PERSONNEL PSYCHOIJOOY

199a 43

A TEST OF THE SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORYWARREN BLANK Tbe Leadership Group Maharishi International University JOHN R. WEITZEL Syracuse University STEPHEN G. GREEN Purdue University

Hersey and Blanchard's sittiational leadership theory (1982) is widely known and tised, but has limited, mixed empirical validation. This study examines the underlying assumptions regarding the theory's prescriptions that subordinate maturity moderates the relationship of leader task and relationship behaviors with indicants of leader eifectiveness. Results of this analysis do not support these asstmiptions. An examination of the more complex predictions of the theory also show little support for it. Findings are discussed in terms of future research and theory development.

In their situational leadership theory (SLT), Hersey and Blanchard (1969,1982) argue that a leader's task behavior and relationship behavior interact with subordinate maturity to significantly influence leader effectiveness. SLT is one of a class of situational approaches to leadership. For example, Fiedler (1964,1%7) suggests three situational factors (leader-member relations, position power, and task structure) moderate the relationship between leader traits and leader effectiveness. Path-goal theory (House, 1971) proposes that task and subordinate characteristics moderate the impact of four types of leader behavior (supportive, directive, participative, and achievement oriented) on subordinate effort and satisfaction. SLT focuses on only one situational variable (subordinate maturity) as a moderator of two leader behaviors (task and relationship) and leader effectiveness. SLT is intuitively appealing (Yukl, 1981) and popular with practicing managers. Various training publications prominently advertise SLT materials, and managers attend literally thousands of SLT programs each year. Situational leadership theory has also been cited in the academic literature as an important situational approach to leadership effectiveness (Yukl, 1981).Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Warren Blank. Ph.D., The Leadership Group, 3463 State Street, Suite 157, Santa Barbara, CA 93105.

COPYRIGHT 1990 PERSONNEL PSYtWOLOCW. INC

579

580

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Yet the theory proposes complex relationships between variables and contains conceptual ambiguities and contradictions (Graeff, 1983, provides a ccmplete discussion). In addition, the theory has received only limited empirical attention (Yukl, 1981). IWo published tests of SLT (Hambleton & Giunpert, 1982; Vecchio, 1987) have shown mixed support and have various methodological Umiutions. Thus, the utility of this well known theory that has widespread use b difficult to evaluate. l b better understand SLX the basic assumptions underlying the nKxiel require examination. Existing research has not done this. The more complex formulations of the model may then be examined. Limitations in previous research regarding important methodological issues (e.g., measurement of key variables) also need attention. This study empirically examines SLT in this marmer to extend our understanding of the theory and its potential usefulness. SitutitionaJ Leadership Theory SLT focuses on two primary typ)es of leader behavior: task and relationship behavior (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Hersey and BlaiKhard (1%9, 1982) suggest that these behaviors are very similar to consideration and initiation of structure which are well grounded in leadership literature (e.g., Cartwright & Zander, I960; Halpin, 1959; Katz, Maccoby & Morse, 1950). Moreover, Hersey and Blanchard (1982) suggest that the task and relationship behaviors be operationalized in a manner that closely parallels existing operationalizations of consideration and initiation of structure (see Leader Behavior Descriptive Questionnaire [LBDQ-XII], Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Vecchio (1987) used the LBDQXII to measure task and relationship behavior, arguing it is a more widely accepted index of leader behavior than the Hersey and Blanchard LEAD instrument. Therefore, the present study measures leader task and relationship behaviors in terms of consideration and initiation of structure. SLT also focuses on subordinate "maturity" as the key situational characteristic that is said to moderate the relationship between leader behavior (task and relationship) and leader effectiveness (Hersey & Blanchard, 1%9, 1982). Maturity is defined as the "ability and willingness of people to take responsibility for directing their own behavior" (Hershey & Blanchard, 1982, p. 151). Hersey and Blanchard (1982) argue that subordinate maturity consists of two dimensions: psychological maturity and job maturity. Psychological maturity is somewhat ambiguously defined in Hersey and Blanchard's (1982) recent work. It is diaracterized as a "willingness or motivation to do something" and as having "to do with confidence and commitment" (p. 157). Examples of its

WARREN BLANK ET AL.

