Organizational Leadership || Style, Structure, and Setting in Organizational Leadership

Style, Structure, and Setting in Organizational LeadershipAuthor(s): Edwin P. HollanderSource: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, Organizational Leadership (Mar.,1971), pp. 1-9Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management,Cornell UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391280 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 01:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 01:04:46 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391280?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Edwin P. Hollander

Style, Structure, and Setting in Organizational Leadership

The concept of leadership, essential to an understanding of organizational functioning, has to do most directly with managerial and coordination activities, but it ramifies to many other activities as well.' To claim them all for leadership would be sheer imperialism. A variety of organizational processes are ex- plicable in terms other than leadership, such as maintenance processes which implicate pressures toward conformity, cohesiveness, and morale, or psychological processes which involve the expected and attainable rewards individuals seek. In these and other aspects of organizational functioning, the kind of en- terprise and its task setting also present important variables for attention and analysis.

Nevertheless, the study of leadership does provide a useful framework within which to see organizational events more coherently. Increasingly, its study has come to be focused on a system of relationships rather than solely on the leader's attributes and actions. This distinction between the leadership process and the leader is a significant outgrowth of the so-called situational approach. The characteristics of the leader, as a person occupying a central role in this process, are inpor- tant precisely because that role carries a greater potential for initiative and influence. But the effects of these characteristics, especially with regard to style, must be gauged in light of the attributes and perceptions of the led and of the structure and setting within which the leader and followers interact for the achievement of specifiable organizational ends.

As a convenience, the terms style, structure, and setting are helpful in making these elements explicit. Much of the work on organizational leadership has revealed a concern with

1 The author is especially grateful to Patricia A. Hollander and Raymond G. Hunt for their helpful comments during the preparation of this paper.

leader style, as seen in Blau and Scott (1962) in their discussion of styles of supervision, or more especially in Likert (1961). In a broader sense, however, style may involve the interactive characteristics of the leader's personality which stamp his relationships with followers, particularly in terms of the role expectancies which they hold.

The situational approach recognized that the qualities of the leader were variously elicited, valued, and reacted to as a function of different group settings and their demands. The essential point is captured in Hemphill's (1949: 225) statement that "there are no absolute leaders, since successful leadership must always take into account the specific requirements imposed by the nature of the group which is to be led, requirements as diverse in nature and degree as are the organizations in which persons band together."

Although the situational emphasis repre- sented a much needed rectification of the earlier trait-based approaches, it also over- stated the case in several respects. It is not as though individuals are literally interchange- able in leader roles. Moreover, the leader and the situation are not disparate entities, since from the follower's standpoint the leader is an element in the situation as well as one who shapes it by setting the stage and creating expectations (Hollander and Julian, 1969).

Still another legacy of the situational move- ment was the lumping together of the task demands of the setting and the structure of the group or organization. Again, absolutely sharp distinctions are not always possible, nor need they be, to differentiate between the requirements imposed to pursue an enter- prise, and the structures provided within which to do so. When Bavelas (1960) made his case for a situational point of view, he emphasized the functions to be fulfilled within the structure provided and dealt with these as mainly harmonious. However, it is

1



2 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY

also possible for the functional demands of the setting to be at odds with the organizational structure.

Today there is a resurgence of interest in the characteristics of people who fill organizational roles. Especially in the case of those occupying leader roles, considerations of style are significant, even though the situational approach to leadership has been dominant for the past two decades or more. Fiedler is among those researchers concerned wvith leader style. His contingency model (Fiedler, 1965, 1967) is probably the best example of an attempt to integrate individual characteristics with structural and task properties of the situation. However, his selection of the leader's perceptions of others, through the least preferred co-worker (LPC) measure, may have suggested more generalizability than is warranted about determinants of leadership effectiveness. Although style has a cognitive component, processes of identification, the consequences of achievement motivation, and the development of trust are not synon- ymous with cognitive style, though they may well be related to it. The papers here by Mulder on expert power, Misumi and Seki on achievement motivation, Peterson and Berger on entrepreneurship, and Brumbaugh on authenticity, illustrate aspects of leader- follower interactions that may not be mea- sured by an instrument such as the LPC. Part of the difficulty is that interpersonal processes involve reciprocity of perception, not just the leader's own perceptions. The most distinctive contribution of Fiedler's (1965, 1967) model, however, is his demon- stration that task- and person-centered leader styles are only successful depending upon structure, seen as power vested in the leader role, and setting, as a matter of the explicit demands of the task. And that is helpful in understanding some of the elements determining effective organizational leadership.

