Combinative aspects of leadership style

The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245 – 278

Combinative aspects of leadership style The ordering and temporal spacing of leadership behaviors Gian Casimir* School of Business, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia

Abstract This article introduces the concept of combinative aspects of leadership style, which addresses elements of leadership style such as the ordering and temporal spacing of leadership behaviors. The major purpose is to show that perceptions of leadership are influenced by the manner in which leadership behaviors are combined. Different combinations of task-oriented leadership statements and socioemotionally oriented leadership statements were examined. All of the participants were full-time employees. In all three of the studies, combinative aspects of leadership style clearly influenced perceptions of leadership statements. The findings indicate that task-oriented leadership should not be provided without socioemotional leadership and that socioemotionally oriented leadership should generally be provided immediately before task-oriented leadership. Further work is needed to investigate the applicability of combinative aspects of leadership style to components of transactional and transformational leadership. D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This article introduces the concept of combinative aspects of leadership style and demonstrates their impact on perceptions of leadership. The term ‘‘combinative’’ refers to the fact that leaders can combine specific leadership behaviors in a number of different ways by varying the ordering and/or temporal spacing of the behaviors. Combinative aspects of leadership style allow an exploration of one of the dynamic and subtler aspects of leadership style — the manner in which different leadership behaviors are combined.

* Tel.: +61-3-9479-1471; fax: +61-3-9479-5971. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Casimir). 1048-9843/01/$ – see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 4 8 - 9 8 4 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 7 9 - 0

246

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

There are suggestions from the literature that the effects of specific leadership behaviors are dependent on how they are combined. For instance, Fulk and Wendler (1982) found that the effects of some leadership behaviors were dependent upon their particular combination. Specifically, on the basis of canonical correlation, arbitrary and punitive behavior appeared to provide role clarity only when not combined with other behaviors that were path-clarifying. 1.1. The two main leadership functions The process of leadership may be thought of as consisting of a number of different functions (e.g., inspiring subordinates, forming and reaching group goals, and preserving group cohesion), each of which can be accomplished by many different leadership behaviors (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). Leadership style may be defined as a pattern of emphases, indexed by the frequency or intensity of specific leadership behaviors or attitudes, which a leader places on the different leadership functions. Members of a group need to interact with each other to achieve a common goal. Bales (1950) classified the different types of interactions that could occur between group members as either task-oriented or socioemotionally oriented. Similarly, Cartwright and Zander (1968) suggested that although there are numerous leadership functions (e.g., planning, decisionmaking, coordinating, and counseling), which one or many members of the group could perform, most of these functions serve essentially two objectives: goal achievement (i.e., taskoriented) and group maintenance (i.e., socioemotional). Task-oriented leadership has long been regarded as multifaceted and includes a wide range of behaviors such as establishing well-defined patterns and channels of communication, organizing and defining the relationships in the group, trying out new ideas, assigning subordinates to particular jobs, emphasizing meeting deadlines (Fleishman, 1973; Halpin, 1955), clarifying expectations of subordinates, scheduling work to be done, specifying procedures to be followed (House, 1971), checking that subordinates observe rules and regulations, setting deadlines, giving instructions and orders, and pressuring subordinates to work hard (Misumi, 1985). Thus, two important aspects of task-oriented leadership are Pressure (i.e., pressuring subordinates to work hard and setting and emphasizing deadlines) and Instruction (i.e., giving instructions and orders and specifying procedures). Komaki, Zlotnick, and Jensen (1986) developed a taxonomy of supervisory behaviors that consists of seven categories, three of which are directly concerned with the performance of subordinates: performance antecedents (providing instructions for performance), performance monitors (collecting information about performance), and performance consequences (indicating knowledge of performance). Data from three different samples of managers (i.e., bank, insurance, and theatre) showed that they spent approximately 13–28% of their time only on these performance-related behaviors (Komaki, 1986; Komaki et al., 1986). Therefore, performance-oriented behaviors, which are aspects of task-oriented leadership, constitute a sizable proportion of supervisory behavior. Komaki (1986) found that effective supervisors differed from marginal supervisors on only one of Komaki et al.’s (1986) seven behavioral categories: performance monitoring. Specifically, effective supervisors collected performance information by work sampling

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

247

(i.e., actually sampling the subordinate’s work) more often than did marginal supervisors. In fact, the majority of marginal supervisors never sampled their subordinates’ work (Komaki, 1986). A possible explanation for the effects of work sampling is that work sampling is a form of Pressure, in that it involves an inspection or audit of the subordinate’s work, and thus directly pressures the subordinate to work harder or better. Socioemotional leadership is also multifaceted and includes behaviors such as providing encouragement and keeping interpersonal relations pleasant (Halpin, 1955), maintaining twoway communication with subordinates (Fleishman, 1973), being friendly and approachable, looking out for the welfare of subordinates (House, 1971), treating subordinates fairly, understanding subordinates’ viewpoints, asking subordinates’ opinions (Misumi, 1985), reducing subordinates’ stress levels, and expressing appreciation for subordinates’ efforts (Misumi & Peterson, 1985). The effects of combinative aspects of leadership style on subordinates’ perceptions of leadership are examined in this article using task-oriented leadership and socioemotional leadership, because these two leadership functions have been shown to influence a wide range of criteria including satisfaction, willingness to work, and performance. Furthermore, the work of Komaki et al. indicates that task-oriented leadership and socioemotional leadership constitute a substantial proportion of day-to-day leadership behaviors, especially at a supervisory level. 1.2. The interaction between the two main leadership functions The high-high paradigm of leadership (Larson, Hunt, & Osborn, 1976) states that leaders need to place a high degree of emphasis on each of the two main leadership functions (e.g., task-oriented and socioemotional) in order to be effective. There are two versions of the highhigh paradigm: additive and interactive. According to the additive version, an increase on either of the two leadership functions will improve leader effectiveness. In contrast, the interactive version suggests that the effect of increasing the emphasis on one of the leadership functions is dependent upon the level of the other leadership function (Larson et al., 1976). Larson et al. (1976) regarded the high-high paradigm as ‘‘mythical’’ because of a lack of empirical support, particularly for the interactive version. Larson et al., Nystrom (1978), and Schriesheim (1982) did not find support for the interactive version of the high-high paradigm. Instead, the additive model and single-variable models were found to be more predictive of subordinate satisfaction and performance than was the interactive model. Moreover, Larson et al., Nystrom, and Schriesheim used different questionnaires yet the three studies yielded similar findings. Thus, the absence of interactive effects was not based upon instrumentspecific findings (Nystrom, 1978). It is noteworthy that interactive effects have mostly been tested by using the product term (i.e., the product of the two leadership function scores) in hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses. However, this procedure may not be an appropriate test of the interaction between the two main leadership functions, because the product term tests only for a bilinear form of interaction while the number of possible types of interactions that can occur between two continuous variables is infinite (Jaccard, Turrisi, & Wan, 1990). Therefore, the absence of

248

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

a statistically significant interaction using the product term may reflect the presence of an alternative functional form of interaction rather than the absence of a moderated relationship (Jaccard et al., 1990). The idea that the perception of leadership behaviors is dependent on leadership style is not new. For example, the interactive version of the high-high paradigm acknowledges that the exact combination of the two leadership functions is important (Larson et al., 1976). However, the interactive version of the high-high paradigm does not take into account the manner in which specific leadership behaviors are combined and thus overlooks important aspects of leadership style, which could shed new light on the relationship between the effects of the two main leadership functions. One explanation as to why combinative aspects of leadership style have been overlooked is that leadership style has been construed in terms of combinations of degrees of overall emphasis on various leadership functions (e.g., high task-oriented and low socioemotional) rather than in terms of how leadership functions are combined. 1.3. Order, temporality, and constancy1 The proposition that combinative aspects of leadership style are important determinants of subordinates’ perceptions of leadership is put forward in this article. The variables ‘‘Order,’’ ‘‘Temporality,’’ and ‘‘Constancy’’ are introduced for the purpose of examining the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style. Order refers to whether socioemotional leadership follows or precedes task-oriented leadership. Temporality refers to the interval between taskoriented leadership and socioemotional leadership. Constancy refers to whether task-oriented leadership and socioemotional leadership are always combined in the same way or in different ways. Table 1 contains a brief overview of the issues pertaining to leadership style that the three combinative variables address. To simplify the discourse on Order, Temporality, and Constancy, the Pressure aspect of task-oriented leadership (i.e., pressure to work harder) and the Support aspect of socioemotional leadership (i.e., concern for subordinates’ welfare and appreciation of their efforts) will be used to explain the three combinative variables. Furthermore, combinative aspects of leadership style are illustrated using only ‘‘paired’’ combinations of Pressure and Support (i.e., one Pressure statement is paired with one Support statement). Order refers to whether Support follows or precedes Pressure. Hence, there are two types of Order: After and Before. The After type of Order indicates that Support is provided after Pressure, whereas the Before type of Order indicates that Support is provided before Pressure. Examples of the After type of Order are (1) the leader provides Support immediately after Pressure or (2) the leader provides Support 5 min after Pressure. Examples of the Before type of Order are (1) the leader provides Support immediately before Pressure or (2) the leader provides Support 5 min before Pressure. Temporality refers to the temporal spacing of Pressure and Support and distinguishes between paired combinations of Pressure and Support on the basis of the interval (i.e.,

1

The author would like to thank James G. Hunt for coining this term.