581

operationalization focus on willingness to take responsibility, achievement motivation, and commitment to an objective (p. 159). In earlier works, psychological maturity was defined in terms of ' ^ e relative independence, achievement motivation, and ability to take responsibility" of the subordinate (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, p. 221). Hersey and Blanchard suggest the relative independence component is drawn from Argyris (19S7) and involves an individtial's self-sufiSciency. The achievement motivation component reflects work by McClelland and Atkinson (e.g., McQeUand, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 1953). Hersey and Blanchard provide no citable reference for ability to take responsibility. They do not explain its inclusion as an element of psychological maturity. Job maturity is defined in terms of the "ability to do something" and is seen as strongly related to educational and job experience (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982, p. 157). To test the theory's underlying assumptions, both psychological and job maturity need to be addressed. Since maturity is a key element of SLT, its measurement is central to testing the theory. Existing research has not attempted to utilize a measure with adeqtiate psychometric properties. Both Vecchio (1987) and Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) used the Hambleton, Blanchard, and Hersey (1977) measure which has several psychometric problems. For example, the measure contains only five items to measure both categories of maturity. Single items are used to represent complex constructs such as achievement motivation and commitment Each item has only polar anchor descriptors (using an eight-point scale). Single item measures using only polar anchors have questionable reliability and content validity (Nunnally, 1978). A new 11-item measure of psychological maturity, developed following scale construction procedures suggested by Nunnally (1978), has shown adequate internal consistency and both predictive and concurrent validity (see Blank, Weitzel, Blau, & Green, 1988). Use of this scale to meastire psychological maturity represents a methodological advance over the two existing studies. A second issue regarding maturity is that SLT suggests that job and psychological maturity be combined. Graeff (1983) details that doing so results in internal consistency problems with the model, l b overcome the problems raised by Graeff, an alternate approach would be to consider both maturity dimensions separately when testing the theory's basic assiunptions. To test the theory's underlying assumptions, the maturity measures are considered separately. SLT argues that leader effectiveness results from appropriate amounts of leader t a ^ and relationship behaviors being provided for subordinates at different levels of maturity (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).

582

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

The theory recommends a linear relationship between subordinate mattirity (both psychological and job) and task behavior. When subordinate maturity is low, ieaders need to provide high amounts of task behavior. When subordinate maturity is high, leaders should provide low amounts of task behavior. The relationship between subordinate maturity and relationship behavior is somewhat more complex since it is proposed to be curvilinear. When subordinate maturity is high or low, ieaders need to provide low amounts of relationship behavior. When maturity is moderate, leaders need to provide high amounts of relationship behavior (see Figure 1). When levels of the leader behaviors are provided for subordinate maturity levels as indicated in Figure 1, SLT predicts greater leader effectiveness. SLTs prescription to apply a combination of task and relationship behavior also presents problems. Combining task and relationship behavior results in the model being unable to handle some situations in a logical manner (see Graeff, 1983). Existing studies (Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982; Vecchio, 1987) only report tests of the combined effects of task and relationship behaviors, and results indicate mixed support for SLT. For

o 3 c

Task Balwvior Rtationsiip B Ml Low M2 Modarat* Pollowar Maturity M3 M4 High

1: Amounts of Leader Belicviors Prescriiied in tfae Sitaational Lcadenhip Theory tor Different Levels of Subordinate Maturity. Adapted from Leadership in Organizations (p. 142) by G. Yukl, 1981, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Copyright 1981 by Prentice-Hall. Adapted by permission.

WARREN BLANK ET AL.