The papers in this issue indicate some of the complexity associated with studying organizational leadership. They are obviously not representative of a single viewpoint but rather reflect some of the breadth of the consider- able empirical literature on this topic. To- gether, they indicate extensions of concepts related to leadership, show something of their utility, and possibly suggest alternative re-

search strategies. Overarching much of this work is the awareness of the interplay of situational factors in a system of relationships, including personality, structural, and task variables, that is, matters of style, structure, and setting.

An illustration of the interrelation of these personal and contextual variables is seen in the first paper here. Wofford presents findings on stylistic features of managerial behavior and the characteristics of structural variables within the organization, such as centralization, complexity, size, and communication. In this study, each employee was asked to describe his immediate supervisor's behavior and also to rate the performance of his work unit on quantity and quality of output and the members' morale. Five factors emerged from the analysis instead of the two factors of consideration and initiation of structure found in the Ohio State leadership studies (see for example, Fleishman and Harris, 1962). These lend greater richness to the description of leader behavior, especially in psychological terms. The first factor, group achievement and order, is the task dimension in the Bales and Slater (1955) formulation. The second factor, personal enhancement, is indicative of the personal dispositions and motivations of the manager, especially the need for recognition for himself rather than for his subordinates. This factor underscores the importance of ego needs, which too often have not been considered in studies of leader behavior, whether viewed stylistically or in terms of performance outputs. Katz (1964) has been among those commenting on this aspect of organizational functioning, that is, in the motivations and rewards of people in their organizational roles. Not unexpectedly, Wofford found that the leader's personal enhancement was negatively related to followers' ratings of productivity and morale. Another provocative feature of Wofford's study is the finding that the group-achievement and order factor was significantly cor- related with productivity in situations involving small groups and unstructured tasks, more than the other factors. This finding accords with other interactive formulations, including those of Fiedler (1965) and of Lawrence and Lorsch (1969).

Wofford's procedure presents some prob-



Hollander: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP 3

lems. A halo effect may have contaminated the ratings; furthermore, the criteria relied entirely on the judgments of the raters inde- pendently of external measures. The partial correlation applied to correct for this appears, however, to be sufficient to alleviate the worst possibilities of contamination bias.

The study of consideration and initiation of structure are given attention in the paper by House, Filley, and Kerr. Their subjects were research and development personnel, in three organizations, who responded to questionnaires. The analysis involved correlations for determining the relationship between leader style and subordinate role satisfaction in each of three companies. Their findings point up the acknowledged advantages of structure, in terms of greater role satisfaction, and the restrictions it can impose on the exercise of arbitrary authority. These results also agree with Pelz's (1967) research, which indicated that a moderate amount of coordination is necessary in research and development units, and with the work reported here by Peterson and Berger on the entrepreneurial role in the popular music industry.

While initiation of structure is a leader characteristic, which falls within the category of style, it clearly depends upon the favor- ability of the situation for the kind of structures which will be encouraged. In a research and development unit, the director may be reluctant to acknowledge the degree to which he imposes structural demands because the disposition is to see openness and innovation as demanding low structure. Hence, he may say one thing but do another. In a recent analysis of effectiveness in research and development organizations, Argyris (1968: 349) reported: "Over 85% of the research superi- ors whom we interviewed described their leadership style as facilitative of autonomy, openness, risk-taking, innovation, and self- responsibility, and yet when we observed them, we noted they facilitated the opposite condition." This inconsistency suggests the necessity of going beyond ratings on consideration to their operational consequences. The failure to find confirmation of the com- plex prediction of statistical interaction between consideration and the relationship between structure and satisfaction of role expectation may be due to viewing considera-

tion as a global variable. Wofford's paper suggests that consideration may break down into other components, based on the factors of personal enhancement and personal interaction.