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

249

Table 1 Leadership style issues addressed by the combinative variables Order, Temporality, and Constancy Combinative variable

Leadership style issue

Order Temporality Constancy

Is Support provided before or after Pressure? What is the temporal spacing between Pressure and Support? Is more than one type of combination used?

temporal spacing) between the Pressure and the Support. Examples of different temporalities are (1) the leader provides Support immediately after Pressure, (2) the leader provides Support 5 min after Pressure, and (3) the leader provides Support 20 min after Pressure. Constancy refers to whether a leadership style uses only one type of paired combination or more than one type of paired combination. There are two forms of Constancy: Fixed and Variable. A Fixed form of Constancy uses only one type of paired combination (e.g., Support is always provided immediately before Pressure), whereas a variable form of Constancy uses more than one type of paired combination (e.g., Support is sometimes provided immediately before Pressure and other times provided immediately after Pressure). When using Order, Temporality, and Constancy to describe different types of paired combinations of Pressure and Support, Pressure is used as the reference point. Therefore, Support is always described in relation to its positioning to Pressure. The findings from three studies are reported in this article. The first study examined whether combinative aspects of leadership style influenced white-collar employees’ perceptions of combinations of Pressure and Support. The second study involved males and females from different occupational groups (i.e., blue-collar and white-collar) to examine whether the findings of the first study were applicable to the workforce in general. The third study examined whether combinative aspects of leadership style affected perceptions of leadership when another facet of task-oriented leadership (i.e., Instruction) was combined with Support.

2. Study 1: combinative aspects of leadership style and perceptions of leadership statements 2.1. Perceptions of leadership behaviors There is an extensive body of literature that demonstrates the influence of various cognitive structures (e.g., cognitive prototypes, implicit theories of leadership, and selfschemas) on leader behavior descriptions (e.g., Phillips & Lord, 1981; Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977), leader–subordinate relationships (Engle & Lord, 1997), and perceptions of leadership behaviors in both laboratory settings (e.g., Cronshaw & Lord, 1987) and actual organizational settings (Maurer & Lord, 1991). According to Lord, Foti, and Phillips (1982), observers categorize leaders according to their similarity to a relevant leadership prototype and then rely heavily on this categorization, or general leadership impression, when recalling information or making judgements about these leaders.

250

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

People’s reactions to a situation are based on the meaning that they attach to the situation (Rentsch, 1990). This meaning is derived from sense-making structures (e.g., implicit theories, prototypes, schemas, and scripts) that provide both an understanding of the situation and a guide for appropriate behavior (Gioia & Poole, 1984; Lord & Kernan, 1987; Tesser, 1978). Furthermore, sense-making structures such as implicit theories of leadership, in which prototypes are thought to play a central role (Lord et al., 1982), provide a basis for interpreting leadership behavior and generating one’s own behavior (Lord & Maher, 1991). Scripts are also important sense-making structures, in that they can considerably influence perceptions of behaviors. Scripts are cognitive structures that outline a sequence of events constituting a particular activity. For example, the activity of eating at a restaurant involves several events such as choosing a table, reading the menu, ordering meals, eating the meals, and paying the bill (Schank & Abelson, 1977). Scripts serve as interpretive frameworks because they contain not only details of specific events but also the interrelationships among the events (Markus & Zajonc, 1985) and thereby influence attitudes, expectations, judgements, predictions, and preferences (Markus & Zajonc, 1985; Nottenberg & Shoben, 1980). For familiar activities, scripts can be thought of as a type of linear ordering of events with time as the relevant dimension (Nottenberg & Shoben, 1980). For example, a typical script for going to the movies might consist of several events that are temporally ordered: purchase ticket, purchase snacks (e.g., popcorn), find a seat in the theatre, and eat snacks. It seems reasonable to assume that different orderings of constituent events will evoke different judgements of an activity. Furthermore, orderings that are incongruent with one’s script can generally be expected to evoke negative affect (e.g., annoyance and dissatisfaction). For example, eating popcorn in the foyer of the movie theatre after watching the movie would typically be less satisfying than would eating the popcorn during the movie. Asch (1946) demonstrated the importance of order effects by showing that the formation of an overall impression of an individual from a set of descriptors depends on the ordering of the descriptors. Specifically, the early items in an impression formation task tend to contribute more significantly to the total impression than do the later items. For example, a person described as intelligent, impulsive, and envious is seen in a more positive light than is a person described as envious, impulsive, and intelligent. One explanation for this finding is that the first item is regarded as more important simply because it is mentioned first and is thus seen as more significant (Markus & Zajonc, 1985). Alternatively, Asch proposed that the first item sets up a context or direction, which then exerts a continuous effect on subsequent items. That is, the first item leads to the formation of a broad uncrystallized but directed impression (Asch, 1946). The next item is then perceived not as a separate item but with reference to the initial impression. In relation to leadership, the implication is that the perception of a particular leadership behavior can depend on the leadership behavior that immediately precedes or follows it, in that the first behavior can create a context for the perception of the second behavior. Combinative effects also can impact the formation of impressions because combining a particular trait with different traits can alter its meaning (Asch, 1946). For example, the trait ‘‘quick’’ conjures up different impressions when combined with different traits. In the combination {helpful-quick-skilful}, the trait quick conjures up an impression of smooth

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

251

easy-flowing movements. However, in the combination {helpful-quick-clumsy}, the trait quick conjures up an image of bustling jerky movements (Asch, 1946). In relation to leadership, the implication is that the perception of a particular leadership behavior can depend on the other leadership behaviors with which it is combined. For example, under conditions of high consideration, subordinates may perceive Structure as supportive and helpful, whereas under low consideration, the same Structure may be seen as restrictive and threatening (Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, & Stogdill, 1974). It is argued here that an important element of an implicit theory of leadership is the script of how leadership behaviors should be combined, because combining the same leadership behaviors in different ways can evoke different leadership prototypes. For example, a prototypical second-rate leader might provide socioemotional leadership a substantial while after providing task-oriented leadership, whereas a prototypical first-rate leader might provide socioemotional leadership immediately before providing task-oriented leadership. Therefore, different combinations of the same leadership behaviors can convey vastly different meanings to subordinates. Several researchers (e.g., Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hunt, 1991; Peterson, 1985) have regarded subordinates’ perceptions of leadership as important in their own right, because perceptions are what subordinates act on. Furthermore, subordinates’ perceptions of leadership are vital for a complete understanding of the effects that leadership behaviors have on organizational functioning and should not be regarded as an epiphenomenon that interferes with the real concern of measuring the effects of specific leadership behaviors (Peterson, 1985). It seems plausible to assume that leaders differ in how they combine specific leadership behaviors. Therefore, two leaders who are identical in terms of the frequency and intensity of particular leadership behaviors can still have very different leadership styles if they combine the behaviors differently. The position taken here is that a crucial aspect of leadership style is the manner in which leadership behaviors are combined, because it influences subordinates’ perceptions of the behaviors, and is based on two assumptions. First, subordinates neither receive nor perceive leadership behaviors as disconnected separate events but rather as holistic clusters. Second, the patterning of their elements influences the perception of these clusters of leadership behaviors. 2.2. Rationale and hypotheses Although it is well established that the effects of leadership depend on various situational factors, a large quantity of research (see, Filley & House, 1969; Fleishman, 1973; Misumi & Peterson, 1985) indicates that Pressure is likely to have stressful psychological effects (e.g., anxiety, dissatisfaction, and hostility) on subordinates, whereas socioemotional leadership is likely to have positive psychological effects on subordinates. Such effects have been attributed to two different motivational processes: expectancy and arousal. According to Path-Goal theory (House, 1971), the motivational effects of leadership are due to its impact on subordinates’ expectancies that increased effort will lead to improved performance and that improved performance will be instrumental to them obtaining rewards

252

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

and avoiding negative outcomes. In contrast, PM theory (Misumi, 1985; Misumi & Seki, 1971) proposes that the motivational effects of leadership are due to its impact on the arousal levels of subordinates. The rationale presented here for the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style on subordinates is founded on both expectancies and arousal. Furthermore, the effects of subordinates’ expectancies on their perceptions of leadership are linked to cognitive structures such as scripts as well as to probabilities of goal attainment. As mentioned earlier, Pressure is an important component of task-oriented leadership and can evoke adverse psychological reactions (e.g., anxiety and resentment) from subordinates (Misumi, 1985). Thus, there arises a need for socioemotionally oriented leadership to reduce any anxiety or resentment (Hafsi, 1988) or to transform these reactions into constructive arousal (Peterson, Smith, & Tayeb, 1993). Therefore, in terms of its effects on the arousal levels of subordinates, socioemotionally oriented leadership provides a psychological counterbalance to Pressure (Misumi & Peterson, 1985) and can influence subordinates’ perception of Pressure. For instance, in the absence of Support, Pressure might be seen as imposed control, whereas when Support is present, the same Pressure behavior might be seen as helpful planning and expertise (House, 1987) or as warranted urgency. Order, Temporality, and Constancy are regarded as important determinants of Support’s capacity to counter any adverse psychological reactions that Pressure might cause. Thus, Order, Temporality, and Constancy are considered important components of leadership style because they are thought to strongly influence subordinates’ perceptions of leadership behavior and, hence, their responses to leadership. Hypothesis 1: Combinative aspects of leadership style will influence subordinates’ perceptions of Pressure and Support. 2.3. Order effects If subordinates believe that greater effort will improve the likelihood of goal attainment, then they might perceive Pressure as acceptable. However, as mentioned earlier, Pressure generally induces negative emotions in subordinates (e.g., Misumi, 1985; Misumi & Peterson, 1985; Hafsi, 1988). For example, if subordinates perceive Pressure as an appropriate (i.e., justified) negative evaluation of their efforts, then they might experience anxiety, guilt, or shame in response to the perceived disapproval from the leader. Alternatively, if subordinates perceive Pressure as an inappropriate negative evaluation of their efforts, then they might experience resentment towards the leader. Additionally, subordinates might also resent Pressure if they believe that their leader is abusing her/his formal authority in order to address an interpersonal agenda or to unnecessarily make them work harder. Nevertheless, subordinates can react positively (e.g., enthusiasm and admiration) to Pressure if they believe the leader has confidence in their ability to meet the higher expectations (House, 1977) or if, because of daunting circumstances, the Pressure is considered favorably to be beyond what one might reasonably expect from a leader (e.g., heroic or spirited acts of leadership; House, 1977).

