Psychological Bulletin 1978, Vol. 85, No. 6, 1199-1237

Construct Validity of the Least Preferred Co-Worker Score Robert W. Rice State University of New York at Buffalo Twenty-five years of research using Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale is reviewed in order to develop the nomological network defining the construct space of LPC. Four general categories of research are reviewed: (a) attitudes held by high- and low-LPC persons, (b) observable behaviors engaged in by high- and low-LPC persons, (c) reactions of other group members to high- and low-LPC persons, and (d) determinants of responses to the LPC scale. Data concerning the relationship between leader LPC and either group performance or follower satisfaction are not reviewed; such data are thought to provide little insight into the LPC construct itself, despite their importance to the contingency model. The review provides extensive documentation for Fiedler's often repeated proposition that low-LPC persons are task oriented and high-LPC persons are relationship oriented. A value-attitude interpretation of LPC is offered as a vehicle to interpret this task-interpersonal distinction. The value-attitude interpretation is explicitly compared with previous efforts to interpret LPC. As documented by several recent surveys of leadership research, Fiedler's (1967) contingency model is one of the most prominent of contemporary approaches to the study of leadership (cf. Hollander, 1978; Jacobs, 1970; Stogdill, 1974; Vroom, 1976). Leadership style, as measured by the leader's score on the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale is the central variable in this model. However, as several critics (e.g., Ashour, 1973a, 1973b; McMahon, 1972; Schreinsheim & Kerr, in press) and even Fiedler (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, p. 74) have pointed out, the meaning of responses to the LPC scale has been difficult to interpret. Inadequate development of the LPC construct limits the explanatory power of the model; that is, one cannot explain why high- and low-LPC leaders are effective in different situations without understanding what it means to score high or low The author would like to thank the following people for reading and discussing earlier drafts of this article: Irwin Altman, Martin M, Chemers, Fred E. Fiedler, Deborah J. Garvin, Edwin P. Hollander, Ellen KonarGoldband, Dean G. Pruitt, Eric Sundstrom, Charles W. Turner, Carol Werner, and B. Jack White. Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert W. Rice, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo, 4230 Ridge Lea Road, Buffalo, New York 14226.

on the LPC scale. The objective of the present article is to review research using this instrument in order to develop the nomological network denning the construct space of LPC. It is hoped that further theoretical developments within the framework of the contingency model will benefit from addressing a question quite basic to the model: What does the LPC scale measure? To provide some historical perspective for the review, the development of the LPC scale and the contingency model is examined below in some detail. Next, the basic propositions of four earlier efforts to interpret LPC are considered. After specifying the method and scope of the review, the available evidence is reviewed in light of these four interpretations as well as a fifth interpretation that emerged from this review (a value-attitude model of LPC). To highlight the valueattitude model, it is explicitly compared with each of the four earlier interpretations at relevant points in the text. The LPC Scale The instructions of the LPC scale ask respondents to think of all the persons with whom they have ever worked and to select their least preferred co-worker, defined as

Copyright 1978 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0033-2909/78/8506-1199$00.75

1199

1200

ROBERT W. RICE

"the person with whom you had the most difficulty in getting a job done" (Fiedler, 1967, p. 41). Respondents then describe their least preferred co-worker on a series of 16-25 eight-point bipolar semantic-differential scales of the following form: Pleasant :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: Unpleasant Inefficient :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: Efficient Unfriendly :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_: Friendly The favorable pole of each scale is scored as 8 and the unfavorable pole is scored as 1. The LPC score is calculated by summing the scores for all scales. Respondents describing their least preferred co-worker in consistently negative terms receive a low LPC score. Respondents describing their least preferred co-worker in relatively positive terms receive a high LPC score. Earlier research generally relied on a median (or more extreme) split within each particular subject population to identify high- and low-LPC respondents. However, normative data are now available for the scale (Posthuma, Note 1). In a review of the psychometric properties of the LPC scale, Rice (1978b) concluded that the scale has high reliability in terms of internal consistency and parallel form equivalence. Reports of test-retest stability vary considerably (stability coefficients range from .01 to .93); stability appears to be contingent on the type of experience encountered during the test-retest interval. Stability data collected from respondents not experiencing dramatic changes in their life generally show acceptable test-retest reliability. However, in change-oriented environments such as military training or management development workshops, the stability of LPC can be dramatically reduced. Given that data from these unstable environments were included in the calculation of a median test-retest coefficient of .67 (N = 23), it would appear that the LPC score can be interpreted as a relatively stable respondent characteristic, especially in a routine environment. Historical Development of LPC and Fiedler's Model The LPC scale was developed within the context of Fiedler's (1953b, 1958) early work

in person perception. This research typically required respondents to describe a number of stimulus persons, for example, self, ideal self, family members, clients, and other group members (including most and least preferred co-workers). Fiedler's earliest study in this area compared effective and ineffective clinical psychologists in terms of their perceptions of clients (Fiedler, 1953b). The focus of his research then shifted to the relationship between measures of person perception and quasi-therapeutic effects in formal and informal groups. Somewhat serendipitously, Fiedler (1954) discovered that leaders' perceptions of co-workers are related to group effectiveness. Specifically, this study showed that informal leaders of successful high school basketball teams perceived greater differences between their most and least preferred coworkers than did informal leaders of unsuccessful teams. Thus, the LPC scale was not developed for the specific purpose of measuring theoretically distinct styles of leadership. Rather, LPC was labeled a measure of leadership style because the LPC score of the leader was found to correlate with group performance under certain conditions. This lack of theory at the initial stages of research is the major reason why it has been so difficult to interpret LPC as a measure of leadership style. Fiedler (1964, 1967) conducted an extensive program of research to follow up the findings of the basketball study. This research showed that leaders' perceptions of co-workers were related to performance by a wide variety of groups, for example, steel crews, military combat teams, farm cooperatives, laboratory groups, survey teams. However, the correlations between leader LPC and group performance were positive under some conditions and negative under other conditions. The familiar contingency model curve, presented in Figure 1, was inductively derived from these data. In an effort to identify moderators of the relationship between leader LPC and group performance, Fiedler considered three factors affecting the leader's situation (in terms of situational favorableness, the leader's capacity to influence and control behavior within the group): (a) the quality of the affective relationship between the leader

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

1201

1.00

.40 .20 0

-.20 40

-.60 -.80 -1.00 Favorable for Leader

VIII

I

Task Structure

Leader Position Power

- Moderately Poor -

-Qood-

Leader-Member Relations

- Structured -

Strong

Weak

Unfavorable for Loader

- Unstructured -

- Unstructured -

Strong

Strong

Strong

Weak

Figure 1. Correlation between leaders' Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale scores and group performance plotted as a function of position on the situational favorableness dimension. (From "Validation and Extension of the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical Findings" by Fred E. Fiedleu, Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 128-148. Copyright 1971 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.)

and other members of the group, (b) the structure inherent in the group task, and (c) the power of the leader to administer sanctions and rewards. After dichotomizing each of these situational variables, weighted combinations of the three factors were used to represent the eight different positions (or octants) of the situational favorableness dimension shown on the abscissa of Figure 1. The data points on this figure represent leader LPC - group performance correlations classified as falling into one of the eight octants (the line connects median correlations for each octant). From the data summarized in Figure 1, Fiedler proposed that the relationship between leadership style (i.e., LPC) and group performance is contingent on the situation. Specifically, under very favorable conditions (Octants I, II, and III) groups with low-LPC leaders are thought to be more effective than groups with high-LPC leaders (as indicated

by the negative correlations in Figure 1). In very unfavorable conditions (Octant VIII), groups with low-LPC leaders are also thought to be more effective than groups with highLPC leaders. However, groups with high-LPC leaders are thought to be more effective than groups with low-LPC leaders in situations of intermediate favorableness (Octants IV, V, VI). Validity of the Model Because of the inductive manner in which the theory was derived, "evidential" (Schutz, 1960) validation data are needed to evaluate the model. Since the data presented in Figure 1 were used to derive the model, these data cannot also be used to test the model. There has been considerable controversy between advocates and critics of the model with regard to the status of available validation evidence.