Just as consideration may be a multidimen- sional concept, so may participation. Grant- ing that participation may be ego involving and committing in its general effect (Vroom, 1964), its efficacy depends upon still other features of the setting and of the people involved. That is the fundamental issue Mul- der raises. Using an experimental approach, he found that differences in expert power tended to shift attitudes toward the opinion of the more powerful group members-a kind of conformity to the leader's view. De- spite the limitations of manipulating power experimentally, Mulder's results agree with other findings (for example, Leavitt, 1951; Bavelas, 1948; Shaw, 1954) that information is a valued resource, and that centrality in the information network produces greater influence. His results indicate that meaningful participation requires relevant information, if not expertise, and expert power would represent a great fund of such information.

Mulder makes a point of the tendency of academicians to impute their own motives to others in viewing participation in their own terms. The too-ready tendency to see participation as the play of ideas, debate, and assertions of positions may obscure some desiderata for effective participation, including dispersion of information about the task and decisions to be made, as the research presented here of Kavcic et al. also shows. Abelson (1968) recently commented on a comparable effect in consistency theories of attitude change. His contention was that these theories are predicated on a view of individuals arriving at a well-defined position that has been tested against other positions, yet inconsistencies in attitudes do not matter to most people as much as they do to those who postulate such theories.

Janis (1971) has also called attention to the phenomenon of groupthink, which may operate in groups of decision makers, especially where loyalty to a leader is highly prized; he postulated a group disposition to develop a sense of invulnerability and of unanimity, growing out of an unwillingness




to confront information which may not be in accord with loyalty to the leader's point of view. This is an echo of Freud's (1922) contention that identification with the leader plays an important ego-ideal function. Among other illustrations, Janis (1971) provided ex- amples from the accounts of participants in the Kennedy administration's decision to pro- ceed with the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, and the Johnson administration's decision to escalate the Vietnam conflict. Mulder's research reported here illustrates this phenomenon in regard to conformity processes that can produce unanimity with the leader's views.

Doyle, in his research with elementary school staffs, deals with structure. He points out that not as much interest has been directed to achieved status as to assigned status, a condition which he sees as needing rectification. Related to Mulder's formulation of the effects of inequality of status in decision- making groups, Doyle contends that the ex- pression of views by leaders of high achieved status inhibits group decision processes. Bass (1967) has reported some contradictory findings, but not with leaders who had achieved status. There are, however, other mediating variables involved, such as loyalty, which Janis (1971) emphasized. From his research Doyle found that in the analytic phase, participation was much impeded by inequalities of status. In the presence of a leader with high achieved status, ideas tended to be directed more to the leader for evaluation, thus reducing interactions among members.

Leader style has often been looked at as a function of role demands rather than of personality characteristics. Indeed, comparatively little attention has been directed to the combination of properties of the situation and personality characteristics, although the expectancies and tolerances of followers are constraints on leader style. In a research design which recalls the classic research on leader styles, by Lewin et al. (1939), but omitting the feature of alteration of styles, Misumi and Seki studied varying levels of achievement motivation as a function of two patterns, one centered on goal achievement, and the other on maintenance-essentially, the task and socioemotional leader roles of Bales and Slater (1955). The leader inter-

ested in goal achievement urged group members to expedite the work and put pressure on them to produce well, both qualitatively and quantitatively. By contrast, the maintenance-centered leader encouraged the members in a supportive relay, and sought to minimize interpersonal tensions and to create a pleasant climate for work. The combination of the two styles yielded the highest outcomes on the productivity index for subjects with high need for achievement, and the lowest scores for subjects with low need for achievement. In terms of the satisfaction of group members, the combination proved su- perior for all subjects.