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

253

Socioemotional leadership involves behaviors that indicate friendship, mutual trust, respect, and a certain rapport between the leader and the subordinates (Fleishman, 1973). However, subordinates can perceive such leadership negatively. For example, Support that is provided immediately after Pressure can be perceived negatively by subordinates if they believe that the leader is being deceitful and is merely providing Support as an afterthought due to obligation, anxiety, or guilt for delivering a negative psychological stimulus (i.e., Pressure). On the other hand, Support that is provided immediately before Pressure can also be perceived negatively by subordinates as deceitful, in that such Support may appear as an underhanded technique of the leader for countering the psychological negativity of upcoming Pressure, rather than as genuine respect or concern for subordinates. Therefore, it is possible that subordinates can perceive Support negatively when it is provided contiguously with Pressure, regardless of the ordering of Pressure and Support. Despite the risk of providing Pressure and Support contiguously, it is expected that subordinates will prefer a leader who prepares them for the negative psychological effects of Pressure by providing Support immediately before Pressure. This expectation is based on the rationale that Support that is provided immediately before Pressure ‘‘cushions’’ subordinates from the negative psychological effects of Pressure, because such Support appears respectful or nurturing and thus reduces the likelihood that the Pressure will be seen as disapproval or imposed control. In other words, as Asch (1946) might have phrased it, the first leadership behavior (i.e., Support) leads to the formation of a positive impression or context within which the second behavior (i.e., Pressure) is perceived. Hypothesis 2: Subordinates will prefer to receive Support immediately before Pressure rather than immediately after Pressure.

2.4. Temporality effects Pressure exposes the inequality in power between the leader and the subordinates, because subordinates do not have the formal authority to tell their leaders to work harder. Thus, Pressure can be regarded as an application of formal authority and, when provided on its own, can be perceived as autocratic leadership or as imposed control, both of which tend to evoke negative reactions from subordinates. Support that is provided a considerable time after Pressure might be perceived positively by subordinates as genuine concern for their well being or genuine appreciation of their efforts because it is not associated with Pressure. On the other hand, subordinates might perceive Support that is provided a considerable time after Pressure negatively as an afterthought of the leader or as ‘‘too late,’’ because they have already been subjected to the stressful effects of Pressure. Delaying the provision of Support is expected to reduce its capacity to counter the stressful psychological effects of Pressure because the longer the delay, the longer subordinates must endure any stress induced by the Pressure. Therefore, long delays between Pressure and Support are expected to be generally undesirable.

254

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Hypothesis 3: Subordinates will prefer Support to be provided immediately after Pressure rather than after a substantial delay from Pressure. 2.5. Constancy effects An important aspect of leadership style is whether the leader combines Pressure and Support always in the same way or in different ways. A difficulty with examining Constancy effects is that a variable style of leadership consists of at least two different styles of fixed leadership. Specifically, Constancy effects cannot be determined by simply comparing a variable style of leadership to a single fixed style of leadership because Order effects and/or Temporality effects will confound the findings, depending on the constituents of the variable style. Therefore, any examination of Constancy effects should compare a variable style to all of those fixed styles that constitute it. For instance, a variable style that provides Support immediately before Pressure on some occasions and 10 min after Pressure on other occasions cannot be simply compared to a single fixed style, because the variable style consists of two fixed styles that differ in Order and in Temporality. Constancy effects are best distinguished when the constituents of a variable style differ only in Order or only in Temporality, thus allowing Constancy effects to be compared directly with Order effects or with Temporality effects. The following three styles allow Constancy effects to be compared with Order effects: (1) the ‘‘After’’ style is a fixed contiguous style that always provides Support immediately after Pressure; (2) the ‘‘Before’’ style is a fixed contiguous style that always provides Support immediately before Pressure; and (3) the ‘‘Either’’ style is a variable style such that Support is provided either immediately before Pressure or immediately after Pressure. Thus, the Either style is a variable contiguous style that consists of two fixed contiguous styles (i.e., the After and Before styles) that differ only in Order. An analysis of the relative impact of Constancy effects and Order effects on perceptions of leadership can be conducted by comparing the rankings of the After, Before, and Either styles. All six possible rank orderings are useful for such an analysis and the implications derived from them regarding the relative importance of Constancy effects and Order effects are presented in Table 2 and are elaborated on below. Ranking the Either style higher than the After and Before styles (i.e., as with rank orderings 1a and 1b in Table 2) indicates a preference for the variable contiguous leadership style over Table 2 Implications of rank orderings of the After, Before, and Either styles with regard to Constancy effects and Order effects Rank ordering

Implications for effects

(1a) Either, After, Before (1b) Either, Before, After (2a) After, Before, Either (2b) Before, After, Either (3a) After, Either, Before (3b) Before, Either, After

(1) Constancy > Order (variable contiguous preferred over fixed contiguous) (2) Constancy > Order (fixed contiguous preferred over variable contiguous) (3) Order > Constancy

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

255

the two fixed contiguous leadership styles. Conversely, ranking the Either style lower than the After and Before styles (as with rank orderings 2a and 2b in Table 2) indicates a preference for the two fixed contiguous leadership styles over the variable contiguous leadership style. Hence, ranking the variable contiguous style (i.e., the Either style) higher or lower than both of the fixed contiguous styles indicates a greater concern with Constancy than with Order. Ranking the Either style in between the After and Before styles (as with rank orderings 3a and 3b, in Table 2) indicates a greater concern with Order than with Constancy, because a difference in the Order of the highest ranked style results in a greater divergence in ranking than does a difference in the Constancy of the highest ranked style. The two rank orderings {After, Either, Before} and {Before, Either, After} thus indicate a greater concern with Order than with Constancy (i.e., Order > Constancy, as shown in Table 2). As mentioned earlier, the Before style is expected to be the preferred style because it not only psychologically cushions subordinates from the effects of Pressure but also provides a positive context for the Pressure. Given that the Either style consists of the After and Before styles, it is expected that the Either style will be preferred to the After style because it regularly provides Support immediately before Pressure, whereas the After style never provides Support immediately before Pressure. Therefore, of the six possible rank orderings of the After, Before, and Either styles, the rank ordering {Before, Either, After}, which indicates that Order effects are greater than Constancy effects, is expected to occur more frequently than the other five rank orderings. Hypothesis 4: Order effects will be greater than Constancy effects when measured by the rankings of the After, Before, and Either styles.

2.6. Method 2.6.1. Participants Sample 1 consisted of 168 full-time white-collar employees (129 males, 39 females). Ninety of the participants (67 males and 23 females) were full-time white-collar employees of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), who were employed in different units of the Base in areas such as administration, engineering, health, logistics support, and security. The other 78 participants were from several different organizations and were employed in a range of whitecollar occupations such as accounting, administration, customer service, engineering, IT professionals, management, and sales. Participants were recruited by telephoning the General Manager or the Human Resources Manager of an organization, or the Commander of the RAAF Base, and informing them of the study, which was described as an investigation into how subordinates would like their supervisors to speak to them in terms of receiving Pressure and Support. 2.6.2. Materials A one-page questionnaire was developed (see Appendix A). Two examples of Pressure statements and two examples of Support statements were derived from Misumi and

256

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Peterson’s (1985) delineation of typical task-oriented behaviors (i.e., Pressure) and typical socioemotionally oriented behaviors (i.e., Support). Pressure was described as a supervisor urging you to work faster or more efficiently. The examples of Pressure used were:  

Hurry up, you have to work harder. How are you progressing with those tasks? They need to be finished today.

Support was described as a supervisor showing concern for your comfort or appreciation of your efforts. The examples of Support used were:  

It is hot in here and you have been busy today. I appreciate the extra effort you are making.

Different orderings, temporal spacings, and constancy effects of the Pressure statements and the Support statements were presented as four different leadership styles: 1. Always supports immediately after giving pressure (i.e., the After style); 2. Always supports immediately before giving pressure (i.e., the Before style); 3. Sometimes supports immediately before giving pressure and other times supports immediately after giving pressure (i.e., the Either style); and 4. Always supports 30 min after giving pressure (i.e., the Delayed style). The four leadership styles were identified with the letters A, B, C, and D, instead of names, because names can evoke stereotypes. A Latin square design was used to counterbalance any serial order effects; thus, four different versions of the questionnaire were developed. 2.6.3. Procedure Participants were shown the questionnaire and were provided with a detailed explanation of what was required of them. Participation was voluntary with confidentiality and anonymity assured. Participants were asked to rank the four leadership styles and to indicate whether they Liked or Disliked each of the four leadership styles. The questionnaires were completed individually, in pairs, or in small groups, depending on the requirements of the organization. 2.7. Results The overall rankings of the four leadership styles are presented in Table 3. A ranking of 1 indicates the most preferred style and a ranking of 4 indicates the least preferred style. Table 3 shows that combinative aspects of leadership style clearly influenced the rankings of the four leadership styles. The Before style was ranked first far more often than the three other styles. The Delayed style was ranked fourth far more often and ranked first far less often than the three other styles. A Friedman’s Rank Test found a significant

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

257

Table 3 P Overall rankings and ranks for the four leadership styles for combinations of pressure and support in Study 1 (n = 168) Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank P 4 ranks

