unsurpassed! Thank you for the
opportunity to be a part of your work! We would be honored to keep a copy of
it here with the other top research.
All of us here at the Center for Leadership Studies wish you all the best as you
move to complete your thesis and begin the "next chapter" in your life.
V
F
Director
125
References
Abdul-Raheem, N. (1994). The relationship
between perceived leadership behavior of construction
superintendents, situational factors, and job
satisfaction of their foremen. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and
organization. New York: Harper & Row.
Bass, B.M, & Stodgill, B. (1990). Bass and Stodgill
handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Blanchard, Ken. (1994). Situational leadership and
the article.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1984). The Managerial
Grid III. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Company.
Blank, W., Weitzel, J. & Green, S. (1990). A test of
the Situational Leadership Theory. Personnel Psychology,
43_(3), 579-598.
Cairns, T., Hollenback, J., Preziosi, R., & Snow, W.
(1998). A study of Hersey and Blanchard Situational
Leadership Theory. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 1999 113-116.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership
effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
126
Fiedler, F.E., Chemers, M.M., & Mahar, L. (1977).
Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match
concept. New York: Wiley.
Gibb, C. (1969). Leadership. In G. Lindsey and E.
Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology(pp. 205-
282). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Goodson, J.R., McGee, G.W., & Cashman, J. F. (1989).
Situational Leadership Theory: A test of prescriptions.
Group and Organizational Studies, 14 (4), 446-461.
Graeff, C.L. (1983). The Situational Leadership
Theory: A Critical View. Academy of Management Review, 8
(2), 285-291.
Hambleton, R. K. & Gumpert, R. (1982). The validity of
Hersey and Blanchard's Theory of Leader Effectiveness.
Group and Organization Studies, 7 (2), 225-242.
Hersey, P.(1997). The situational leader, Center for
Leadership Studies. Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership
Studies.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard K. (1969). Life cycle theory
of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 2, 6-34.
Hersey P., & Blanchard K. (1974) So you want to know
your leadership style? Training and Development Journal,
February.
127
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D.E. (1988).
Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human
resources 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Hall.
resources 8 th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we
know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality.
American Psychologist, 4 9 6 , 493-504.
House, R. J. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader
Effective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 321-338.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R., (1974). Path-Goal
Theory of Leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3,
81-97.
Ireh, M., & Bailey, J. (1999). A study of
superintendents change leadership styles using the
Situational Leadership Model. American Secondary
Education, 27, (4), 22-32.
128
Johnson, M. (1998). Applying a modified Situational
Leadership Model to residential group care setting. Child
& Youth Care Forum, 27, 383-405.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., Loper, M., & Doyle, J.
(1994). The leadership mystique. Academy of Management
Executive, 8,(3), 73-92.
Korman, A. (1966) . Consideration, initiating
structure, and organization criteria: A Review. Personnel
Psychology, 22, 294-361.
Nadler, D.A., & Tushman, M.L. (1990). Beyond the
charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change.
California Management Review, Winter, 77-97.
Norris, W.R., & Vecchio, R.P. (1992). Situational
Leadership Theory. Group and Organizational Management, 7
(3), 331-342.
Podsakoff, P., Niehoff, B., Mackenzie, S., & Williams,
M. (1993). Do Substitutes for leadership really substitute
for leadership? An Empirical examination of Kerr and
Jermier's Situational Leadership Model. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Process, 54 (l),l-44.
Reddin, W. J. (1967). The 3-D Management Theory.
Training and Development Journal, 21 8-17.
Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness.
McGraw Hill: New York.
129
Vecchio, R. (1987). Situational Leadership Theory:
An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 444-451.
Vries, R., Roe, R., & Taillieu, T. (1998). Need for
supervision. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
34, 486-501.
York, R. (1996). Adherence to Situational Leadership
Theory among Social Workers. The Clinical Supervisor, 14
(2), 5-24.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretice Hall.
Zander, A., Thomas, E.J., & Natsoulas, T. (1960).
Personal goals and the group's goals for the member. Human
Relations, 333-344.
Bibliography
130
Abdul-Raheem, N. (1994). The relationship
between perceived leadership behavior of construction
superintendents, situational factors, and job