1202

ROBERT W. RICE

Fiedler (197Ib) reviewed 25 studies carried out since his initial presentation of the model in 1964; he concluded that these evidential data have generally supported the model. Others who have reviewed some of these validation data have reached more negative conclusions (e.g., Ashour, 1973a; Graen, Alvarez, Orris, & Martella, 1970; McMahon, 1972; Schreisheim & Kerr, in press). A rather heated and complex series of exchanges between Fiedler and his critics have debated the methodological, statistical, and theoretical merits of these two opposing conclusions (cf. Ashour, 1973a, 1973b; Fiedler, 1971a, 1971b, 1973a, in press; Fiedler & Chemers, 1974; Graen et al., 1970; Graen, Orris, & Alvarez, 1971a, 1971b; McMahon, 1972; Mitchell, Biglan, Oncken & Fiedler, 1970; Schreisheim & Kerr, in press; Shiflett, 1973). It is beyond the scope of this article to analyze this controversy, but the highly partisan nature of the controversy requires identification of the author's own position. Many criticisms growing out of the controversy appear to be well grounded and constructive. However, the extremely negative conclusions offered by some reviewers do not seem warranted. For example, Graen et al. (1970, p. 295) concluded that evidential validity data cast "grave doubt on the plausibility of the contingency model" and that "the model has lost the capability of directing meaningful research." Similarly, Schreisheim and Kerr (in press) concluded, "The evidence concerning the LPC instrument does not support its continued use. LPC lacks sufficient evidence of construct, content, predictive and concurrent validity, and test-retest reliability" (p. 31). Contrary to these sentiments, I believe that the model does have some ability to predict group performance on the basis of the leader's LPC score and an appropriate analysis of situational factors. This conclusion is based on several considerations. First, Fiedler's (197 Ib) statistical analysis of the entire set of validation evidence suggests that these effects are significant beyond acceptable levels of chance. Second, strong support for the model was found in the one validation study providing the most complete and methodologically adequate test of the model (Chemers &

Skrzypek, 1972). Third, my review of group performance studies indicated that 18% of the 455 relationships between LPC and group performance were statistically significant in a sample of randomly selected LPC studies (Rice, 1976). When one considers the minimal statistical power of correlational designs using the small sample sizes generally found in this research, the finding of nearly four times as many significant correlations as one would expect by chance is encouraging. Finally, research by my colleagues and myself has shown reliable LPC effects (Chemers, Rice, Sundstrom, & Butler, 1975; Rice & Chemers, 1973, 1975; Rice, Seaman, & Garvin, 1978; Rice, Marwick, Chemers, & Bentley, Note 2). For example, in one study (Chemers et al., 1975), an interaction between leader LPC and relevant situational factors accounted for over one third of the variance in group performance. Although the contingency model is clearly plagued with faults and in need of further refinement, it appears to offer a useful approach to the study of leadership. These relatively positive assumptions about the model provide the motivation for the present effort to explore the meaning of the LPC score. Interpretations of LPC Though the years, Fiedler and his associates have offered four different interpretations of the LPC score. Considering the basic propositions of these four models provides a base for interpreting the results of the substantive review. Social Distance

Fiedler (1957, 1958) originally interpreted LPC as a "generalized index of psychological closeness" (Fiedler, 1957, p. 90). Low-LPC persons were thought to be more socially distant (or aloof) from other group members than were high-LPC persons. This interpretation was based mainly on assumed similarity data from person perception research conducted in therapeutic and quasitherapeutic settings (Fiedler, 1953a, 1953b). In this research, respondents showed greater assumed similarity between themselves and liked group members than between themselves

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

and disliked group members. Assuming that persons are more socially distant from disliked group members, assumed similarity was interpreted as a measure of social distance. Since LPC is highly correlated with various measures of assumed similarity, Fiedler proposed that LPC is also a measure of emotional and psychological distance. This interpretation received more direct support from two sets of data: (a) high-LPC persons conformed more in the face of social pressure, and (b) high-LPC persons were described by supervisors as being more closely involved with other group members.1 Motives and Needs After discarding the social distance interpretation, Fiedler (1964, 1967) proposed that LPC measures two different motives (or needs). High-LPC persons were thought to have an especially strong need to attain and maintain successful interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, low-LPC persons were thought to have an especially strong need for success in the realm of task performance. This interpretation was based on four general sets of data: (a) descriptions of leader behavior indicating that the behavior of low-LPC leaders is generally task oriented and the behavior of high-LPC leaders is generally relationship oriented, (b) a similar pattern of task-oriented and relationshiporiented behavior by members of groups with high- and low-LPC leaders, (c) higher levels of satisfaction and relaxation and lower levels of anxiety among followers in groups with high-LPC leaders, (d) differential reactions to success and failure suggesting that low-LPC persons gain self-esteem and satisfaction from successful task performance and high-LPC persons gain self-esteem and satisfaction from successful interpersonal relations. Cognitive Complexity The cognitive complexity interpretation of LPC, as presented independently by Foa, Mitchell, and Fiedler (1971) and Hill (1969a), proposes that high-LPC persons are more cognitively complex than low-LPC persons. This interpretation is based on three general

1203

sets of data: (a) positive correlations between LPC and several measures of cognitive complexity, (b) greater differentiation (i.e., lower correlations) among the factor scores of the LPC scale for high-LPC persons, and (c) greater responsiveness to interpersonal factors in the judgments and behavior of high-LPC persons. Motivational Hierarchy Fiedler's (1972a) most recent and most complex interpretation of LPC proposes that this instrument measures a hierarchy of motives. This interpretation is a direct extension of his earlier interpretation of LPC as a measure of motives (or needs); the concept of secondary motives is simply added to that of primary motives considered in the earlier interpretation. Fiedler proposed that the goal hierarchies of high- and low-LPC persons mirror one another. The primary goal of low-LPC persons is task success, and their secondary goal is interpersonal success. Conversely, the primary goal of high-LPC persons is interpersonal success, and their secondary goal is task success. To explain the dynamics of behavior determined by the goal hierarchy, Fiedler adopted several assumptions similar to those involved in Maslow's (1954) treatment of goal hierarchies. First, it is assumed that persons seek to gratify their secondary goals after their primary goals have been satisfied. Second, it is assumed that persons are free to gratify their secondary goals only in very favorable situations; presumably, the satisfaction of primary goals is either assured or already achieved in such situations. In less favorable situations (the intermediate and unfavorable zones of the situational favorable1 The LPC scale was not actually used in any of this research, nor was it discussed directly in any of Fiedler's presentations of the psychological distance interpretation. The Assumed Similarity Between Opposites (ASo) score was used in this research. However, since the LPC and ASo scores are almost perfectly correlated, it seems fair to discuss this as an interpretation of LPC. Furthermore, even at this time, Fiedler (19S8, p. 21) had recognized that LPC was the primary determinant of the mathematically more complex ASo score.

ROBERT W. RICE

1204

Table 1 Comparisons of High- and Low-LPC Persons Low-LPC persons

High-LPC persons

Judgments about other group members More favorably evaluate their most preferred co-worker, that is, the person with whom one can work best More often describe their least preferred co-worker as not intelligent, careless, slow, incompetent, obnoxious, unfriendly, and unpleasant More favorably evaluate highly valued group members such as best friends and subordinates who endorse their leadership

More favorably evaluate their least preferred co-worker, that is, the person with whom one can work least well More often describe their least preferred co-worker as bull-headed, dogmatic, overly talkative, intelligent, and bossy

Show greater variability in evaluation of several different group members

Show greater similarity in evaluation of their most and least preferred co-workers

More favorably evaluate neutrally and negatively valued group members, such as the typical group member or leader, and subordinates who do not endorse their leadership

Judgments about the self More favorably evaluate their self and ideal self Describe their personality in more favorable and socially desirable terms, for example, higher in need for achievement, less in need to control others, less nervous Judgments about the group More favorably evaluate their group when it is composed of intelligent group members Blame other members of the group for failure on the group task More accurately estimate the quality of group task performance when compared with objective performance criteria Are more responsive to situational factors in evaluating group performance

More favorably evaluate their group when it is composed of less intelligent group members Blame themselves for failure on the group task More accurately estimate the quality of interpersonal relations within the group when compared with the evaluations by other group members Are more responsive to situational factors in evaluating interpersonal relations within the group

Judgments about the environment More favorably evaluate their community, the climate of their organization, and hypothetical group task situations Have satisfaction with the environment that is unrelated to perceptions of similarity between own attitudes and attitudes of significant others

Are more satisfied with their environment when they perceive their attitudes to be similar to the attitudes of significant others

Perceive greater utility in successful task performance and place greater importance on indicators of task success such as publications and salary benefits

Place greater importance on people-oriented management functions such as supervision and coordination

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE Table 1

1205

(continued) Low-LPC persons

Are more optimistic about the probability of successfully completing the task and feel more involved in the activities of their job

High-LPC persons Are more optimistic in beliefs measured by the Basic Nature of Man Scale, indicate greater trust for children, and believe subordinates can handle a larger number of management functions More accurately estimate their influence and power in the organization when compared with objective measures Show greater cognitive differentiation in nonevaluative judgments about social objects such as groups, clients, and other group members