After

Before

Either

Delayed

Total

43 53 58 14 379

67 41 33 27 356

52 60 35 21 361

6 14 42 106 584

168 168 168 168

difference in the distribution of ranks [c2 = 129.1, df = 3, P =.000]. Furthermore, 80% (i.e., 135/168) of participants ranked the Before style higher than the Delayed style. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported by the rank data, in that subordinates clearly differentiated between leadership styles that differed only in the way in which Pressure statements and Support statements were combined. The Like/Dislike responses to the four leadership styles provide further evidence that combinative aspects of leadership style influenced perceptions of Pressure and Support. Table 4 contains these data and shows that the After, Before, and Either styles were Liked clearly more often than they were Disliked. In contrast, the Delayed style was Liked by only 24% of the participants. Hence, the Like/Dislike data also supported Hypothesis 1. It appears that it is difficult for supervisors to provide subordinates with Pressure in a manner that they will find acceptable. For example, 32% (i.e., 54/168) of the participants Disliked the Before style, which was by far the most preferred style according to the rank data. Furthermore, 29% (i.e., 48/168) of participants Disliked the Either style, which was the least Disliked of the four styles. Examining the number of participants who Disliked at least one of the styles can also assess the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style. A vast majority of participants (i.e., 141 out of 168, or 84%) Disliked at least one of the styles, which once more suggests that combinative aspects of leadership style influenced perceptions of Pressure and Support. 2.7.1. Order effects Rankings of the After and Before styles were compared to examine Order effects because these two styles differed only in the order in which Pressure and Support were provided. Table 4 Frequencies of Like and Dislike responses to the four leadership styles for combinations of Pressure and Support in Study 1 (n = 168) Liked Disliked Total

After

Before

Either

Delayed

100 68 168

114 54 168

120 48 168

41 127 168

258

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Order effects, as measured by rankings, were not significant, in that the number of participants who ranked the Before style higher than the After style was not significantly greater than the number of participants who ranked the After style higher than the Before style (i.e., 96 vs. 72, respectively; c2 = 3.4, df = 1, P > .05]. Hypothesis 2, which stated that subordinates would prefer to receive Support immediately before Pressure rather than immediately after Pressure, was thus not supported by the rank data. Order effects can also be indexed by the number of participants who discriminated between the After and Before styles (i.e., Liked the After style and Disliked the Before style or Liked the Before style and Disliked the After style). Order effects when measured by the Like and Dislike responses were substantial, in that 71 (i.e., 42%) of the participants discriminated between the After and Before styles. Of these 71 participants, 44 reported the Liked Before and Disliked After type of discrimination and 27 reported the Liked After and Disliked Before type of discrimination (c2 = 4.1, df = 1, P = .025). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported by the Like/Dislike data but not by the rank data. 2.7.2. Temporality effects Rankings of the After style and the Delayed style were compared to examine Temporality effects since these two styles differed only in the temporal spacing of Pressure and Support. Temporality effects were significant. Most of the participants (i.e., 150 or 89%) ranked the After style higher than the Delayed style (c2 = 103.7, df = 1, P = .000). Hypothesis 3, which stated that participants would prefer to receive Support immediately after Pressure rather than after a substantial delay from Pressure, was thus supported by the rank data. Another index of Temporality effects is the number of participants who discriminated between the After and Delayed styles (i.e., Liked the After style and Disliked the Delayed style or Liked the Delayed style and Disliked the After style). Almost half of the participants (i.e., 77 or 46%) discriminated between the After style and the Delayed style. Hence, Temporality effects, as measured by Like/Dislike responses, were substantial. Of those participants who discriminated between the After and Delayed styles, significantly more reported the Liked After and Disliked Delayed type of discrimination than the Liked Delayed and Disliked After type (68 vs. 9, respectively; c2 = 45.2, df = 1, P = .000). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was also supported by the Like/Dislike data. 2.7.3. Constancy effects The relative importance of Constancy effects and Order effects can be determined by examining the number of participants associated with each of the six rank orderings outlined in Table 2. Table 5 contains these data, which show that the number of participants who reported ‘‘Constancy > Order’’ was significantly greater than the number of participants who reported ‘‘Order > Constancy’’ (i.e., 104 vs. 64, respectively; c2 = 9.5, df = 1, P = .001). Thus, Hypothesis 4, which stated that Order effects would be greater than Constancy effects, was not supported. In fact, quite the opposite was found, Constancy effects were significantly greater than Order effects. Of those 104 participants who reported ‘‘Constancy > Order,’’ the number who

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

259

Table 5 Frequencies of rank orderings of the After, Before, and Either styles in Study 1 (n = 168) Rank ordering (1a) Either, After, Before (1b) Either, Before, After (2a) After, Before, Either (2b) Before, After, Either (3a) After, Either, Before (3b) Before, Either, After

Implications for effects Constancy > Order (variable > fixed) 28 28 Constancy > Order (fixed > variable) 19 29 Order > Constancy 24 40

preferred the variable form was not significantly greater than the number who preferred the fixed form (i.e., 56 vs. 48, respectively; c2 = 0.6, df = 1, P > .05). 2.8. Discussion The results indicate that combinative aspects of leadership style had a major impact on participants’ perceptions of Pressure and Support. For example, 80% of participants ranked the Before style higher than the Delayed style, and 84% Disliked at least one of the leadership styles. The results also indicate that it is difficult for leaders to provide Pressure in a manner that is acceptable to subordinates. Temporality effects were predominant, in that the Delayed style was ranked fourth by 63% and Disliked by 76% of the participants. Constancy effects were found to be greater than Order effects even though Order effects were significant according to the Like/Dislike data. No clear pattern emerged with regard to Constancy effects in terms of preferences for the variable and fixed contiguous styles. The findings suggest that when combining Pressure and Support leaders should avoid the Delayed style and use the Before style or the Either style. All of the participants in the first study were white-collar employees and predominantly male. Hence, there is a need to examine whether there are gender differences or occupational differences in the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style on subordinates’ perceptions of leadership; the second study addressed this issue.

3. Study 2: the generalizability of combinative aspects of leadership style A simple way that employees in the general workforce can be categorized is through the use of two variables: gender and occupation (i.e., blue-collar and white-collar). This classification leads to four types of employee being distinguished: male blue-collar, female blue-collar, male white-collar, and female white-collar. The generalizability of the importance of combinative aspects of leadership style is examined using these four groups.

260

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

3.1. Gender Markus and Oyserman (1989) suggested that gender schemas might help explain a diversity of studies showing gender differences in cognition, because masculine and feminine selfschemas emphasize different kinds of information, which results in fundamentally different ways of thinking. Individuals with feminine self-schemas might be especially attentive to the relationships between others because key attributes of the feminine schema are understanding, caring, nurturance, responsibility, consideration, and sensitivity; all of these attributes require another person for their expression and suggest that relations with others will be an especially significant component of the feminine self-definition (Cross & Markus, 1993). In contrast, individuals with masculine self-schemas may attend more closely to other kinds of information because key attributes of the masculine schema are independence, assertiveness, instrumentality, and competitiveness; all of these attributes require a separation of the self from others (Cross & Markus, 1993). Hence, the masculine gender schema renders interpersonal information less important because such information is not central to the self (Cross & Markus, 1993). The finding that, under stress, male leaders were more likely to become dictatorial while female leaders were more likely to become conciliatory (Donnell & Hall, 1980) can be explained in terms of gender differences in self-schemas. The goal in social interaction for the masculine self-schema is often competition and respect, whereas the goal is often cooperation and support for the feminine self-schema (Tannen, 1990). There is evidence that supports this line of reasoning. For example, women’s linguistic styles reflect a greater sensitivity and connection to others than do men’s linguistic styles (Tannen, 1990). Furthermore, the speech patterns of women tend to be egalitarian and express support for, or attentiveness to, the speaker, whereas men’s speech patterns tend to be more competitive and forceful (Cross & Markus, 1993). Gender differences in communication style may thus lead to gender differences in the type of speech pattern that subordinates would prefer their leader to use. However, the position taken here is that both male and female subordinates prefer to be psychologically cushioned by Support, but for different reasons. Specifically, Support that is provided immediately before Pressure satisfies the masculine schema’s need for respect and the female schema’s need for nurturance. 3.2. Occupation The literature suggests that differences between blue-collar and white-collar employees can be easily outweighed by the similarities between them. For instance, out of five job characteristics (high income, no danger of being fired, short working hours and lots of free time, chances for advancement, and work importance and feeling of accomplishment), intrinsic rewards were most important to both blue-collar and white-collar employees (Weaver, 1975). Furthermore, data from approximately 1400 full-time employees representing five occupational groups (professional, managerial, clerical, service, and blue-collar) indicated that intrinsic rewards were the most important determinant of satisfaction with all of the occupational groups (Mottaz, 1985). Moreover, Pool (1997) reported that out of several

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

261

predictors (e.g., consideration, initiating structure, work motivation, and substitutes of leadership), work motivation was the only significant predictor of job satisfaction for assembly workers, middle managers, and executives. There is considerable evidence that level of education is a better predictor of work values than is occupation. For instance, The Meaning of Working Project (MOW International Research Team, 1987) found that blue-collar employees and white-collar employees with less education (e.g., production workers, textile workers, sales and service workers, and clerical workers) tend to place importance on the economic and material conditions of work, whereas people with more education (e.g., specialists and administrators) tend to place importance on expressive aspects of working. Furthermore, as organizational level increases, there is a tendency to have high work centrality, define work positively, and place importance on expressive aspects of working (MOW, 1987). Research conducted in Japan by Misumi et al. also indicates that there are minor occupational differences in terms of the effects of leadership. The consistent finding, in a wide range of organizational settings (e.g., coal mines, factories, government offices, and schools), is that leaders who emphasize both the task-oriented function (i.e., Performance) and the socioemotional function (i.e., Maintenance) tend to be the most effective with regard to both objective criteria (e.g., accident rates) and cognitive criteria (e.g., willingness to work; Misumi, 1985; Misumi & Peterson, 1985). Research conducted in the United States indicates that task-oriented and socioemotional leadership are generally positively associated with group productivity, goal attainment, and performance, but there are many exceptions, pointing to the need for a contingent approach (Bass, 1981). The contingencies mentioned by Bass (1981) included personal characteristics of the subordinates and situational contingencies, such as task characteristics. However, occupation was not one of the contingencies. The research conducted in Japan and in the United States, sometimes using very large samples, has not revealed substantial occupational differences in the effects of leadership style on the performance or satisfaction of subordinates. Hence, it is possible that differences between blue-collar and white-collar subordinates in terms of preferred leadership styles are overshadowed by other more salient situational variables, such as the work environment. Thus, it is anticipated that occupational differences in the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style on subordinates’ perceptions of leadership will not be substantial. On the grounds that gender differences and occupational differences are not expected to be substantial, the following predictions are made: Hypothesis 5: All four types of subordinate (i.e., male blue-collar, female blue-collar, male white-collar, and female white-collar) will prefer to receive Support immediately before Pressure rather than immediately after Pressure. Hypothesis 6: All four types of subordinate will prefer to receive Support immediately after Pressure rather than after a substantial delay. Hypothesis 7: For all four types of subordinate, Order will be more important than Constancy, when measured by the rankings of the After, Before, and Either styles.