583

this study, ourfirststep was to examine the prescribed linear relationship between task behavior and maturity and the prescribed curvilinear relationship between relationship behavior and maturity. This might shed more light on the predictions of SLT and provide a comparison to existing, more complex, published assessments of the model. Our second step in examining SLT was to test the more complex formulation of SLT. Concerns with conducting this analysis are noted above; however, a complete understanding of SLT requires taking this step in addition to focusing on the underlying assumptions. Analyzing the more complex formulation of SLT requires combining task and relationship behavior to create four "leader styles" suggested by the model (see Figure 2). SLT argues that each style is most appropriate for one of

(LOW)-*

Figure 2: Relationships Betwera Leader Style and Level of Subordinate Maturity. From Management of Organizational Behavior (4th ed.,

p. 200) by P. Hersey and K. Blanchard, 1982. Englewood Qifb, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Copyright 1982, Prentice-Hall. Reprinted by permission.

584

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

four levels of maturity. For this analysis, psychological and job maturity are combined since SLT suggests this. Again, we have noted above that there are limitations implied by this approach. However, in faithfulness to SLT, we conducted the analysis as SLT specifies. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) sugge^ a difference in "effectiyeness" when there is a leader style/level of maturity "fit" as opposed to when there is "nofit"between leader style/maturity. SLT suggests leader style SI fits maturity level Ml, S2 fits M2, S3 fits M3, and S4 fits M4. We examined thisfit/nofit relationship in relation to criteria of effectiveness. Figure 2 depicts the prescribed relationships between leader style and subordinate maturity. The curve represents the change of leader style required to achieve leader effectiveness for each level of maturity. Hersey and Blanchard (1982) define effectiveness in terms of goal accomplishment and the internal states or predispositions of the subordinate. An effective leadership "style" influences subordinates to "do a certain job" (p. 109), suggesting that subordinate performance should be affected. Effective leadership style also creates a climate where the subordinate "respects (the leader) and is willing to cooperate with (the leader)" and finds the job rewarding (p. 109), suggesting that subordinate affea also should be affected. Thus, tbis research focuses on subordinate performance and satisfaction with the supervisor and work as indicants of leader effectiveness for both steps in the analysis (i.e., examination of underlying assumptions and the complex formulation of the model). Use of multiple indicants of leader effectiveness provides a more complete test of SLT In summaiy, the present study first examines the basic assumptions of SLT. This is a reasonable step, not taken by previous research, to assess the strength of SLT. In an effort to more fully examine SLT, our second step was to analyze the relationship between combined task and relationship behavior (leader style) and subordinate maturity. For both analyses, particular attention is given to the use of measures with adequate psychometric properties since previous research on SLT, discussed above, uses measures that strain standards of validity and reliability.Hypotheses Underlying SLT are assumptions about the contingent relationships between leader behavior and subordinate maturity (see Figure 1). These relationships suggest the following: Hypothesis 1: Subordinate performance and satisfaction (supervisor and work) will be related to an interaction of leader task behavior and subordinate maturity (job or psychological):

WARREN B I J ^ N K ETAL.

585

a. Under low subordinate maturity, task behavior will be positively related to performance; under h i ^ subordinate maturity, task behavior will be negatively or not related to performance. b. Under low subordinate maturity, task behavior will positively related to satisfaaion; under hig}i subordinate maturity, task behavior will be negatively or not related to satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: Subordinate performance and satisfaction (supervisor and work) will be related to an interaction of leader relationship behavior and subordinate maturity (job or psychological): a. Under moderate subordinate maturity, relationship behavior will be positively related to performance; under h i ^ and low subordinate maturity, relationship behavior will be negatively or not related to performance. b. Under moderate subordinate maturity, relationship behavior will be positively related to satisfaction; under high or low subordinate maturity, relationship behavior will be negatively or not related to satisfaction.