Judgmental reactions to success and failure Evaluate themselves, other group members, and More favorably evaluate themselves, other group the group in a way that is unrelated to members, and the group when they have been success in the realm of interpersonal relations successful in interpersonal relations More favorably evaluate themselves, other Evaluate themselves, other group members, and group members, and the group when they the group in a way that is unrelated to success have been successful on a task in the realm of task performance Observable behavior Are generally described by self, other group Are generally described by self, other group members, and independent observers as relationmembers, and independent observers as task oriented in their behavior, although intership oriented in their behavior, although interactions between situational factors and LPC actions between situational factors and LPC can moderate this relationship can moderate this relationship Show greater variance in relationship-oriented Show greater variance in task-oriented forms of forms of leader behavior leader behavior Are more conforming Individually perform more effectively on the Individually perform more effectively on the task task in situations that are either very in situations that are intermediate in favorable or very unfavorable favorableness Behavioral reactions Engage in more consideration behavior when the group is successful on the task than when the group is unsuccessful Engage in consideration behavior that is weakly related to liking by subordinates Have a. level of consideration behavior that is unrelated to degree of liking for subordinates

to success and failure Engage in consideration behavior that is unrelated to group task performance Engage in more consideration behavior when well liked by subordinates than when not well liked Engage in more consideration behavior when working with disliked subordinates than when working with well-liked subordinates

Others' responses to low- and high-LPC persons Are seen as being more task oriented, having Are seen as being more understanding and greater technical knowledge, and possessing interested in other group members greater potential for military leadership Are better liked by other group members in Are better liked by other group members in stress-free environments stressful environments Note. High- and low-LPC persons are persons with high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale.

ness dimension), persons must focus their efforts on primary goals. This analysis suggests that low-LPC persons are concerned

with interpersonal relations (their secondary goal) in very favorable situations and are concerned with task performance (their pri-

1206

ROBERT W. RICE

mary goal) in less favorable situations. Conversely, high-LPC persons are concerned with task performance (their secondary goal) in very favorable situations and are concerned with interpersonal relations (their primary goal) in less favorable situations. The motivational hierarchy was formulated in an effort to account for two sets of data that are apparently inconsistent with the simpler idea that low-LPC persons are task oriented and high-LPC persons are relationship oriented. First, low-LPC persons have sometimes described themselves as relationship oriented, and high-LPC persons have sometimes described themselves as task oriented. Second, the behavior of low-LPC leaders has been found to be relationship oriented in some situations, and the behavior of high-LPC leaders has been found to be task oriented in some situations. Fiedler has proposed that such findings reflect the pursuit of secondary goals in these situations. Each of these four interpretations emerged in a post hoc effort to account for new empirical findings. The review below focuses on the fit between the data now available and these four interpretations (as well as a fifth interpretation, the value-attitude model, which emerged from the review and is presented in the body of this article). Method and Scope of the Review The formal classification system developed by McGrath and Altman (1966) was adopted for the task of reviewing the LPC literature. A statistical relationship between two (or more) variables serves as the unit of analysis in this system. Each variable involved in such a relationship is classified in terms of general operational characteristics of the data, for example, the source of the data (group member, group, experimenter), the object of the data (member, group, environment surrounding the group), and the mode of the object that is measured (static versus dynamic properties). McGrath and Altman presented empirical evidence demonstrating that these categories are useful in organizing a large set of data. The details of the classification system, the strengths and weakness of formal classificatory approaches, and the value of

such an approach to theory development have been discussed elsewhere (Altman, 1968; McGrath & Altman, 1966; Rice, 1978a). In applying this approach to the LPC literature, a random sample of 66 empirical studies involving LPC was drawn from a total pool of 114 such studies. For each of the sampled studies, the classification system was applied to all statistical relationships between LPC and another variable; that is, both LPC and the other variable were classified in terms of the operational procedures used to collect these data. A total of 1,445 such statistical relationships between LPC and another variable were identified in the 66 studies formally classified. For each relationship between LPC and another variable in the sample, it was noted whether the statistical test of this relationship (e.g., r, t, F, x*) was significant at p < .05. This information allows for the calculation of "batting averages" for each cluster of operationally homogeneous variables. Batting averages are simply the percentage of all statistical tests within a given class that reach conventional levels of significance (p < .05). Batting averages should be compared against a baseline of five percent, that is, by chance alone, five percent of all statistical tests should be significant with alpha set at .05. Batting averages can be interpreted as a general index of the strength of the relationship between LPC and different classes of variables; that is, LPC is thought to be most strongly related (both empirically and conceptually) to variables for which the batting average is relatively high. Although the batting average data are based solely on the sample of studies formally classified, this review attempts to be comprehensive in coverage of published research. Data from all identified books, journal articles, and government technical reports involving the LPC variable are discussed in each section of the review. However, data reported in unpublished manuscripts, convention papers, and theses (doctoral or master's) are not included. For each section of the review, the batting average within the sample is reported first, and then the findings from research inside and outside the sample are presented

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

1207

in some detail. Unless otherwise specified, all person: other group members, self, group, and findings reported in the review are statistically features of the environment. The final category reliable (p < ,05). All findings are reported in this section concerns the effect of success in terms of high and low scores on the LPC and failure on judgments of this type. scale, even when the earlier Assumed Similarity Between Opposites (ASo) Scale was Judgments About Other Group Members used. Given the very high correlation between LPC and its historical predecessor, LPC was more strongly related to judgASo, this simplification of format should not ments about other group members than to create any serious problems. any other class of attitudes (18/45 = 40% In developing the construct space of the of the relationships in this class were statisLPC score, the review follows the outline tically significant in the sample of studies provided in Table 1. The entries in this table formally classified). These data generally are summary statements of the findings for show that high-LPC persons make more each major class of variables discussed in the favorable judgments of other group members review. In this table, the attitudes and be- than do low-LPC persons; 90% (18/20) of havior of low-LPC persons are described in the main effects (both significant and nonthe left column, and the attitudes and be- significant) in the sample were in this direchavior of high-LPC persons are described in tion. The significant main effects for this class the corresponding section of the right column. of variables from both inside and outside the The review documents and fleshes out the sample are summarized in Table 2. The first summary statements provided in this table. column of this table describes the judgment Note that the present review does not con- procedure employed and the type of group sider two of the most frequently researched member judged. The second column indicates relationships in the LPC literature: the effect whether it was high- or low-LPC respondents of leader LPC on group performance and the who provided the most favorable judgments. effect of leader LPC on follower attitudes High-LPC persons are generally more favorsuch as job satisfaction. These data were able in their judgments of other group memexcluded from the review for two reasons: bers, but the exceptions to this general trend First, extensive and detailed reviews of this suggest that there may also be qualitative literature are available elsewhere (e.g., Fiedler, differences in the type of group member 1958, 1964, 1967, 197lb; Fiedler & Chemers, judged favorably by high- and low-LPC 1974; Graen et al., 1970; Rice, 1975). Second, persons. and more important, such data provide little High-LPC persons. As is shown in Table 2, information about the construct space of the high-LPC persons were more favorable in LPC measure. Although such data document judgments of the group leader, typical member the importance of understanding LPC,2 they of the group, and subordinates who did not are of little value in addressing the question, support their leadership. Assuming positive What does LPC measure? ratings of the self, the assumed similarity findings provide further evidence that highLPC persons usually evaluate other group Judgments by LPC Persons3 members more favorably than do low-LPC persons. The formal classification of the LPC literature indicated that LPC is more strongly related to judgments (or attitudes) expressed 2 In the sample of studies formally classified by by the LPC person than to any other general Rice (1975), 18% (81/455) of the group performance class of variables; 27% (84/313) of the statis- data and 19% (54/292) of the follower satisfaction tical relationships in this class were significant data yielded statistically significant results. Thus, the in the sample of studies formally classified. frequency of LPC-related outcome effects is about four times what one would expect by chance. 3 Discussion of these attitudinal data is broken The term LPC person refers to the respondent to into four subcategories on the basis of the the LPC scale, the person whose LPC score is known object described and evaluated by the LPC to the investigator.

1208

ROBERT W. RICE

Table 2 Significant Differences Between High- and Low-LPC Persons in Judgments About Other Group Members Type of judgment (reference) Esteem for group leader (Wearing & Bishop, Note 3) Satisfaction with supervisor and co-workers (Hunt, 1971; Wood & Sobel, 1970) Number of management functions superior is willing to delegate to subordinates (Alpander, 1974) Percentage of positive sociometric choices made within immediate work group (Wearing & Bishop, Note 3) Assumed similarity between oneself and other group members (Godfrey, Fiedler, & Hall, 1959; Cronbach, Hartmann, & Ehart, Note 4; Rudin, Lazar, Ehart, & Cronbach, Note 5) Leader's evaluation of subordinates who do not sociometrically endorse the leader (Godfrey et al., 1959) Leader's evaluation of subordinates who do sociometrically endorse the leader (Godfrey et al., 1959) Superior's evaluation of subordinate's job performance (Jones & Johnson, 1972) Number of positive adjectives used to describe best friend (Bass, Fiedler, & Krueger, Note 6) Esteem for most preferred co-worker (Bons, Bass, & Komorita, 1970; Fiedler, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1967; Gottheil & Vielhaber, 1966; Shiflett, 1974, Bass etal., Note 6)