262

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

It is noteworthy that the last three hypotheses are null hypotheses and that it is not standard practice to propose null hypotheses. One of the reasons for this practice is that it could be argued that the null hypothesis is not possible because there is inevitably an effect, even if it is only infinitesimal. However, in studies that have as their goal the practical application of their results, the main issue is the size of the effect rather than whether there is an effect (Frick, 1995). Hence, the last three hypotheses propose effect sizes that are close-to-zero and which lack practical significance. 3.3. Method 3.3.1. Participants Data were obtained from a sample of 128 full-time employees, which consisted of 32 bluecollar males, 32 blue-collar females, 32 white-collar males, and 32 white-collar females. Participants were obtained from a number of different organizations. The Human Resources Managers or General Managers of the different organizations were contacted via telephone and told of the study, which was described as an investigation into how subordinates would like their supervisors to speak to them in terms of receiving Pressure and Support. The blue-collar participants were employed in organizations such as a large bakery, a chemical factory, a hospital kitchen, and a manufacturing firm. The white-collar participants were employed in areas such as administration, customer service, health services, surveying, and information technology. The mean ages and mean number of years of work experience for the four groups are presented in Table 6. 3.3.2. Materials Two vignettes were developed in order to present the leadership statements to participants in an organizational context. Blue-collar participants were presented with a factory setting (i.e., machine operator) and white-collar participants were presented with an office setting (i.e., clerk). In both vignettes, a high-pressure workplace where subordinates worked in teams was described. Appendix B contains the two vignettes. As with Study 1, Pressure statements and Support statements were derived from Misumi and Peterson’s (1985) delineation of typical task-oriented behaviors (i.e., Pressure) and typical socioemotionally oriented behaviors (i.e., Support). However, different leadership statements were used for blue-collar participants and white-collar participants. As pointed out by Misumi (1985), although certain basic leadership functions such as Pressure, Instruction, and Support can be identified and generalized to many leadership Table 6 Mean (S.D.) age and work experience for the four groups in Study 2 (n = 128) Age (years) Blue-collar White-collar

Work experience (years)

Male

Female

Male

Female

38.0 (12.5) 36.0 (11.1)

40.4 (11.2) 29.2 (7.6)

19.8 (12.9) 17.6 (12.2)

17.3 (11.1) 10.2 (5.5)

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

263

settings in a general morphology of leadership, a specific morphology is necessary because the same leadership function is likely to be performed by the use of different behaviors in different settings. Therefore, the type of language used in one setting (e.g., blue-collar) may be entirely inappropriate in another setting (e.g., white-collar). Furthermore, Hunt (1991) argued that the impact of implicit theories increases with the level of abstraction involved in questionnaire items. Consequently, he recommended the use of relatively specific items for different settings. The Pressure statements for blue-collar participants were:  

There is no time to slow down, you have to keep up with the others. Hurry up, you have to work harder.

The Support statements for blue-collar participants were:  

These are tough working conditions. It is hot in here and you have been busy today.

The Pressure statements for white-collar participants were:  

There are a number of tasks that I want you to complete today. How are you progressing with those tasks? They need to be finished today.

The Support statements for white-collar participants were:  

It has been busy lately and you have been doing a good job. I appreciate the extra effort you are making.

Different orderings, temporal spacings, and constancies of these Pressure statements and Support statements were presented as four different leadership styles. Specifically, as with the first study, the After, Before, Either, and Delayed styles were used. These four leadership styles were presented as supervisors and were identified by letters only (i.e., A, B, C, and D) in order to avoid any effects of stereotypes that can sometimes be associated with names. Furthermore, to counterbalance any effects that might be associated with the letters, each leadership style was presented an equal number of times with each of the four letters. The four leadership styles were presented in a Latin square design to counterbalance any carryover effects; thus, eight different versions of the questionnaire were used: four for blue-collar participants and four for white-collar participants. 3.3.3. Procedure Volunteers were provided with a detailed explanation of what was required of them. Participation was voluntary with confidentiality and anonymity assured. Participants completed the questionnaire either individually, in pairs, or in small groups depending on the requirements of their organization.

264

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

As with the first study, participants ranked the four leadership styles according to their preference and indicated whether they Liked or Disliked each of the four leadership styles. 3.4. Results The overall rankings of the four leadership styles, presented in Table 7, demonstrate that combinative aspects of leadership style influenced participants’ perceptions of the Pressure statements and the Support statements. For instance, 70% (i.e., 90/128) of the participants, including nearly all (i.e., 29/32 or 91%) of the blue-collar males, ranked the Before style higher than the Delayed style. As was found in the first study, the rank data indicate that the Before style was the most popular and the Delayed style was the least popular. Friedman’s Rank Tests revealed that the distribution of ranks for the four leadership styles was significantly different among blue-collar males (c2 = 29.4, df = 3, P = .000), blue-collar females (c2 = 12.0, df = 3, P = .012), white-collar males (c2 = 17.0 df = 3, P = .000) but not among white-collar females (c2 = 3.7, df = 3, P > .05). However, the responses of the whitecollar females were similar to those of the other three groups, in that the Before style was most often ranked first and the Delayed style was most often ranked fourth. Table 8 contains the overall Like/Dislike data and provides additional evidence that combinative aspects of leadership style, particularly Order and Temporality, influenced participants’ perceptions of Pressure and Support. Table 8 shows that the After, Before, and Either styles were all Liked clearly more often than they were Disliked, whereas the Delayed style was Disliked equally as often as it was Liked. It is noteworthy that the vast majority (i.e., 81% or 104/128) of participants Disliked at least one of the styles. Furthermore, this high rate of discrimination was almost identical in all four of the groups. 3.4.1. Order effects The majority (i.e., 92/128 or 72%) of participants ranked the Before style higher than the After style (c2 = 24.5, df = 1, P = .000). Order effects were thus substantial overall according to the rank data. However, white-collar females were equally divided with regard to their rankings of the Before and After styles and were the only group not to report significant

Table 7 P Overall rankings and ranks for the four leadership styles for combinations of Pressure and Support in Study 2 (n = 128) Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank P 4 ranks

After

Before

Either

Delayed

Total

14 32 45 37 361

66 22 21 19 249

25 56 36 11 280

23 18 26 61 380

128 128 128 128

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

265

Table 8 Frequencies of Like and Dislike responses to the four leadership styles for combinations of Pressure and Support in Study 2 (n = 128) Liked Disliked Total

After

Before

Either

Delayed

80 48 128

100 28 128

95 33 128

63 65 128

Order effects. Hypothesis 5 was thus supported by the rank data from all of the groups except white-collar females. Order effects were substantial, in that a sizeable proportion of participants (i.e., 52/128 or 41%) discriminated between the After and Before styles. Of these 52 participants, a significant majority (i.e., 35/52 or 67%) reported the Liked Before and Disliked After type of discrimination (c2 = 5.5, df = 1, P = .011). Of the four groups, only blue-collar males reported the Liked Before and Disliked After type of discrimination significantly more often than the Liked After and Disliked Before type (9 vs. 2 respectively; c2 = 4.5, df = 1, P = .02). Hypothesis 5 was thus supported by the Like/Dislike data from blue-collar males only. 3.4.2. Temporality effects Three of the groups tended to rank the After style higher than the Delayed style. The exception was white-collar females, who were equally divided between the two styles. However, the After style was ranked higher than the Delayed style significantly more often only by the blue-collar males (i.e., 22/32 or 69%; c2 = 4.5, df = 1, P = .02). Hence, according to the rank data, Hypothesis 6 was only supported by the data from the bluecollar participants. Temporality effects were nevertheless still substantial overall, in that half of the participants (i.e., 63/124 or 51%) discriminated between the After and Delayed styles. Blue-collar females were the only group in which the discrimination rate between the After and Delayed styles was less than 50% (i.e., 11/32 or 34%). Most of the males — blue-collar males (i.e., 13/ 18 or 72%) and white-collar males (i.e., 12/17 or 71%) — who discriminated between the After and Delayed styles reported the Liked After and Disliked Delayed type of discrimination (c2 = 6.4, df = 1, P = .007). However, both groups of female participants tended to be equally divided between the two types of discrimination between the After and Delayed styles. Therefore, only the males, according to the Like/Dislike data, supported Hypothesis 6. 3.4.3. Constancy effects The number of participants who reported ‘‘Constancy > Order’’ was overall not significantly greater than the number of participants who reported ‘‘Order > Constancy’’ (i.e., 68 vs. 60, respectively; c2 = 0.5, df = 1, P >.05). Furthermore, of those 68 participants who reported ‘‘Constancy > Order,’’ the number who preferred the variable form was not significantly greater than the number who preferred a fixed form (i.e., 37 vs. 31, respectively; c2 = 0.5, df = 1, P > .05). No significant differences were found between Constancy effects and Order effects in any of the groups. Therefore, Hypothesis 7 was not supported.