The fundamental hypothesis regarding the more complex formulation of SLT (see Figure 2) suggests the following:Hypothesis 3: Subordinate performance and satisfaction will be higher when leadership style fits maturity level as prescribed by SLT than when leadership style does not lit maturity level. For example, when leader style 1 (high XasiL, low relationship) is used for subordinates in maturity level 1 (low), performance and satisfaction will be higher (see Figure 2).

Method Sample The. sample consisted of 27 hall directors (HD: Leaders) and 353 resident advisors (RA: Subordinates) from two large midwestern universities. Of the RAs, 54% were females, 46% were males, 82% were graduate and upperdass students, 17% were sophomores, and 1% were first year students. TWelve (45%) of the HDs were female. The two organizations are very similar in structure and procedures. The leaders (HDs) are full-time professionals supervising paraprofessional subordinates (RAs) who have undergone extetisive selection and training. HDs play an important role in guiding, directing, and supporting the work of the RA's. Weekly staff meetings and frequent formal and informal oneon-one HD and RA interactions occur. HDs conduct formal job evaluations which impact retention decisions. The HD role has significant impact on RA activities similar to any hierarchical organization. Maturity of the subordinates is considered a central concept in this context

586

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

(e.g., Hoelting, 1980; KaufCman, 1968; Nkkerson & Haning;ton, 1971). Hersey and Blanchard (1982) describe the relevance of tbeir theory to educational settings and Vecchio (1987) used high school teachers and principles as subjects for his study. Thus, the sample offers and appropriate context in which to examine SLT. Measures Leader behavior. The Leader Behavior E>escdptive Questionnaire (LBDQ-XU, StogdiU & Coons, 1957) was used to measure task (initiation of structure) and relationship behavior (showing consideration). These measures have been widely used despite certain limitations (e.g., Kerr & Schriesheim, 1974; Kormaa, 1966). However, given their strong and direct links to SLX and their use in previous research (Vecchio, 1987), they were felt to provide a reasonable and appropriate test. The measure was completed by RAs in terms of the HD. iVaditional scoring of the LBE>Q-XII was used to yield the two leader behaviors. Items for each scale were summed to create a score for task and relationship behavior. The measures showed adequate internal consistency and a moderate interconelation (see Tkbie I). Maturity. Measures of job and psychological maturity were developed for this study. Psychometric procedures suggested Nunnally (1978) were used to develop the psychological maturity measure (see Blank, Weitzel, Blau, & Green, 1988 for a complete description of the measurement development procedure). Briefly, a set of 30 preliminary items generated to measure independence, ability to take re^mnsibility, and achievement motivation (ten for each dimension) were administered to a sample of 350 upper-class undergraduate students. Factor analysis (VARIMAX rotation; minimum loadings > .40), suggested a scale of 12 items, four from each dimension ofthe psychological maturity construct (alpha > .70). The 12 items were administered to 84 managers enrolled as part-time MBA students in two universities (universities other than the RA sample). These respondents described the matiuity of a randomly selected subordinate whom they currently or recently supervised in a full-time job setting. Factor ana^is (VARIMAX rotation) yielded a single factor (Cronbach's alpha > .70), with one item loading below .40. This independent sample provided initial sui^mrt for the reliability and generalizability of the scale. In the present study, the 12 item psychological maturity scale was completed by each RA who rated all other RAs in their hall (range of

WARREN BLANK E T AL. TABLE 1 Zero Ordar Correlation Variables Mean SD Range 1 n/a .13* .08 .04 .11* .40" .06 2 3 4 5 6

587

7

l.Performaocc 380.8 61.7 170-425 2.Supervtsor satisfaction 44.2 8.01 12-54 3. Work satisfaction 34.9 7.61 9-51 4.Usk behavior 39.4 4.83 23-50 5.Rclationship behavior 39.6 5.77 19-50 6.Psychological maturity 63.4 4.97 43-77 7.Job maturity 37.9 26.3 16-167 Note: Cronbach alpha on diagonal p