Direction" high high high high high high high low low low low

Note. High- and low-LPC persons are persons with high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. The following studies failed to report any significant effects for the class of variables described in the table; Chemers (1969), Gottheil & Lauterbach (1969), Hutchins & Fiedler (1960), Rice & Chemers (1973), Shima (1968), Steiner & Peters (1958), Bishop (Note 7). 1 High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. Low-LPC persons. Low-LPC persons were more favorable than high-LPC persons in judgments of their best friends, most preferred co-workers, and loyal subordinates, The data for loyal subordinates require a more detailed description. Godfrey et al. (1959, p. 86) reported unpublished findings by Hutchins from a study of military combat crews. Crew leaders judged themselves and their subordinates on a series of evaluative statements. In groups indicating their loyalty to the leader through sociometric endorsement of his leadership, low-LPC leaders showed greater similarity between self-descriptions and descriptions of their subordinates than did high-LPC leaders. In groups not sociometrically endorsing the formal leader, highLPC leaders showed greater similarity in self- and group member descriptions. Godfrey et al. (1959) found a similar but nonsignificant trend in their study of farm cooperatives, Assuming generally positive self ratings, such data suggest that low-LPC leaders evaluate . . ,. . f , , ., , loyal subordinates more favorably than do high-LPC leaders, whereas disloyal subordinates receive relatively more favorable evalu-

ations from high-LPC leaders than from low-LPC leaders. Discrimination in judgments. The above data suggest that low-LPC persons are relatively more favorable than high-LPC persons in attitudes toward group members who contribute to task success (most preferred coworker and loyal subordinates). Conversely, low-LPC persons are relatively less favorable than high-LPC persons in attitudes toward those who do not make an outstanding contribution to task success (least preferred co-worker, average group members, subordinates not endorsing their leadership). This interpretation of the data suggests that lowLPC persons discriminate more sharply among other group members along a dimension of task competence than do high-LPC persons.4 4The . , result is the only finding that does not clearly fit this interpretation. To be consistent with the view proposed here, one must assume that ^w-LPC persons choose especially competent persons as their best friends or that they perceive ^ best friends as egpedally competenty pThis is theoretically reasonable, but there are no data directly relevant to such an argument.

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

Further evidence for the discriminating judgments of low-LPC persons is provided by studies examining differences in judgments of more than one co-worker. Golb and Fiedler (Note 8) asked military personnel to evaluate several randomly chosen members of their immediate work group on semantic-differential rating scales. Low-LPC persons discriminated more in their ratings of other group members in terms of both variance among individual item scores and mean differences in their judgments of different group members. Similarly, Bass et al. (Note 6) reported that low-LPC persons made greater use of the extremes in describing others on the semantic differential and showed greater variance in descriptions of their fathers on semanticdifferential scales. Finally, correlations of .70-.93 between LPC and scores on the Assumed Similarity Between Opposites (ASo) Scale, which requires respondents to describe their most and least preferred co-workers, were reported by Fiedler (1967). The high correlations between LPC and ASo indicate that low-LPC persons perceive greater differences between their most and least preferred co-workers than do high-LPC persons. Statistically reliable differences have been found in such judgments even when limited to a single item, 6-point rating of similarity between one's most and least preferred coworkers (Bass et al., Note 6). Assuming that the work context of these judgments introduces a general tendency to base such judgments on task-relevant criteria, these results are consistent with the data reviewed above; that is, low-LPC persons seem to make sharper distinctions in judgments based on the criteria of task performance and task competence.6 Criteria for judgments. The data reviewed to this point merely imply that high- and low-LPC persons differ in the criteria on which they base their attitudes. This proposition receives more direct support from a comparison of the way high- and low-LPC respondents describe their least preferred co-workers in their own words. Fishbein, Landy, and Hatch (1969b) compared lists of attributes generated by high- and low-LPC respondents to describe their least preferred co-workers. Although not assessed statistically, there appeared to be considerable difference

1209

in the terms used by high- and low-LPC persons to describe their least preferred coworkers. Fishbein et al. (1969b, pp. 181-182) interpreted these data as showing that highand low-LPC persons describe different types of persons as their least preferred co-workers. High-LPC persons most often described a co-worker potentially disruptive to smooth and rewarding interpersonal relations ("bullheaded, dogmatic, must have own way," "talks too much," "bossy," "intelligent," and "know it all"). On the other hand, low-LPC persons most often described a co-worker potentially disruptive to successful task performance ("not intelligent," "personally dirty, messy, and sloppy," "careless, incompetent, makes mistakes," and "slow"). These data suggest that high- and low-LPC persons may be threatened by different types of least preferred co-workers and that the two groups may use different criteria (or judgment categories) to evaluate other group members. It appears that low-LPC persons more often make evaluative judgments (including judgments of their least preferred co-workers) in terms of task-relevant criteria. On the other hand, high-LPC persons appear to use relationship-relevant criteria more frequently in making such judgments. This interpretation suggests that high- and low-LPC persons perceive and evaluate their world through qualitatively different sets of standards (or "constructs," to use Kelly's, 1955, term). Judgments About the Self

LPC was also strongly related to judgments about oneself (34/102 = 33% significant relationships in the sample). These data are quite consistent in showing that low-LPC persons judge themselves more favorably than do high-LPC persons. For judgments of a clearly evaluative nature, 88% (29/33) of the main 6 Different operationalizations of differentiation have yielded quite different results. Sashkin, Taylor, and Tripathi (1974) and Larson and Rowland (1974) have reported that high-LPC persons use more categories in a more cognitively complex fashion than do low-LPC persons when judging customers, other members of the organization, and group roles. Foa et al. (1971) also argued that high-LPC persons differentiate more in their social judgments.

1210

ROBERT W. RICE

Table 3 Significant Differences Between High- and Low-LPC Persons in Judgments About the Self Type of judgment (reference) Favorable description of self on semantic-differential scales such as bold, intelligent, friendly (Bons, Bass, & Komorita, 1970; Fox, Note 9) Favorable description of self on an adjective checklist (Bass, Fiedler, & Krueger, Note 6) Favorable description of ideal self (Bass et al., Note 6) Satisfaction with own contribution to group task effort (Anderson, Note 10) Self-descriptions of mental well-being (Shiflett, 1974) Self-report personality measure of need for affection: FIRO-B (Steiner, Note 11) Self-report personality measures of control and inclusion wanted from others: FIRO-B (Steiner, Note 11) Self-report personality measures of being oriented toward others, as opposed to self-orientation (Fiedler, 1972a) Self-report personality measure of need for achievement: EPPS (Burke, 1965) Self-ratings of anxiety in experiment (Ayer, Note 12) Self-report personality measure of nervousness (Shima, 1968) Self-report personality measure of lack of agreeableness (Shima, 1968)

Direction" low low low low low low low low low low high high

Note. High- and low-LPC persons are persons with high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale; FIRO-B = Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation—Behavior Scale; EPPS = Edwards' Personal Preference Schedule. The following studies did not report any significant LPC effects for the class of variables described in the table: Fiedler (1967), Gottheil & Lauterbach (1969), Gottheil & Vielhaber (1966), Gruenfeld & Arbuthnot (1968), Sashkin, Taylor, & Tripathi (1974), Steiner & McDiarmid (1957), Strickland (1967), Hawkins (cited in Bass et al., Note 6), Myers (cited in Bass et al., Note 6), Bishop (Note 7), Cleven, McBride, & Fiedler (cited in Golb & Fiedler, Note 8), McBride & Dodge (cited in Golb & Fiedler, Note 8). * High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale.

effects (both significant and nonsignificant) as to other types of judgments (5/21 = 24% in the sample were in this direction. significant relationships within the sample). As is shown in Table 3, several different The directional trends in these data in the response formats have been used to compare sample were fairly strong: 81% (13/16) of the self-descriptions of high- and low-LPC the main effects (both significant and nonpersons. The most common format is the significant) indicated that low-LPC persons semantic differential. The two studies em- generally evaluated their group more favorably ploying this procedure reported 16 significant than did high-LPC persons. However, looking main effects indicating that low-LPC persons only at the statistically reliable findings, one describe themselves in more favorable terms, finds little consistency in this relationship such as bold, tolerant, intelligent, trustworthy, (see Table 4). Two studies found that lowLow-LPC persons also described themselves LPC persons evaluate the group more favorand their ideal selves more favorably on an adjective checklist. Finally, low-LPC persons tended to describe themselves in more de6 Hjgh- and low-LPC persons have also been comsirable, socially acceptable terms on a number of self-report personality measures. For example, low-LPC persons (relative to high-LPC \ j -u j 4.1. i i persons) described themselves as less nervous, more agreeable, higher in need for achievement, and more oriented toward interaction with others (as opposed to self-orientation).6 , Judgments About the Group In terms of batting average, LPC was not as strongly related to judgments of the group

pared on a few personal and personality measures that do not rely on a self-report format. In this sense, these mea sures can be classified as objective rather than subjective measures. Twenty-nine percent (2/7) of such relationships were signi/cant £ the sample. These data indicated that low-LPC persons (relative to high-LPC persons (a) are more hypnotizable (Fiedler, London, & Nemo, Note 13), (b) score lower on a disguised measure of "extra-punitiveness" (Steiner, Note 11), and (c) have lower pulse rates and body temperatures (Rudin, 1964). Two additional studies using a disguised measure of anxiety reported significant LPC-related interaction effects (Bishop, Note 7; Anderson, Note 10).