266

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Although Hypothesis 7 was not supported in any of the groups, there are some findings that suggest differences between the groups in terms of Constancy effects and Order effects. For example: (1) Almost half of the blue-collar males (i.e., 15/32 or 47%) and the white-collar males (i.e., 14/32 or 44%) reported the rank ordering {Before, Either, After}; and (2) Almost half of the blue-collar females (i.e., 15/32 or 47%) ranked the Either style higher than the After and Before styles. 3.5. Discussion The results from Study 2 show that combinative aspects of leadership style influenced participants’ perceptions of the Pressure statements and the Support statements. For example, 70% of the participants, including nearly all of the blue-collar males, ranked the Before style higher than the Delayed style, and 81% of the participants Disliked at least one of the styles. However, support for the hypotheses regarding the generalizability of the findings received only mixed support. Nevertheless, it is notable that in all four groups, the Before style was most often ranked first and the Delayed style most often ranked fourth. Order effects, according to the rank data, were significant among all of the groups except white-collar females. According to the Like/Dislike data, Order effects were significant among the blue-collar males only. Temporality effects, according to the rank data, were significant only among the blue-collar participants. However, with the exception of the whitecollar females (who were equally divided between the After and Delayed styles), the findings were in the hypothesized direction. According to the Like/Dislike data, Temporality effects were significant only among males. Constancy effects and Order effects were found to be equally important overall. There were some indications of group differences in Constancy effects and Order effects. For example, the blue-collar females were different from the three other groups, in that nearly half of them preferred the variable contiguous style (i.e., Either) to the two fixed contiguous styles (i.e., After and Before). An underlying assumption throughout this article, which is based on the extensive work of Misumi et al., is that of all the different facets of task-oriented leadership, Pressure is generally the one that is most likely to evoke negative psychological reactions from subordinates. However, other facets of task-oriented leadership, such as Instruction (i.e., instructions and orders), are also capable of inducing stress in subordinates and thus also need to be combined with Support. The purpose of Study 3 is to examine the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style on combinations of Instruction and Support.

4. Study 3: combining instruction and support The two studies conducted so far have demonstrated the importance of combinative aspects of leadership style with regard only to Pressure and Support. However, as indicated earlier, task-oriented leadership is multifaceted and involves much more than Pressure. Komaki et al. have shown that providing subordinates with performance antecedents (i.e., specific instructions, directions, and orders) constitutes a considerable proportion of

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

267

day-to-day leadership behaviors, especially at a supervisory level. Study 3 examines the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style with regard to Instruction (i.e., providing specific instructions, directions, and orders) and Support. There is evidence that leaders who behave in a manner that is regarded as appropriate by subordinates receive higher ratings on competence and affect than do leaders regarded as behaving inappropriately (Giannantonio, Olian, & Carroll, 1995). However, the view taken here is that although Instruction is capable of evoking a wide range of psychological reactions from subordinates, it will tend to evoke negative reactions from subordinates regardless of whether they perceive it as appropriate or not. Thus, socioemotional leadership is needed to counterbalance (Misumi & Peterson, 1985) or reduce any anxiety or resentment (Hafsi, 1988) caused by Instruction or to transform them into constructive arousal (Peterson et al., 1993). Subordinates can react negatively (e.g., anxiety, guilt, and embarrassment) to appropriate Instruction if they feel that they should have solved the work-related problem themselves or completed the task without Instruction from their leader. Alternatively, subordinates can react positively (e.g., relief and enthusiasm) to appropriate Instruction, or at least accept it as necessary and thus nonthreatening, if they perceive it as either an immediate source of satisfaction or as instrumental to future satisfaction (House & Mitchell, 1974). For example, under conditions of high ambiguity, where roles are not clearly defined, Instruction could help role clarification and thus would lead to subordinate satisfaction (Sims & Szilagyi, 1975). Subordinates might also respond favorably to or at least tolerate appropriate Instruction if they believe it facilitates the completion of important tasks, possibly even if the tasks are unpleasant. Subordinates who perceive Instruction as inappropriate because they regard it as superfluous or unacceptable probably will resent their leader. Specifically, subordinates might perceive Instruction as superfluous and thus resent the leader if they believe the leader is underestimating their capabilities or displaying her/his superior knowledge or formal power in order to address an interpersonal agenda. Similarly, subordinates might perceive Instruction as unacceptable and thus resent the leader if they believe the leader is ordering them unnecessarily to perform unimportant or unpleasant tasks. That is, such Instruction could be perceived as unwarranted tight control and thus would lead to subordinate dissatisfaction (Sims & Szilagyi, 1975). Although here it is assumed that Pressure is more likely than Instruction to induce negative affect in subordinates, the negative psychological effects of Instruction still need to be counteracted with Support. For the same reasons as those mentioned concerning Pressure, it is expected that subordinates will prefer to be psychologically cushioned from any negative effects that Instruction might evoke and that delaying the provision of Support diminishes its capacity to counter the negative effects of Instruction. That is, providing Support immediately before Instruction appears respectful or considerate and thus increases the likelihood that subordinates will accept the Instruction. Study 2 showed that the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style on Pressure and Support were generalizable to some extent, in that the Before style was ranked first most often and the Delayed style was ranked fourth most often by all four groups. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed regarding combinations of Instruction and Support.

268

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Hypothesis 8: All four types of subordinate (i.e., male blue-collar, female blue-collar, male white-collar, and female white-collar) will prefer to receive Support immediately before Instruction rather than immediately after Instruction. Hypothesis 9: All four types of subordinate will prefer to receive Support immediately after Instruction rather than after a substantial delay. Hypothesis 10: For all four types of subordinate, Order will be more important than Constancy when measured by the rankings of the After, Before, and Either styles.

4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants Data were obtained from a sample of 128 full-time employees, which consisted of 32 bluecollar males, 32 blue-collar females, 32 white-collar males, and 32 white-collar females. Participants were obtained from a number of different organizations. The Human Resources Manager or General Manager of the different organizations was contacted via telephone and told of the study, which was described as being an investigation into how subordinates would like their supervisors to speak to them in terms of receiving Instruction and Support. The blue-collar participants were employed in areas such as construction, engineering, food preparation, and manufacturing. The white-collar participants were employed in areas such as accounting, administration, customer service, engineering, and management. Table 9 contains the mean ages and mean years of work experience for the four groups. 4.1.2. Materials The two work-situation vignettes that were used in Study 2 also were used in this study. On the grounds that the same leadership function can be performed via different leadership behaviors in different settings (Misumi, 1985), different Instruction statements and Support statements were used for blue-collar participants and white-collar participants. The Instruction statements for blue-collar participants were:  

You will have to fix the machine. Turn it off, clean the area behind the machine then restart it. Check the safety guards on the machine and change the output setting to medium.

Table 9 Mean (S.D.) age and work experience for the four groups in Study 3 (n = 128) Age (years) Blue-collar White-collar

Work experience (years)

Male

Female

Male

Female

30.9 (9.3) 36.2 (9.0)

38.4 (11.1) 37.5 (10.4)

14.7 (10.1) 17.3 (10.7)

17.0 (9.0) 16.3 (9.0)

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

269

The Support statements for blue-collar participants were:  

I know that you would like to slow down, as these are tough working conditions. It has been busy this morning and you have worked hard. Is everyone feeling OK?

The Instruction statements for white-collar participants were:  

I want you to reorganize the filing system. Put the files in alphabetical order and enter their details into the computer. I want you to photocopy the cover page of each file and put them in a folder for me.

The Support statements for white-collar participants were:  

I know that filing is boring and time-consuming, but we need to have the files properly organized. It has been a busy morning and I appreciate your effort.

Different orderings, temporal spacings, and constancies of these Instruction statements and Support statements were presented as four different leadership styles. As with Studies 1 and 2, the After, Before, Either, and Delayed styles were used. The same Latin square design as that of Study 2 was used. 4.1.3. Procedure The procedure used was identical to those used in Studies 1 and 2. 4.2. Results The overall rankings of the four leadership styles, which are presented in Table 10, clearly demonstrate the importance of combinative aspects of leadership style with regard to Instruction and Support. As was found in the two studies with Pressure, the rank data indicate that the Before style was the most popular and the Delayed style was the least popular. Furthermore, 61% (i.e., 78/ 128) of the participants ranked the Before style higher than the Delayed style.