The task and socioemotional features of leader roles, or the task and sentient factors in organizations (Miller and Rice, 1967), are related to the phenomenon of organizational climate. Pheysey et al. report their research here on the relationship of organizational structures to organizational climate. In line with the writings of Likert (1961), they see climate as deriving from the degree of centralized control imposed by the top group of executives. Drawing from Hickson's (1966) review, which indicated that higher role prescription led to less confusion but to lower motivation and less innovation, Pheysey et al. raised the question of whether a difference in the degree of role prescription through centralization of authority does yield such differences in organizational climate. They compared two organizations, one much more centralized and mechanistic than the other. The guiding hypothesis of this study followed from the traditional formulation of mechanistic structures as producing a sense of reg- imentation and control, with a concomitant lack of personal satisfaction; yet the leaders of the more mechanistic organization unexpectedly showed a greater interest in ideas for organizational and personal development, and the line managers and supervisors were more involved with their groups, even though there were limitations of felt autonomy and higher felt pressures from outside the groups. This set of findings casts doubt on the disposition to see leader style and organizational structure as largely synchronous. Further- more, a given structure may have varying effects. Decentralization, for instance, may actually decrease the prospect of meaningful




participation by increasing the status differ- entials through a long vertical hierarchy-a condition which did in fact exist in the less mechanistic organization of the two organizations Pheysey et al. studied.

Pheysey et al. emphasized that the concept of structure is clearly not a unitary one (see Pugh et al., 1968). Furthermore, it need not relate to organizational climate directly, and apparent anomalies will arise to confound simple predictions of direct relationships between structure and climate, unless other questions are asked about the organization's tasks, size, technology, and personnel. It is worth noting that none of the group structural variables were found to be related to satisfaction with work in the Pheysey et al. study. Hunt (1970) has made a related ob- servation in criticizing the tendency to build organizational models based largely on the technology of the mass-production firm.

Kavviv et al. present an illuminating report here of participation in Yugoslav workers' councils. They administered questionnaires in four organizations, two pairs containing plants with reasonably comparable technol- ogies and of about equal size, with one plant in each pair judged to have a relatively in- effective council. External judgments regard- ing productivity were also obtained from knowledgeable resource persons. Their findings suggest that the workers' council was viewed by plant employees as having only moderate influence despite its formal and ideologically based legitimacy. The results are unequivocal, pointing to managers as having the greater amount of control. The most salient finding is the perfect rank-order correlation between the total amount of control and the actual effectiveness, which fits Tannenbaum's (1968) model. Moreover, dis- crepancies between actual and ideal amounts of control yield a perfect negative correlation with effectiveness, thus suggesting the importance of social expectations about who should exercise control. As with other participative efforts, then, the workers' council may not have the far-reaching, beneficial effects expected, in terms of distribution of power. As Mulder's paper indicates, who has the greater say appears to depend on the expertise that they bring to the participative situation. In contrast to many popularly held

views, power can have low diffusion in an organization, and low power among leaders may not indicate that subordinates have high power, but that they might also have little power. In that respect, Tannenbaum's (1968) model indicated that power and control may be a resource at the disposal of many within the organization and not as the sole posses- sion of a few (see also Gamson, 1968).

Knowledge clearly constitutes a source of expertise, and fiscal information and influence in the budgetary process is a form of expertise which carries great authority in organizations, since budgetary control can be crucial in setting organizational goals and influencing outcomes. Dunbar presents an analysis of budgetary control from the perspective of behavioral science. Though group decision making has received some attention from a rational perspective (Siegal and Fouraker, 1960), applications to the linkage between setting priorities and goals and applying budgeting procedures have not been subjected to much scrutiny in terms of social- psychological processes, despite the consider- able interest in group risk taking (Kogan and Wallach, 1964).

Dunbar argues that social-psychological processes are involved in budgetary control. A feedback loop, through cognitive media- tion, links goal setting and resetting to the achievement of goals or failure to achieve them. His results are similar to those in the work of Atkinson (1957) on expectancy of success and fear of failure in risk taking. A distinctive feature of Dunbar's results is his contention that participation in goal setting by itself produces little effect on the goal levels set. He leans on cognitive dissonance as one explanation (Festinger, 1957) in his analysis. Although some of the results he dis- cusses, notably Weick's (1964) research, can be explained in ways other than a dissonance formulation, Dunbar is right in his fundamental contention that goals significantly af- fect performance and that this involves a process of the perception of rewards as well as alternatives for obtaining them. The variable of commitment to the task has also been shown to be essential in determining a dissonance effect (see Aronson, 1968). Dunbar's use of systems theory, while not consistent throughout, is certainly applicable to the




feedback loop construct that is central to his analysis, but this approach may carry rationality too far, not least because ego- involving elements may limit rationality, as even so staunch a game theorist as Rapoport (1966: 214) has noted.