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE Table 4 Significant Differences

1211

Between High- and Low-LPC Persons in Judgments About Their Group Type of judgment (reference)

Favorable description of group atmosphere (Anderson, Note 10; Brown & Smolinski, Note 14) Satisfaction with group experience (Gruenfeld, Ranee, & Weissenberg, 1969) Accuracy of subjective estimate of group performance when compared with objective measures of performance (Ayer, Note 12) Accuracy of group atmosphere description when compared with ratings of other group members (Foa, Mitchell, & Fiedler, 1971 \ Ayer, Note 12, Mitchell & Foa, Note IS)

Direction" low high low high

Note. High- and low-LPC persons are persons with high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. The following studies did not report any significant relationship between LPC and the class of variables described in the table: Bates (cited in Fiedler, 1971b), Chemers (1969), Chemers, Fiedler, Lekhyananda & Stolurow (1966), Chemers, Rice, Sundstrom, & Butler (197S), Chemers & Skrzypek (1972), Csoka (1974, 197S), Csoka & Fiedler (1972a, 1972b), Fiedler (1962, 1966, 1967), Fiedler, O'Brien, & Ilgen (1969), Goldstein & Cole (1969), Gottheil & Lauterbach (1969), Gottheil & Vielhaber (1966), Graen, Orris, & Alvarez (1971a, 1971b), Hill (1969b), Hovey (1974), Hunt (1967), Julian & McGrath (cited in Fiedler, 1967), McKague (1968), Mental Health Workshop (cited in Fiedler, 1967), O'Brien, Ilgen, & Fiedler (cited in Fiedler, 197lb), Rice & Chemers (1975), Seifert (cited in Fiedler, 1971b), Shima (1968), Stinson & Tracy (1974), Bishop (Note 7), Fox (Note 9), Fiedler, London, & Nemo (Note 13), Anderson & Fiedler (Note 16), Bishop (Note 17), Csoka (Note 18), Fiedler, Bass, & Fiedler (Note 19), Fiedler & Barron (Note 20), Meuwese & Fiedler (Note 21). Many of these studies included the LPC scale and group atmosphere measures developed by Fiedler but did not combine the two. Instead, group atmosphere was often used solely to assess situational favorableness for tests of contingency model predictions. " High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale.

ably, and one study found that high-LPC persons evaluate the group more favorably. Most studies failed to find statistically reliable differences in comparisons of high- and lowLPC persons in judgments of the group. Dynamics of judgments about the group. Meuwese and Fiedler (Note 21) found that high- and low-LPC leaders differ in their attributions about the cause of unsuccessful group task performance. High-LPC leaders more often blamed themselves, and low-LPC leaders more often blamed other group members for group failure on the task. The attribution of responsibility for failure to other group members may reflect a defensive response on the part of low-LPC persons, resulting from their strong need for task success. Ayer (cited in Fiedler, 1972a) found that low-LPC leaders evaluated their group more favorably than high-LPC leaders when the followers were high in intelligence. On the other hand, high-LPC leaders evaluated their group more favorably than did low-LPC leaders when it was composed of followers with relatively low intelligence. Assuming that respondents perceived intelligence to be a task-relevant characteristic, these data are

consistent with other findings indicating that the judgments of low-LPC persons are strongly influenced by task-related considerations. Cognitive components. Several studies have indicated that high-LPC persons are more accurate and more responsive to information cues in judging the interpersonal features of their group. Accuracy data compare high- and low-LPC leaders in terms of the discrepancy between leaders' and followers' judgments of group atmosphere. In all three studies reporting such data (Foa et al., 1971; Ayer, Note 12; Mitchell & Foa, Note 15) this discrepancy was smaller for high-LPC leaders than for low-LPC leaders. These data suggest that high-LPC persons are more attuned to the social features of their group. With regard to the issue of responsiveness, Ayer (Note 12) and Bishop (Note 17) found interactions between LPC and situational factors such as bogus feedback and group composition, in analyses in which judgments about the group (and the accuracy of such judgments) served as the dependent variable. These interactions are interpreted as showing that high-LPC persons, but not low-LPC persons, are influenced by situational factors in making such judgments. Such data suggest that when

1212

ROBERT W. RICE

judging the interpersonal features of the groups high-LPC persons recognize and process more information than do low-LPC persons. More limited evidence suggests that lowLPC persons may have special cognitive expertise in judging task performance features of the group. Ayer (Note 12) compared leaders' judgments of group performance with objective performance criteria. Low-LPC leaders proved to be more accurate in such judgments than high-LPC leaders. Ayer also reported that the accuracy of such judgments was influenced by interactions between LPC and situational factors. These interactions indicated that the judgments made by lowLPC persons, but not high-LPC persons, were influenced by situational changes. As was discussed with regard to interpersonal features of the group in the previous paragraph, such interactions can be interpreted as evidence for more responsive information processing. Judgments About the Environment Outside the Group Judgments about the environment in which the group must function were not as strongly related to LPC as were the judgments reviewed in the three previous sections. Only 19% (27/145) of the relationships in the sample were significant for data in this category. Operationally, this category became somewhat of a catchall in the classification system. Judgments that did not clearly refer to oneself, the group, or another group member were classified as referring to some element of the environment in which the LPC persons and their groups must function. Consequently, a wide variety of judgments are included in this category, for example, general beliefs as measured by the Basic Nature of Man Scale, evaluations of one's community and work organization, attitudes toward tasks, and certain components of job satisfaction measures (pay, promotion, work itself). As is shown in Table 5, there was no general tendency for either high- or low-LPC persons to provide more favorable judgments of this type. However, these data do suggest that there are qualitative differences in the features of the social environment judged favorably by high- and low-LPC persons.

Low-LPC persons. Low-LPC persons were generally more favorable and optimistic than high-LPC persons in judgments concerning the task-relevant features of their environment. For example, low-LPC persons were more optimistic in their subjective probability that the task could be performed successfully. Low-LPC persons also placed greater importance on tangible indicators of task achievement such as publications and financial benefits. Further, low-LPC persons felt that success was more important (i.e., greater perceived utility of task success). Finally, low-LPC persons felt more involved in their jobs (as college faculty members). High-LPC persons. High-LPC persons were generally more favorable and optimistic than low-LPC persons in judgments concerning the interpersonal features of their environment. For example, high-LPC persons were more favorable in judgments of their community and the climate of their work organization. High-LPC persons were also more favorable in their general beliefs about the nature of mankind and believed that children should be given greater freedom in the use of public park facilities. Finally, high-LPC persons attributed greater importance to people-oriented management functions and indicated a stronger preference for participative strategies of managing conflict. Cognitive components. Some of the data in Table 5 indicate that the interpersonal judgments of high-LPC persons are more complex and differentiated than the judgments of low-LPC persons. For example, when given a list of groups, social roles, clients, or members of the organization, high-LPC persons categorize stimuli in a more cognitively complex manner. Also high-LPC persons apparently process more information in making such judgments (as indicated by greater responsiveness to situational cues). These data have been reviewed in considerable detail in earlier discussion of the cognitive interpretation of LPC (Fiedler, 1971b; Foa et al., 1971; Hill, 1969a; Larson & Rowland, 1974; Mitchell, 1970; Sashkin et al., 1974). The cognitive responsiveness of high-LPC persons in judging their social environment is further documented by data reported by Hansson and Fiedler (Note 28). These data

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

1213

Table 5

Significant Differences Between High- and Low-LPC Persons in Judgments About the Environment Outside the Group Type of judgment (reference) Preference for a participative approach in resolving conflict with subordinates (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) Degree of preference for "smoothing resolution" and "compromising" as strategies for managing conflict (Sashkin, Taylor, & Tripathi, 1974) Importance of people-oriented management functions (supervising, directing, coordinating) relative to task-oriented functions (planning, organizing, controlling) (Alpander, 1974) Amount of freedom children should be given in use of park facilities (Nebeker & Hansson, Note 22) Positive and optimistic beliefs as measured by McGrath's Basic Nature of Man Scale (Nebeker & Hansson, Note 22) Evaluation of organizational climate (Jones & Johnson, 1972) Evaluation of one's community (Godfrey, Fiedler, & Hall, 1959) Favorableness of hypothetical group task situations for the exercise of leadership (Chemers & Summers, Note 23) Amount of information used when judging hypothetical group task situations (Mitchell, 1970) Cognitive complexity (differentiation) of classifying groups, social roles, clients, and other members of one's organization (Larson & Rowland, 1974, Mitchell, 1970; Sashkin et al., 1974; Schroeder, cited in Fiedler, 197lb) Category width (Bass, Fiedler, & Krueger, Note 6; Steiner, cited in Bass et al., Note 6) Authoritarian social beliefs as measured by the Authoritarianism Scale (Steiner & McDiarmid, 1957) Importance attributed to tangible markers of job success such as publications and financial compensation (Prothero & Fiedler, Note 24) Subjective utility (value) of success in judging hypothetical group task situations (Nebeker, Beach, & Green, Note 25) Subjective probability of success (optimism) in judging hypothetical group task situations (Nebeker et al., Note 25) Feeling of involvement in the activities of place of employment (Prothero & Fiedler, Note 24)