satisfaction of their foremen. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization.
New York: Harper & Row.
Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and
organizational effectiveness. Homewood, IL: Irwin,
Dorsey Press.
Argyris, C. (1964). Intergratinq the individual and
the organization. New York: John Wiley & Son.
Bass, B.M, & Stodgill, B. (1990). Bass and Stodgill
handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Blanchard, Ken. (1994). Situational leadership and
the article.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1984). The Managerial
Grid III. Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Company.
Blank, W., Weitzel, J. & Green, S. (1990). A test of
the Situational Leadership Theory. Personnel Psychology,
43 (3), 579-598.
131
Cairns, T., Hollenback, J., Preziosi, R., & Snow, W.
(1998). A study of Hersey and Blanchard Situational
Leadership Theory. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 1999 113-116.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership
effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F.E., Chemers, M.M., & Mahar, L. (1977).
Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match
concept. New York: Wiley.
Gibb, C. (1969). Leadership. In G. Lindsey and E.
Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology(pp. 205-
282). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Goodson, J.R., McGee, G.W., & Cashman, J. F. (1989).
Situational Leadership Theory: A test of prescriptions.
Group and Organizational Studies, 14 (4), 446-461.
Graeff, C.L. (1983). The Situational Leadership
Theory: A Critical View. Academy of Management Review, 8
(2), 285-291.
Hambleton, R. K. & Gumpert, R. (1982). The validity of
Hersey and Blanchard's Theory of Leader Effectiveness.
Group and Organization Studies, 7 (2), 225-242.
Hemphill, J., & Coons, A. (1957). The leader and his
group. Journal of Educational Research, 28, 225-246.
132
Hersey, P.(1997). The situational leader, Center for
Leadership Studies. Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership
Studies.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard K. (1969). Life cycle theory
of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 2, 6-34.
Hersey P., & Blanchard K. (1974) So you want to know
your leadership style? Training and Development Journal,
February.
Hall.
Hall.
resources 8 th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we
know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality.
American Psychologist, 49 6 , 493-504.
House, R. J. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader
Effective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 321-338.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R., (1974). Path-Goal
Theory of Leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3,
81-97.
Ireh, M., & Bailey, J. (1999). A study of
superintendents change leadership styles using the
Situational Leadership Model. American Secondary
Education, 27, (4), 22-32.
Johnson, M. (1998). Applying a modified Situational
Leadership Model to residential group care setting. Child
& Youth Care Forum, 27, 383-405.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R., Loper, M., & Doyle, J.
(1994). The leadership mystique. Academy of Management
Executive, 8,(3), 73-92.
Korman, A. (1966). Consideration, initiating
structure, and organization criteria: A Review. Personnel
Psychology, 22, 294-361.
Nadler, D.A., & Tushman, M.L. (1990). Beyond the
charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change.
California Management Review, Winter, 77-97.
Norris, W.R., & Vecchio, R.P. (1992). Situational
Leadership Theory. Group and Organizational Management, 7
(3), 331-342.
134
Podsakoff, P., Niehoff, B., Mackenzie, S., & Williams,
M. (1993). Do Substitutes for leadership really substitute
for leadership? An Empirical examination of Kerr and
Jermier's Situational Leadership Model. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Process, 54 (l),l-44.
Reddin, W. J. (1967). The 3-D Management Theory.
Training and Development Journal, 21 8-17.
Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness.
McGraw Hill: New York.
Smith, M. (1991). Situational leadership training.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 7, 365-374.
Vecchio, R. (1987). Situational Leadership Theory:
An examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 444-451.
Vries, R., Roe, R., & Taillieu, T. (1998). Need for
supervision. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
34, 486-501.
York, R. (1996). Adherence to Situational Leadership
Theory among Social Workers. The Clinical Supervisor, 14
(2), 5-24.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pretice Hall.
135
Zander, A., Thomas, E.J., & Natsoulas, T. (1960).
Personal goals and the group's goals for the member. Human
Relations, 333-344.

A Study of Situational Leadership Theory in A Distribution Corporation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Situational Leadership Theory in A Distribution Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

.638 .425 .264 .335 .951

.939 .944 .358 .235

.143 .366 .064

Operations Mean 21.8333 23.1176 2 1 . 0 0 0 0

.917 .406 .176 .251 .643

You might also like