The paper by Peterson and Berger is an informative description of the operation of entrepreneurs in a turbulent environment, the popular music recording industry. The producers' recruitment pattern and career paths indicate a preponderance of personality characteristics associated with entrepreneurship-a style which includes the need for immediate feedback, an unwillingness to be constrained by normal regulatory processes, and a strong drive for achievement and control. Accommodation to such entrepreneurial personalities necessitates their isolation, inso- far as possible, with a degree of greater monitoring, even if subtle, than organizational members in more conventional roles. Katz (1964) has commented more generally on the organizational strains resulting from the need to maintain conformity to normative patterns at the same time that benefits are sought from engaging individual differences expressed in nonconforming ways. A note- worthy feature of the recording industry is that it is well suited to the development of fast and comparatively accurate evaluations of each decision, thus providing both gratifi- cation to the entrepreneur, as well as a standard by which he can be quickly judged. Such rapid evaluation is not common, however, in other settings. This paper also raises, though does not adequately answer, questions about organizational decentralization and its appropriateness to different task demands.

Brumbaugh questions whether authenticity-inauthenticity is a viable concept for theories of organizational and administrative behavior. In view of the complexities of the concept and the problem inherent in making global characterizations of organizations, it is hardly surprising that his answer is negative. Starting with Seeman's (1966) work with a measure of inauthenticity, Brumbaugh at- tempted to relate that measure to dogmatism. As an approach to construct validity, he hy- pothesized that ambivalence toward leadership should be negatively related to Rokeach's

(1960) dogmatism scale. Thus persons who are more inclined to see contradictions in the leadership role should be lower on dogmatism, that is, more open-minded. His results, however, suggest a positive relationship, making interpretation somewhat difficult. The hypothesis grows out of a conception of the leader's role as inauthentic, when his behavior is mainly determined by his view of his position. But that is an oversimplifica- tion which assumes a great deal about motivational processes of leaders in the aggregate, without adequate regard to their individual situations. Brumbaugh is quite correct, therefore, in suggesting that the concept of inauthenticity is elusive and very likely multi- faceted.

Applying the idea of authenticity-inauthenticity to organizations without additional variables can only be a gross exercise in word-magic. It is an unwarranted extension to relate a measure of personality to organizational structure without making some connections to recurring behaviors that can serve as criteria. This reveals part of the broader problem of treating structure and style as though they were one. The use to which the California F scale of authoritarian- ism (Adorno et al., 1950) has been put illustrates the difficulty. It bears only an imper- fect relationship to characteristic modes of behaving or to organizational structure. Yet the term authoritarian is applied to attitudes, behavior dispositions, and social structure without the needed qualifications about their imprecise fit (see Titus and Hollander, 1957).

Since a function of the leader's role is often one of facilitating change, the concept of change agent is relevant to leadership. Scur- rah et al. consider the efficacy of internal versus external change agents in the rather elaborate experiment they report here. It concerned the influence of an expert insider or outsider in a task primarily involving the simulation of budgeting within a college. The essential prediction in the experiment was that the outsider added to the group as an expert would produce more conflict, more threat, and be less successful in exerting influence; on the contrary, they found that the internal agent was more likely to produce these outcomes. Simmel's (1950) analysis of the stranger as an expert is consistent with



Hollantder: ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP 7

these findings. The results can be explained in a number of ways. In the first place, there was bias in that the external experts had a more advanced standing as Ph.D. students, and a higher standard of performance revealed by their response to the postexperi- mental questionnaire item on which they said they would have liked additional training in their task. By contrast, the inside persons given extra budgetary training seemed quite content with it. The investigators see the difficulties for the internal person as explic- able in dissonance theory terms; that is, it becomes more difficult to accept the expertise of someone already in the group, and therefore to adjust to new role relationships, than to accept an outsider with the same credentials of expertise. Other explanations, even some that are perhaps more parsimo- nious, might be offered from concepts of adaptation level, contrast effects, and social exchange.