Direction" high highb high high high highb high highb high highb high high0 low lowb lowb lowb

Note. High- and low-LPC persons are persons with high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. The following references did not report any significant relationship between LPC and the class of variables described in this table; Bons, Bass, & Komorita (1970), Chemers (1969), Chemers, Rice, Sundstrom, &.Butler (1975), Evans & Dermer (1974), Fishbein, Landy, & Hatch (1969a, 1969b), Hunt (1971), Nealey & Blood (1968), Shiflett (1974), Weissenberg & Gruenfeld (1966), Wood & Sobel (1970), Yukl (1969), Wearing & Bishop (Note 3), Bass et al. (Note 6), Steiner (cited in Bass et al., Note 6), Bishop (Note 7), Fox (Note 9), Braxton & Crosby (Note 26), Triandis & Hall (Note 27). * High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. b A significant interaction effect involving LPC was also reported for this variable. Such interactions may moderate the main effect reported in the table. 0 Other efforts to relate LPC to the Authoritarianism Scale and the Dogmatism Scale have not replicated the finding that high-LPC persons are more authoritarian (Evans & Dermer, 1974; Fishbein et al., 1969b, Sashkin et al., 1974, Bass et al., Note 6).

have not been included in previous discussions of the cognitive interpretation of LPC. Hansson and Fiedler found that for high-LPC persons, but not low-LPC persons, perceived similarity (in terms of attitudes and values) between oneself and other members of the organization was correlated with satisfaction

with the organization. Along similar lines, Prothero and Fiedler (Note 24) found that for high-LPC persons, but not low-LPC persons, judgments of organizational control were positively correlated with objective measures of power and control. Both of these findings support the proposition that high-LPC per-

1214

ROBERT W. RICE

sons attend to more information and more accurately interpret information in the realm of interpersonal affairs. In addition to describing and interpreting the significant findings in this class of variables, it is also important to take note of some consistent nonsignificant effects in these data. Although the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and the Managerial Grid Questionnaire may appear to be measuring concepts similar to LPC, correlations between LPC and these measures have yielded consistently nonsignificant findings (Bons et al., 1970; Weissenberg & Gruenfeld, 1966; Braxton & Crosby, Note 26). Similarly, efforts to correlate LPC with a number of standard measures of social attitudes and personality have been unsuccessful: Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Sashkin et al., 1974; Shiflett, 1974; Fox, Note 9), Study of Values (Shiflett, 1974), Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Evans & Dermer, 1974; Fishbein et al., 1969b; Sashkin et al., 1974), and Authoritarianism Scale (Fishbein et al., 1969b; Steiner & McDiarmid, 1957; Sashkin et al., 1974; Bass et al., Note 6). Judgmental Reactions to Success and Failure A number of studies have examined the relationship between success or failure and the attitudes of high- and low-LPC persons. These studies attempted to go beyond simple comparison of judgments made by high- and low-LPC persons and focused on the correlates of favorable and unfavorable judgments by high- and low-LPC persons. The general procedure in these studies is to collect three measures: (a) LPC, (b) degree of success in either the task or the interpersonal domain, and (c) attitudes toward social objects such as self, group, or other group member. Correlations between the success and attitude measures are then calculated separately for groups of high- and low-LPC persons. The results of studies employing such procedures have been reviewed in detail elsewhere (Fiedler, 1967, pp. 55-60; 1972a), and a general summary of the findings will suffice here. Because none of these data were included in the sample of studies formally classified, it is not possible to provide a batting average for this class of data. Task success. The attitudes of low-LPC persons are related to task success. Low-LPC

persons are more favorable in their attitudes toward themselves, other group members, and the group when they are successful on the task than when they are unsuccessful; that is, attitudes and task performance are positively correlated for low-LPC persons. Further, they feel more accepted by others when successful on the task. For high-LPC persons, attitudes of this type are not correlated with task success. An unpublished study by Rice et al. (Note 2) provides quite a strong illustration of these LPC differences in reaction when attitudes toward oneself, co-workers, the group, and the task are assessed immediately following task performance. Interpersonal success. The attitudes of high-LPC persons are related to success in the realm of interpersonal relations. High-LPC persons are more favorable in their attitudes toward themselves, other group members, and the group when they experience successful interpersonal relations with other members of the group than when such relations are not successful; that is, attitudes and interpersonal success are positively correlated for high-LPC persons. For low-LPC persons, success in the realm of interpersonal relations is unrelated to attitudes of this type. These differential reactions to success and failure appear to have considerable generality. Such reactions have been reported in studies from both field and laboratory settings. Further, both objective and subjective measures have been used to determine degree of success in the interpersonal and task domains. Finally, similar patterns have been found for attitudes toward four general classes of attitude objects: self, group, other group members, and task. Bishop (Note 17) even found such differential reactions in a disguised measure of anxiety (the Anxiety Differential; Alexander & Husek, 1962). No single study of this type is without possible flaws, but the total set of results appears to represent a reliable difference in the reactions of highand low-LPC persons. The review identified only one result that appeared to contradict this general pattern (Gruenfeld et al., 1969). Summary of Judgment Data The data reviewed above suggest that attitudes toward one's least preferred co-worker

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

are part of an interrelated network of attitudes. Attitudes toward self, others, group, and various elements of one's environment are often correlated to some degree with the LPC score. Generally, low-LPC persons appear to be more extreme in such judgments; that is, low-LPC persons, relative to high-LPC persons, have more positive attitudes toward positively valued persons (self, best friend, most preferred co-worker) and have more negative attitudes toward neutral and negatively valued persons (disloyal subordinates, typical group members, least preferred coworker). Rice, Seaman, and Garvin (1978) recently provided evidential validation of this extremity hypothesis. A variety of data suggest that the networks of attitudes held by high- and low-LPC persons are influenced by different factors. Most relevant here are the differential reactions to success and failure in the realms of task and interpersonal success. These data suggest that low-LPC persons value task success and high-LPC persons value interpersonal success. Qualitative differences in dimensions used to judge others also reflect these differences in values. Additional evidence for the value of task success for low-LPC persons is provided by the defensiveness shown in their attributions about the cause of task failure and by the strong relationship shown between task-relevant ability of group members (IQ) and evaluation of the group. Further, low-LPC persons express more optimistic beliefs about the probability of task success and the likelihood that important rewards will be tied to task success. Conversely, high-LPC persons express more optimistic beliefs about the probability of interpersonal success and the likelihood that interpersonal success will lead to important outcomes. To the extent that such beliefs are the result of wishful thinking, optimism may reflect the values of task and interpersonal success. The attitude data reviewed here also show differences between high and low-LPC persons in terms of cognitive performance. High-LPC persons were more accurate and responsive in judgments of interpersonal relations in the group; they also scored higher on several measures of cognitive complexity based on judgments of social stimuli. On the other

1215

hand, limited data showed low-LPC persons to be more accurate and responsive in judgments concerning task success. Low-LPC persons also appeared to discriminate more in judgments made along a dimension of task competence (contribution). Value-Attitude Interpretation of LPC Relying heavily on Fishbein's (1967) theory of attitudes and his efforts to apply this theory to LPC (Fishbein et al., 1969b), a value-attitude interpretation of LPC was formulated on the basis of the data reviewed in this section. This interpretation views the LPC scale as a measure of attitudes that reflect basic differences in the values of persons scoring high or low on the scale. There are two basic propositions to this interpretation. First, the LPC score is viewed as an attitude score. In the words of Fishbein et al. (1969b, p. 174), the LPC scale is "measuring exactly what it appears to be measuring," namely, attitudes toward one's least preferred co-worker. This proposition is based on two factors: (a) Operationally, LPC is a measure of attitudes, and (b) LPC is more strongly related to other attitude measures than to any other general class of variables. On both conceptual and empirical grounds, it seems appropriate to view LPC as an attitude score. Second, it is proposed that attitudes toward one's least preferred co-worker (and related attitude objects) reflect differences in the values of high- and low-LPC persons. Many data, summarized above, suggest that lowLPC persons tend to place greater value on successful task performance, and high-LPC persons place greater value on success in the realm of interpersonal relations. In the value-attitude model, values are viewed as the criteria against which attitudinal judgments are made. Because they have different values, high- and low-LPC persons are thought to base their attitudes on different criteria. Low-LPC persons highly value task success and tend to evaluate themselves and others in terms of this criterion. Thus, the attitudes of low-LPC persons toward themselves, others, the group, and the task should be quite favorable when they are successful on the task and quite unfavorable when they are unsuccessful. On the other