Table 10 P Overall rankings and ranks for the four leadership styles for combinations of Instruction and Support Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank P 4 ranks

After

Before

Either

Delayed

Total

19 36 46 27 337

51 27 18 32 287

29 42 45 12 296

29 23 19 57 360

128 128 128 128

270

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Friedman’s Rank Tests revealed that the distribution of ranks for the four leadership styles was significantly different among blue-collar females (c2 = 12.1, df = 3, P = .003) and whitecollar females (c2 = 12.4, df = 3, P = .003) but not among blue-collar males (c2 = 5.9, df = 3, P > .05) and white-collar males (c2 = 0.9 df = 3, P > .05). The nonsignificant distribution of ranks among the two male groups was due to a bipolar response pattern to the Delayed style. Specifically, three-quarters (i.e., 73% or 47/64) of the males ranked the Delayed style first or fourth. More specifically, 31% (i.e., 20/64) of the males ranked the Delayed style first, whereas 42% (i.e., 27/64) of the males ranked it fourth. The generalizability of the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style with regard to Instruction and Support is thus questionable. However, according to the rank data, the four groups were similar in their perceptions of the leadership styles in several respects. Specifically, in all of the groups, (1) the Before style was the style that was most often ranked first, (2) the Either style was the style that was least often ranked fourth, and (3) the Delayed style was the style that was most often ranked fourth. Almost two-thirds of the participants (i.e., 62% or 79/128) Disliked at least one of the styles, thus providing further evidence of the importance of combinative aspects of leadership style with regard to Instruction and Support. Furthermore, this rate of discrimination was consistent across the four groups. It appears that it is also difficult to provide subordinates with Instruction in a manner that they will find acceptable. For instance, the Before style, which was the style that was ranked first most often, was Disliked by 23% (i.e., 29/128) of the participants, whereas 16% (1.e., 20/128) of participants Disliked the Either style, which was the least Disliked style. Table 11 contains the overall Like/Dislike data and shows that all of the styles were Liked more often than they were Disliked. However, of the four styles, the Delayed style was the least popular. The data in Table 11 suggest that combinative aspects of leadership style, particularly Temporality, influenced participants’ perceptions of Instruction and Support. 4.2.1. Order effects The majority (i.e., 82/128 or 64%) of participants ranked the Before style higher than the After style (c2 = 10.1, df = 1, P = .001). Order effects were thus substantial overall according to the rank data. However, although the majority of each group ranked the Before style higher than the After style, the only group to report significant Order effects was the blue-collar females. Hence, Hypothesis 8 was supported by the rank data from blue-collar females only. The Like/Dislike data showed that Order effects were not as great as those found with Pressure, in that only 36 (i.e., 28%) of the participants discriminated between the After and Table 11 Frequencies of Like and Dislike responses to the four leadership styles for combinations of Instruction and Support Liked Disliked Total

After

Before

Either

Delayed

98 30 128

99 29 128

108 20 128

82 46 128

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

271

Before styles. The four groups had approximately equal numbers of participants who discriminated between the After and Before styles. Furthermore, these participants were divided equally between the two types of discrimination. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was not supported by the Like/Dislike data. 4.2.2. Temporality effects A nonsignificant majority (i.e., 75/128 or 59%) of participants ranked the After style higher than the Delayed style (c2 = 3.8, df = 1, P > .05). Therefore, Temporality effects were overall not significant according to the rank data. However, a significant majority (i.e., 23/32 or 72%) of white-collar females ranked the After style higher than the Delayed style (c2 = 6.1, df = 1, P = .008). Furthermore, white-collar males and blue-collar females reported a slight preference for the After style over the Delayed style, whereas blue-collar males were equally divided between the After and Delayed styles. Hypothesis 9 was not supported by the rank data, except among white-collar females. Almost half of the participants (i.e., 59/128 or 46%) discriminated between the After and the Delayed styles; thus, Temporality effects, when indexed by the Like/Dislike data, were overall quite substantial and most prevalent among white-collar males (i.e., 20/32 or 63%) and least prevalent among blue-collar males (i.e., 9/32 or 28%). On the whole, the Liked After and Disliked Delayed type of discrimination occurred significantly more often than the Liked Delayed and Disliked After type (i.e., 38 vs. 21, respectively; c2 = 4.9, df = 1, P = .016). Despite the finding that the majority of participants in all four of the groups reported the Liked After and Disliked Delayed type of discrimination, none of the groups had a significant majority. As a result, Hypothesis 9 was not supported by the Like/Dislike data. 4.2.3. Constancy effects The number of participants who reported ‘‘Constancy > Order’’ was not significantly greater than the number of participants who reported ‘‘Order > Constancy’’ (i.e., 73 vs. 55, respectively; c2 = 2.5, df = 1, P > .05). The four groups were similar in terms of Constancy effects and Order effects. Of those 73 participants who reported ‘‘Constancy > Order,’’ the number who preferred the variable form was not significantly greater than the number who preferred a fixed form (i.e., 41 vs. 32, respectively; c2 = 1.1, df = 1, P > .05). Thus, Constancy effects and Order effects were of relatively equal importance to all four groups of participants. Therefore, Hypothesis 10 was not supported. 4.3. Discussion The results from Study 3 indicate that combinative aspects of leadership style affected participants’ perceptions of Instruction and Support. For example, a significant majority (i.e., 61%) of participants ranked the Before style higher than the After style, and 62% (i.e., 79/128) of participants Disliked at least one of the styles. Additionally, Order effects and Temporality effects were significant overall. Furthermore, as with Studies 1 and 2, the Before style was the style that was most often ranked first and the Delayed style was the style that was most often ranked fourth.

272

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Although the four groups were somewhat similar in their responses to the four leadership styles, the hypotheses were mostly not supported within the four groups. There are indications that the lack of support for the hypotheses was partly due to the small sample sizes. For example, although the majority of each group ranked the Before style higher than the After style, which yielded significant Order effects for the whole sample, only the whitecollar females had a significant majority. Similarly, although the majority of each group reported the Liked After and Disliked Delayed type of discrimination, which yielded significant Temporality effects overall, none of the groups had a significant majority. Larger samples might be required to yield significant differences within the four groups, because Instruction effects appear to be less powerful than Pressure effects. Although the responses of the four groups were generally similar, there were some differences between males and females, which suggest that leaders might need to consider the gender of the subordinate when combining Instruction and Support. For instance, the Delayed style was ranked first by 14% (i.e., 9/64) and fourth by 47% (i.e., 30/64) of females. In contrast, the Delayed style was ranked first by 31% (i.e., 20/64) and fourth by 42% (i.e., 27/64) of males. Further work is needed to investigate the bipolar response by males to the Delayed style.

5. General discussion and conclusions The results from the three studies indicate that the manner in which leadership statements are combined strongly influences perceptions of the statements. The dominant and recurrent finding was that the Before style was ranked first more often than the three other styles, whereas the Delayed style was by far the least popular of the four styles. These findings suggest that subordinates (1) prefer their leader to psychologically cushion them with Support immediately before providing them with Pressure or Instruction and (2) dislike receiving Pressure or Instruction on its own. One of the deficiencies of rank data is that they do not indicate the size of an effect. Thus, participants may rank one style higher than another style yet still regard both styles as acceptable. Alternatively, participants may rank one style higher than another style but only regard the higher ranked style as acceptable. The Like/Dislike data are thus a useful measure of effect size, in that they provide more detailed information regarding participants’ attitudes toward the different leadership styles. According to the Like/Dislike data, perceptions of leadership statements are substantially influenced by the manner in which they are combined. The Like/Dislike data also revealed that subordinates have difficulty in accepting Pressure or Instruction, even when Support is provided immediately before the Pressure or Instruction. For example, although the Before style was ranked first far more often than the other styles in all three of the studies, it was Disliked by 32% of the participants in Study 1, 22% in Study 2, and 23% in Study 3. The results from Studies 2 and 3 indicate that the effects of Pressure on subordinates appear to be greater than those of Instruction. For instance, (1) differences in the overall

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

273

distribution of ranks for the four leadership styles were more pronounced with Pressure than with Instruction; (2) there were more Dislikes reported with Pressure than with Instruction (34% and 24%, respectively); and (3) more participants discriminated between the four leadership styles with Pressure than with Instruction (i.e., 81% and 62%, respectively). Further evidence that Instruction effects were less powerful than Pressure effects is provided by the Like/Dislike data from Studies 2 and 3 concerning the Delayed style. Specifically, the Delayed style was noticeably less popular with Pressure than with Instruction. Thus, providing Support contiguously appears to be more crucial with Pressure than with Instruction. Nevertheless, the findings with regard to Instruction in Study 3 were similar to those obtained with regard to Pressure in Studies 1 and 2. That is, leaders should use the Before style or the Either style and generally avoid using the Delayed style. In Hypotheses 5–10, it was proposed that the effects of gender and occupation would be negligible. Although proposing null hypotheses is contentious and not usual research practice, Hypotheses 5–10 are useful propositions, in that they suggest that leaders need not be overly concerned with the gender or occupation of subordinates when combining Pressure/Instruction and Support. However, none of these hypotheses were fully supported by the findings from Studies 2 and 3, even though relatively small samples were used. Therefore, there is now evidence that gender and occupation might need to be taken into account when combining Pressure/Instruction and Support. In both Studies 2 and 3, some interesting differences were found between the four groups, which suggest further work is needed to more closely examine the effects of occupation and particularly gender on subordinates’ reactions to combinative aspects of leadership style. For example, with regard to Pressure in Study 2, the difference in the distribution of ranks for the four leadership styles was highly significant for males but not for females. In contrast, with regard to Instruction in Study 3, the difference in the distribution of ranks for the four leadership styles was highly significant for females but not for males. It is important to note that many c2 tests were conducted in the three studies. The likelihood of Type 1 errors (i.e., rejecting a true null hypothesis) increases as the number of analyses increases. Therefore, it can be argued that some of the significant findings are spurious because the P-values are close to .05. Nevertheless, with all three studies, there can be little doubt that combinative aspects of leadership style influenced participants’ perceptions of leadership statements because of the size of these effects (e.g., P =.000 in several instances). Furthermore, the use of two dependent variables (i.e., rankings and Like/Dislike data) helped to authenticate the major findings because the results from all three studies revealed a similar pattern of effects. For instance, the Before style was mostly ranked first or second and Liked, whereas the Delayed style was mostly ranked fourth and Disliked. A limitation of the three studies is that they only considered paired combinations of taskoriented leadership and socioemotionally oriented leadership. Future research needs to explore different combinations of Pressure/Instruction and Support to determine how Pressure and Instruction can be made more acceptable to subordinates. Thus, providing Support both immediately before and immediately after Pressure/Instruction (i.e., sandwiching Pressure/ Instruction between instances of Support) might render the Pressure/Instruction more acceptable to subordinates.