It may be that juxtaposing the internal and external change agent is not the best way to examine the problem. Perhaps what matters more is whether the agent or leader has some achieved or accorded status within the group, which has gained him a degree of latitude in exercising influence, as the idiosyncrasy credit concept indicates for perceived legiti- mnacy (Hollander, 1958, 1964). There is also the group's success or failure in the task to be considered, with particular respect to the leader's perceived contribution to it, as part of a relevant past history (see for example, Alvarez, 1968; Grusky, 1969; Hollander and Julian, 1970). Indeed, some of the more critical circumstances having to do with the influence of internal versus external persons are as difficult to create in the laboratory as they are important (compare Weick, 1969). In actual organizations, the inside person will have amassed a record with perceived com- mitments, as well as proponents and oppo- nents. The outside person comes into a situation, perhaps as a new manager, having to learn about the terrain, the leadership structure and its dramatic personnae, and perhaps stumbling along the way (see Gouldner, 1964). The generalizability of these findings should therefore be seen in more cautious terms.

In conclusion, most of these papers show a recognition of the system of relationships in leadership, and the situational variables of structure and setting are more closely spe- cified than in many past studies. Outputs are treated less in terms of leaders' successes and more in terms of group performance and satisfaction criteria. On the other hand, little attention is given to concepts of social exchange in terms of the rewards accruing both to individuals and to groups as a function of the success of their efforts.

The role of leader is seen to involve a varietv of functions, though managerial and supervisory conceptions of that role, especially growing out of the mass-produLction organization, still predominate. Greater spe- cification seems needed in dealing with vari- ants of leadership setting, as well as for leadership stvle and related ideas, such as organizational climate. Participation, for example, can mean several different things op- erationally. It can be structural or stylistic, in the sense that the organization may en- courage it though managers may not neces- sarilv adopt its spirit. As the Mulder and the Doyle studies indicate, the effectiveness of participation clearly is mediated by other variables, not least available knowledge. Therefore, using the term without further delineation can be misleading.

Finally, more attention should be given to the leader's construction of his situation, and his own sense of identity and legitimacy, than is apparent in much organizational research. The situational view was never aimed at throwing away concern with the individual or his attributes, including perceptions and behavioral propensities, but rather at seeing them as differentially appropriate to varying circumstances and the kind of decisions and outcomes affected. Individual differences ought still to be a matter of consid- erable concern in such matters of personal style as entrepreneurial zeal, vision, and the ability to inspire trust.

Edicin P. Hoollander is a professor of psy- chologq at the State University of New York (It Buffalo.




REFERENCES

Abelson, Robert P. 1968 "Computers, polls, and public opinion:

some puzzles and paradoxes." Trans- action, 5(9): 20-27.

Adorno, Theodore W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford

1950 The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.

Alvarez, Rodolfo 1968 "Informal reactions to deviance in

simulated work organizations: a laboratory experiment." American Socio- logical Review, 33: 895-912.

Argyris, Chris 1968 "On the effectiveness of research and

development organizations." American Scientist, 56: 344-355.

Aronson, Eliot 1968 "Dissonance theory: progress and

problems." In Robert P. Abelson et al. (eds.), Theories of Cognitive Consis- tency: 5-27. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Atkinson, John W. 1957 "Motivational determinants of risk-

taking behavior." Psychological Re- view, 64: 359-372.

Bales, Robert F., and Philip E. Slater 1955 "Role differentiation in small decision-

making groups." In Talcott Parsons et al. (eds.), Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process: 259-306. New York: Free Press.

Bass, Bernard M. 1967 "Some effects on a group of whether

and when the head reveals his opinion." Organizational Behavior and Hu- man Performance, 2: 375-382.

Bavelas, Alex 1948 "A mathematical model for group

structures." Applied Anthropology, 7: 16-30.

1960 "Leadership: man and function." Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 4: 491-498.