1216

ROBERT W. RICE

hand, it is expected that such attitudes will not be influenced by degree of task success for high-LPC persons (who place relatively less importance in task success). Precisely the opposite pattern is expected in the realm of interpersonal success: High-LPC persons highly value interpersonal success and tend to base their attitudes on this criterion. High-LPC persons should have more favorable attitudes toward themselves, others, the group, and the task when interpersonal relations have been successful than when relations have been unsuccessful. For low-LPC persons, who place less importance on interpersonal success, it is expected that attitudes will be unaffected by success in this realm. Simply stated, the value-attitude interpretation proposes that the primary values of high- and low-LPC persons serve as "constructs" (Kelly, 1955) through which they view and evaluate the world. The value-attitude interpretation can be better illustrated by comparing it with other interpretations of LPC as they relate to the data reviewed above. In contrast with the social distance interpretation, the valueattitude interpretation rejects the notion that low-LPC persons are generally more distant from other group members. Instead, it is thought that high- and low-LPC persons differ in the type of group member from whom they wish to maintain social distance. Both high- and low-LPC persons should seek to maintain social distance between themselves and persons who threaten their basic values. High-LPC persons should try to maintain social distance from persons threatening their core value of interpersonal success (e.g., socially disruptive group members). On the other hand, low-LPC persons should try to maintain social distance from persons threatening their core value of task success (e.g., incompetent group members). Data showing that low-LPC persons are often more positive in attitudes toward certain group members support the value-attitude model on this issue. In contrast with the cognitive complexity interpretation, the value-attitude interpretation of LPC rejects the notion that high-LPC persons are generally more complex than low-LPC persons. The present interpretation

suggests that the relative complexity of cognitions held by high- and low-LPC persons is domain specific and that personal values and cognitive complexity go hand in hand. Low-LPC persons are thought to be more cognitively complex within their domain of concern (task performance). Similarly, highLPC persons are thought to be more cognitively complex within their domain of concern (interpersonal relations). From the perspective of this interpretation, cognitive and value components are seen as part of a self-reinforcing system. Cognitive expertise within a certain realm may enhance the value of success in that realm (perhaps through a rationalization process in which realms where one is expert come to have high value). Conversely, high value for success within a given realm may lead one to develop judgmental expertise within that realm. Most probably, the causal relationships between cognitions and values are bidirectional, with the dominant direction of this relationship varying across time. Whatever the causal relationships, the end product is thought to be synchrony between cognitive and motivational elements. The value-attitude interpretation is not at odds with Fiedler's (1964, 1967) proposition that high- and low-LPC persons have different motives and needs in terms of task orientation and relationship orientation. Rather, the value-attitude interpretation attempts to clarify the meaning of task and relationship orientation. In addition to this clarification role, the value-attitude interpretation goes beyond the earlier needs-andmotives model in that the present model attempts to integrate cognitive and motivational components. Previous interpretations have treated these two issues quite separately. Fiedler's (1972a) most recent interpretation of LPC, the motivational hierarchy model, does not place great emphasis on the attitude data reviewed in this section. It is more useful to compare the value-attitude and motivational hierarchy interpretations after reviewing the data dealing with the observable behavior of high- and low-LPC persons, since these data are the primary focus of Fiedler's interpretative effort.

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

Observable Behavior of LPC Persons Throughout the history of LPC research, there have been efforts to identify behavioral correlates of LPC in hopes of explaining the proposed relationship between leader LPC and group performance. Overall, the batting average in such studies has been relatively high (107/375 = 29%). Three major classes of data have been collected in this research: (a) descriptions of behavior (especially leader behavior), (b) evaluations of individual task performance, and (c) cognitive ability test scores. These three lines of research are considered separately below. Descriptions of Behavior

Within the sample of studies formally classified, a batting average of 23% (58/256) was found for relationships between LPC and descriptions of the LPC person's behavior. The vast majority of data in this class involve descriptions of leader behavior associated with high- or low-LPC leaders. The few data exploring behavior correlates of LPC outside the leadership role are discussed in the final portion of this section. Leader behavior. Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 summarize the statistically significant results from main effect comparisons of the behavior of high- and low-LPC leaders. All significant LPC main effects from inside and outside of the sample of studies formally classified are summarized in these tables. Each table entry identifies the form of leader behavior compared and indicates whether high- or low-LPC leaders showed more of this particular behavior. Tables 6 and 7 present observer descriptions of leader behavior, and Tables 8 and 9 present significant LPC main effects from self-descriptions and other group members' descriptions. The pseudo main effects in observers' descriptions of leader behavior presented in Table 7 refer to situations in which no overall LPC main effect was assessed. Instead, the relationship between LPC and leader behavior was assessed separately within each treatment level. For example, correlations between leader LPC and leader behavior might be calculated for each of three treatment levels without reporting the overall

1217

correlation between LPC and leader behavior across the three treatment levels (or adjusting for mean differences with within-cell correlations). In such cases the correlations were often significant for only one or two of the treatment levels in the study. The data summarized in Tables 6-9 suggest two partially contradictory conclusions. First, the vast majority of statistically reliable main effects show that the behavior of low-LPC leaders is usually task oriented and the behavior of high-LPC leaders is usually relationship oriented. For example, low-LPC leaders are described as clarifying their role as chairman, being dominant, speaking frequently, sending frequent messages, seeing that work of the group is coordinated, and ruling with an iron hand. On the other hand, high-LPC leaders are described as agreeing, offering procedural remarks, including other group members in task planning, providing support, and showing positive socioemotional behavior. Second, it is equally clear that the behavior of low-LPC leaders is not always task oriented and that the behavior of high-LPC leaders is not always relationship oriented. The data in Tables 6, 7, and 9 present a few cases in which statistically reliable main effects show that low-LPC leaders engage in more relationship-oriented behavior (e.g., positive socioemotional behavior, consideration). Similarly, there are some cases in which high-LPC leaders have shown more task-oriented behavior (e.g., interrupting, giving solutions and/or information). Further, as is indicated in the notes to the tables, many of the studies summarized in Tables 6-9 have reported significant interactions between LPC and situational factors in descriptions of leader behavior. Thus it is clear that situational factors can weaken and even reverse the usual behavioral correlates of LPC. The equal empirical status of these two somewhat contradictory conclusions is nicely illustrated by the batting average data available from the sample of studies formally classified. The percentage of significant effects in data relating leader LPC to behavioral descriptions was almost identical for LPC main effects (45/198 = 23%) and interaction effects involving LPC and situational factors

1218

ROBERT W. RICE

Table 6 Significant LPC Main Effects in Observers' Descriptions of Leader Behavior Behavior category (reference) Makes certain his part (as chairman) is clearly understood by members (Green, Nebeker, & Boni, Note 29) Rules with an iron hand (Green et al., Note 29) Emphasizes the use of uniform procedures (Green et al., Note 29) Dominance (Gruenfeld, Ranee, & Weissenburg, 1969) Task-relevant responses (Larson & Rowland, 1973) Composite index of task-oriented behavior (Green et al., Note 29) Composite index of relationship-oriented behavior (Green et al., Note 29) Emphasis on relationship-oriented behavior relative to task-oriented behavior as determined by difference between two composite indexes (Green et al., Note 29) Tries to put group members at ease when talking with them (Green et al., Note 29) Is friendly and approachable (Green et al., Note 29) Looks out personally for individual group members (Green et al., Note 29) Acceptance (Gruenfeld et al., 1969) Tension release (Gruenfeld et al., 1969) Asks for orientation (Fiedler, London, & Nemo, Note 13)

Direction' low low low lowb lowb low high high high high high high high high

Note. LPC = least preferred co-worker. Fiedler (1962) did not report any statistically significant LPC effects for the class of variables described in the table. The following studies reported significant LPC interaction effects for some class of leader behavior but did not find a significant LPC main effect for that particular behavior category: Fiedler (1967, pp. 181-198), Larson & Rowland (1973), Rice & Chemers (1975), Ayer (Note 12), Fiedler, London, & Nemo (Note 13), Fiedler & Barren (Note 20), Green & Nebeker (Note 30), Morris & Fiedler (Note 31). a High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. b This study also reported a significant interaction effect involving LPC and some situational factor for this category of leader behavior.