274

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Another limitation of the three studies is that they relied exclusively on vignettes and thus lack the credibility of field-based research. However, vignettes have been used before in leadership research, although generally not to the extent that they were used in this study. For instance, perceptions of leadership (Phillips & Lord, 1981) and the effects of implicit theories of leadership (e.g., Larson, 1982; Rush et al., 1977) and of temporal delays (e.g., Rush, Phillips, & Lord, 1981) on leader ratings have all been examined through the use of vignettes. Campbell (1977) was critical of leadership research that used scenarios of hypothetical situations for fear that the findings from such studies are limited to ‘‘paper people.’’ However, scenarios do have a place in the progression of research on a particular question (Campbell, 1977). In the case of combinative aspects of leadership style, scenarios are a starting point. The next step is to examine the effects of combinative aspects of leadership style on subordinates using experimental designs that can tap into actual leader–subordinate relationships. Such research is underway. Despite the relatively recent shift in focus among leadership researchers and practitioners from the two-factor theories of leadership to transactional/transformational theories of leadership, leadership behavior continues to be regarded as multifaceted. For instance, according to Bass (1985), transactional leadership consists of two factors — managing by exception and providing contingent rewards, whereas transformational leadership consists of three factors: charisma, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Consequently, combinative aspects of leadership style are seen as relevant to two-factor leadership theories and to transactional-transformational leadership theories. In terms of what behavioral advice can be offered to supervisors, the findings of the three studies suggest that leaders should generally provide Support contiguously with Pressure or Instruction. More specifically, when combining Pressure and Support, leaders should use the Before style. However, when combining Instruction and Support, leaders should use the Before style or the Either style. Furthermore, leaders should generally avoid providing Pressure or Instruction on its own. This advice is readily transferable to applied settings, in that it can be learned and implemented by all leaders, regardless of their educational backgrounds, without the need for expensive and time-consuming training sessions.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank James G. Hunt, Robert J. House, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Appendix A. Gender: _____ Occupation: _____________ How would you like your supervisor to combine ‘‘Pressure’’ and ‘‘Support’’? ‘‘Pressure’’ refers to a supervisor urging you to work faster or more efficiently.

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

275

For example: (1) Hurry up, you have to work harder and (2) How are you progressing with those tasks? They need to be finished today. ‘‘Support’’ refers to a supervisor showing concern for your comfort or appreciation of your efforts. For example: (1) It is hot in here and you have been busy today and (2) I appreciate the extra effort you are making. Rank the following four styles according to how you would like your supervisor to speak to you. (1 = favourite, 2 = second favourite, 3 = third favourite, and 4 = least favourite) For every style, Circle whether you Like or Dislike it. Ranking Do you like this style? (Circle answer) __ Yes/No

Style A: Always supports immediately after giving pressure. Style B: Sometimes supports __ immediately before giving pressure and other times supports immediately after pressure. Style C: Always supports 30 min __ after giving pressure. Style D: Always supports immediately __ before giving pressure.

Yes/No

Yes/No Yes/No

Appendix B. Blue-collar workplace vignette High Pressure/Team Imagine that you are a Machine Operator who has a high-pressure job in a team. Three-member teams who have a machine each operate the machines. There are four machines. These machines produce in batches. Every team member must complete his/her task before the machine can process a batch. The working conditions are uncomfortable due to the heat and noise from the machines. All of the operators are expected to work hard throughout the shift and are discouraged from talking to each other during the shift. Machine operators are paid a bonus based on their team’s performance in addition to a standard wage. The Shift Supervisor is male. He is responsible for the four teams and gives each operator various jobs to do. His main role is to coordinate the activities of the four teams and make sure that all of the operators work hard. The job is physically demanding for the machine operators but not for the Shift Supervisor. In this factory, there is a lot of pressure from Management so the Shift Supervisor frequently pressures the operators to work harder.

276

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

White-collar workplace vignette High Pressure/Team Imagine that you are a Clerk who has a high-pressure job in a team. You are in a three-member team. There are four of these teams in the office. Each team has its own projects so there is little interaction between the teams. The teams work on projects such as producing reports for management on various issues that affect the firm. All of the clerks must meet their deadlines if their team is to complete its projects on time. All of the clerks are expected to work hard throughout the day and are discouraged from talking to each other during work. Each clerk receives a bonus based on his/her team’s performance in addition to a standard salary. The Project Supervisor is male. He is responsible for the four teams and gives each clerk a set of tasks to perform. His main role is to coordinate the activities of the teams and make sure that all of the clerks work hard. The job is demanding for the clerks but not for the Project Supervisor. In this office, there is a lot of pressure from Management so the Project Supervisor frequently pressures the clerks to work harder.

References Asch, S. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 41, 258 – 290. Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: a method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bass, B. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: a survey of theory and research. Revised and expanded edition. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Campbell, J. P. (1977). The cutting edge of leadership: an overview. In: J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: the cutting edge ( pp. 221 – 234). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Leadership and performance of group functions: introduction. In: D. Cartwright, & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 301 – 317). New York: Harper and Row. Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 (1), 97 – 106. Cross, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (1993). Gender in thought, belief, and action: a cognitive approach. In: A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender ( pp. 55 – 98). New York: Guildford Press. Donnell, S. M., & Hall, J. (1980). Men and women as managers: a significant case of no significant difference. Organizational Dynamics, 8, 60 – 77. Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader – member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4), 988 – 1010. Filley, A. C., & House, R. J. (1969). Managerial process and organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Co. Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and initiating structure. In: E. A. Fleishman, & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership ( pp. 1 – 37). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. Frick, R. W. (1995). Accepting the null hypothesis. Memory and Cognition, 23, 132 – 138.

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

277

Fulk, J., & Wendler, R. (1982). Dimensionality of leader – subordinate interactions: a path-goal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 241 – 264. Giannantonio, C. M., Olian, J. D., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). An experimental study of gender and situational effects in a performance evaluation of a manager. Psychological Reports, 76 (3), 1004 – 1006. Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 9, 449 – 459. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (3), 259 – 286. Hafsi, M. (1988). A psychoanalytical approach to Performance-Maintenance (PM) leadership theory. Psychologia, 31, 72 – 83. Halpin, A. W. (1955). The leadership ideology of aircraft commanders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39 (2), 82 – 84. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321 – 338. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In: J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: the cutting edge ( pp. 189 – 207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. House, R. J. (1987). The ‘all things in moderation leader’. Academy of Management Review, 12, 164 – 169. House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary, 81 – 97 (Autumn). Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: a new synthesis. London: Sage. Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 62 – 82. Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: an operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (2), 270 – 279. Komaki, J. L., Zlotnick, S., & Jensen, M. (1986). Development of an operant-based taxonomy and observational index of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (2), 260 – 269. Larson, J. R. Jr. (1982). Cognitive mechanisms mediating the impact of implicit theories of leader behavior on leader behavior ratings. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 129 – 140. Larson, L. L., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1976). The great hi-hi leader behavior myth: a lesson from Occam’s Razor. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 628 – 641. Lord, R., & Kernan, M. (1987). Scripts as determinants of purposeful behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 12, 265 – 277. Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In: J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: beyond establishment views ( pp. 104 – 121). Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: linking perceptions and performance. New York: Routledge. Markus, H., & Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: the role of the self concept. In: M. Crawford, & M. Hamilton (Eds.), Gender and thought ( pp. 100 – 127). New York: Springer-Verlag. Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In: G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, (vol. 1, pp. 137 – 231). (2nd ed.) New York: Random House. Maurer, T. J., & Lord, R. G. (1991). An exploration of cognitive demands in group interaction as a moderator of information processing variables in perceptions of leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 821 – 839. Misumi, J. (1985). The behavioral science of leadership: an interdisciplinary Japanese research program. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. (1985). The Performance-Maintenance (PM) theory of leadership: review of a Japanese research program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 198 – 223. Misumi, J., & Seki, F. (1971). Effects of achievement motivation on the effectiveness of leadership patterns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 51 – 59.

278

G. Casimir / The Leadership Quarterly 12 (2001) 245–278

Mottaz, C. L. (1985). The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinants of work satisfaction. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 365 – 385. MOW International Research Team. (1987). The meaning of working. London: Academic Press. Nottenberg, G., & Shoben, E. J. (1980). Scripts as linear orders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 329 – 347. Nystrom, P. C. (1978). Managers and the hi-hi leader myth. Academy of Management Journal, 21 (2), 325 – 331. Peterson, M., Smith, P., & Tayeb, M. (1993). Development and use of English versions of Japanese PM leadership measures in electronic plants. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 251 – 267. Peterson, M. F. (1985). Experienced acceptability: measuring perceptions of dysfunctional leadership. Group and Organization Studies, 10 (4), 447 – 477. Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1981). Causal attributions and perceptions of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 143 – 163. Pool, S. W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes for leadership, leadership behavior, and work motivation. Journal of Psychology, 131, 271 – 283. Rentsch, J. R. (1990). Climate and culture: interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (6), 668 – 681. Rush, M. C., Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1981). Effects of a temporal delay in rating on leader behavior descriptions: a laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 (4), 442 – 450. Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: a potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 93 – 110. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schriesheim, C. A. (1982). The great high consideration-high initiating structure leadership myth: evidence on its generalizability. The Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 221 – 228. Sims, H. P. Jr., & Szilagyi, A. D. (1975). Leader structure and subordinate satisfaction for two hospital administrative levels: a path analysis approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60 (1), 194 – 197. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow. Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (vol. 11, pp. 289 – 338). New York: Academic Press. Weaver, C. N. (1975). Job preferences of white-collar and blue-collar workers. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 167 – 175.