Blau, Peter M., and W. Richard Scott 1962 Formal Organizations. San Francisco:

Chandler. Festinger, Leon

1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson.

Fiedler, Fred E. 1965 "Engineer the job to fit the manager."

Harvard Business Review, 43: 115- 122.

1967 A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fleishman, Edwin A., and Edwin F. Harris 1962 "Patterns of leadership behavior re-

lated to employee grievances and turnover." Personnel Psychology, 15: 43-56.

Freud, Sigmund 1922 Group Psychology and the Analysis

of the Ego. London and Vienna: Inter- national Psychoanalytic Press.

Gamson, William A. 1968 Power and Discontent. Homewood,

Ill.: Dorsey. Gouldner, Alvin WV.

1964 "Taking over." Trans-action, 1 (3): 23- 27.

Grusky, Oscar 1969 "Succession with an ally." Administra-

tive Science Quarterly, 14: 155-170. Hemphill, John K.

1949 "The leader and his group." Education Research Bulletin, 28: 225-229, 245- 246.

Hickson, David J. 1966 "A convergence in organization the-

ory." Administrative Science Quarterly, 11: 229-237.

Hollander, Edwin P. 1958 "Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy

credit." Psychological Review, 65: 117-127.

1964 Leaders, Groups, and Influence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hollander, Edwin P., and James W. Julian 1969 "Contemporary trends in the analysis

of leadership processes." Psychological Bulletin, 71: 387-397.

1970 "Studies in leader legitimacy, influence, and innovation." In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experi- mental Social Psychology, volume 5: 33-69. New York: Academic Press.

Hunt, Raymond G. 1970 "Technology and organization." Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 13: 235- 253.

Janis, Irving L. 1971 Victims of Groupthink. New York:

Harcourt-Brace-jovanovich. Katz, Daniel

1964 "The motivational basis of organizational behavior." Behavioral Science, 9: 131-146.

Kogan, Nathan, and Michael A. Wallach 1964 Risk-taking: A Study in Cognition and

Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Lawrence, Paul R., and Jay W. Lorsch




1969 Organization and Environment. Home- wood, Ill.: Irwin.

Leavitt, Harold J. 1951 "Some effects of certain communica-

tion patterns on group performance." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology, 46: 38-50.

Lewin, Kurt, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph K. White

1939 "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created 'social climates'." Journal of Social Psychology, 10: 271- 299.

Likert, Rensis 1961 New Patterns of Management. New

York: McGraw-Hill. Miller, Eric J., and A. Kenneth Rice

1967 Systems of Organization. London: Tavistock.

Pelz, Donald A. 1967 "Creative tensions in the research and

development climate." Science, 157: 160-165.

Pugh, D. S., D. J. Hickson, C. R. Hinings, and C. Turner

1968 "Dimensions of organizational structure." Administrative Science Quar- terly, 13: 65-105.

Rapoport, Anatol 1966 Two-person Game Theory. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press. Rokeach, Milton

1960 The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Seeman, Melvin 1966 "Status and identity: the problem of

inauthenticity." Pacific Sociological Re- view, 9: 67-73.

Shaw, Marvin E. 1954 "Some effects of unequal distribution

of information upon group performance in various communication nets." journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology, 49: 547-553.

Siegal, Sidney, and Lawrence E. Fouraker 1960 Bargaining and Group Decision Mak-

ing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Simmel, Georg

1950 The Sociology of Georg Simmel (trans- lated and edited by Kurt H. Wolff). Glencoe; Ill.: Free Press.

Tannenbaum, Arnold S. 1968 Control in Organizations. New York:

McGraw-Hill. Titus, H. Edwin, and Edwin P. Hollander

1957 "The California F scale in psychological research: 1950-1955." Psycholog- ical Bulletin, 54: 47-65.

Vroom, Victor H. 1964 Work and motivation. New York:

Wiley. Weick, Karl E.

1964 "Reduction of cognitive dissonance through task enhancement and effort expenditure." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68: 533-539.

1969 "Laboratory organizations and unno- ticed causes." Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 294-303.



Documents

Organizational Leadership || Style, Structure, and Setting in Organizational Leadership