(13/58 = 22%). These figures suggest that it is possible to make some general statements about the behavior of high- and low-LPC leaders ; however, one cannot ignore the strong influence that situational variables can have on the relationship between LPC and observed patterns of behavior. Behavioral reactions to success and failure, Graham (1973) found that consideration behavior (as described by subordinates) and group performance were positively correlated for low-LPC leaders but not for high-LPC leaders. Less direct evidence suggests an opposite pattern in the realm of interpersonal relations. Graham (1968) found that the correlations between followers' reports of consideration behavior and liking of the leader were significantly higher for high-LPC leaders than for low-LPC leaders. Similarly, Nealey and Blood (1968) found that leader esteem for subordinates was related to consideration behavior for high-LPC leaders but not for low-LPC leaders.

Although they are limited in number, the behavioral reaction data appear consistent with the judgment data reviewed above concerning LPC differences in reactions to different types of success. Consideration behavior by low-LPC leaders appears to be strongly related to the degree of success in their most highly valued domain (task success). Graham's (1973) results suggest that low-LPC leaders are considerate only to groups that are productive. On the other hand, the behavior of high-LPC leaders appears to be most responsive to factors reflecting success in the interpersonal domain (e.g., liking subordinates and being liked by subordinates), Variance in leader behavior. A few studies have examined differences in the variance among followers' descriptions of the behavior of high- and low-LPC leaders. Graham (1968) reported greater variance in followers' descriptions of consideration behavior among subordinates of low-LPC leaders. On the other hand, Sashkin (1972) reported greater

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

1219

Table 7 Significant Pseudo LPC Main Effects in Observers' Descriptions of Leader Behavior Behavior category (reference) Percentage of attempted interruptions that were successful (Julian & McGrath, Note 32) Percentage of feedback with negative affect (Julian & McGrath, Note 32) Percentage of messages with negative affect (Julian & McGrath, Note 32) Number of minutes spent speaking in group discussion (Julian & McGrath, Note 32) Percentage of total messages sent by the chairman (Julian & McGrath, Note 32) Composite factor score indicating degree of intensity with which leader interacts with the group (Fiedler, 1967) Elaborates (Ayer, Note 12) Asks questions (Ayer, Note 12) Asks for suggestion or direction (Fiedler, London, & Nemo, Note 13) Gives solutions and information (Ayer, Note 12) Gives information (Morris & Fiedler, Note 31) Offers suggestions (Fiedler et al., Note 13) Disagreements (Morris & Fiedler, Note 31) Positive social emotional behavior (Sample & Wilson, 1965) Consideration behavior (Fiedler & Barron, Note 20) Agreements (Fiedler et al., Note 13) Supports (Ayer, Note 12) Positive social emotional behavior (Sample & Wilson, 1965) Procedural comment (Morris & Fiedler, Note 31) Task-irrelevant responses (Ayer, Note 12; Morris & Fiedler, Note 31) Gives solutions and information (Ayer, Note 12) Gives information (Morris & Fiedler, Note 31) Interrupts (Ayer, Note 12)

Direction* low low low low low low low lowb low low low low low low low high high high high highb highb high high

Note. LPC = least preferred co-worker. See text for definition of pseudo main effect. " High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. b This study also reported a significant interaction effect involving LPC and some situational factor for this category of leader behavior.

variance in followers' descriptions of information sharing (defined as a task-oriented behavior) among subordinates of high-LPC leaders. These data are sparse, but they suggest that leaders may show greater behavioral consistency (less variance) in domains of greatest concern; that is, low-LPC leaders may be less variable in task-relevant behaviors, and high-LPC leaders may be less variable in relationship-relevant behaviors. Accuracy of self-descriptions. In a somewhat unusual analysis, Fox (Note 9) correlated followers descriptions of leader behavior with leaders' self-descriptions. He found that lowLPC persons were generally more accurate in their self-descriptions, compared with followers' descriptions of them, than were high-LPC persons Other classes of behamor. There have been many studies comparing the task-oriented and relationship-oriented behavior of high-

and low-LPC leaders, but there have been few efforts to identify LPC differences in other classes of overt behavior. The sparse significant findings in this class show that high-LPC persons are more conforming (Steiner & Peters, 1958) and that low-LPC faculty members generally collaborate more with other faculty members (Prothero & Fiedler, Note 24). Prothero and Fiedler also reported a significant interaction effect between LPC and a measure of situational control for collaboration in the specific area of teaching, No differences between high- and low-LPC persons were found in terms of altruism (Wagner & Wheeler, 1969) or returning a questionnaire (Bons et al., 1970). Interpretation of Behavior Descriptions Many data show that low-LPC persons generally behave in a task-oriented manner

ROBERT W. RICE

1220 Table 8

Significant LPC Main Effects in Leaders' Self-Descriptions of Leader Behavior Behavior category (reference) Expresses his attitudes, opinions, and/or ideas to the group (Green, Nebeker, & Boni, Note 29) Makes certain his part (as the chairman) is clearly understood by the members (Green et al., Note 29) Prods others to complete the task (Meuwese & Fiedler, Note 21) Composite index of task-oriented behavior (Green et al., Note 29) Openness with information concerning firm members, customers, and financial securities (Sashkin, Taylor, & Tripathi, 1974) Looks out personally for individual group members (Green et al., Note 29) Emphasis on relationship-oriented behavior relative to task-oriented behavior as determined by difference between two composite indexes (Green et al., Note 29)

Direction" low low low low highb high high

Note. LPC = least preferred co-worker. The following studies did not report any statistically significant LPC effects for this class of variables: Chemers (1969), Rice & Chemers (1975), Green & Nebeker (Note 30). * High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. b This study also reported a significant interaction effect involving LPC and some situational factor for this category of leader behavior. Openness with information concerning securities was negatively correlated with LPC in the condition of this study corresponding to Octant III (see Figure 1 above).

when in a leadership role. Similarly, high-LPC persons generally behave in a relationshiporiented manner when in a leadership role. The finding that high-LPC persons are more conforming also fits with the view that high-LPC persons are more sensitive to interpersonal issues. If one assumes that these behavioral patterns reflect the pursuit of important values, the data appear to support the proposition that low-LPC persons value task success, whereas high-LPC persons value interpersonal success. Both the value-attitude interpretation and Fiedler's (1964, 1967) earlier needs-and-motives model can claim support from such data. The LPC differences in behavioral correlates of success in the realms of task and interpersonal performance provide more direct support for these two models that suggest a basic task-interpersonal distinction between high- and low-LPC persons. In addition to the main effects mentioned above, the literature provides a number of significant findings showing that leader LPC and various situational factors interact to determine different forms of leader behavior. Fiedler's (1972a) motivational hierarchy interpretation was designed for the specific purpose of accounting for such results. As was discussed above (see Motivational Hierarchy section), reversals in the usual behavior pat-

terns are thought to reflect pursuit of secondary goals; that is, the behavior of low-LPC leaders is sometimes relationship oriented as they pursue their secondary goal (successful interpersonal relations). Similarly, the behavior of high-LPC leaders is sometimes task oriented as they pursue their secondary goal (successful task performance). As was documented by Fiedler (1972a), many of the interaction effects for leader behavior fit the pattern of results predicted by the motivational hierarchy interpretation. However, the empirical support for the motivational hierarchy model is not as strong as Fiedler's review might imply. First, as is documented in Tables 6-9, there are a substantial number of significant main effects for leader behavior. Such results, showing consistent differences in the behavior of highand low-LPC leaders across a wide range of situations, give no support to the notion that the behavioral patterns of high- and low-LPC persons reverse themselves as favorable situations allow for the pursuit of secondary goals. Second, as was documented in a review of the LPC-leader behavior literature by Rice (1973), many of the interaction effects show patterns that are not consistent with the motivational hierarchy predictions (see, e.g., Burke, 1965; Chemers & Skrzypek, 1972; Gruenfeld et al., 1969; Shima, 1968; Fiedler

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

1221

Table 9 Significant LPC Main Effects in Other Group Members' Descriptions of Leader Behavior Behavior category (reference)

Direction'

Seeing to it that the work of the group is coordinated (Fox, Note 9) Initiation of structure (Yukl, 1970) Interruptions (Meuwese & Fiedler, Note 21) Getting supervisor to act for the welfare of the group members (Fox, Note 9) Task-oriented behavior (Chemers & Skrzypek, 1972) Directiveness during the task phase (Blades & Fiedler, Note 33) Including other group members in task planning (Blades & Fiedler, Note 33) Giving too little direction to the group (Fox, Note 9) Consideration (Yukl, 1970) Including other group members in task planning (Blades & Fiedler, Note 33) Stimulating ideas among group members (Sample & Wilson, 1965) Use of delegated power and total power (Nealey & Blood, 1968) Initiating structure (Nealey & Blood, 1968) Relationship-oriented behavior (Chemers & Skrzypek, 1972) Sharing information with subordinates (Sashkin, 1972)

low lowb low low lowc middle middle high • highb high high high0 high high" high

Note. LPC = least preferred co-worker. The following studies did not report any significant LPC effects for the class of variables described in the table: Evans (1973), Fiedler (1967, pp. 173-194), Fiedler, O'Brien, & Ilgen (1969), Graen, Orris, & Alvarez (1971a), Stinson (1972), Anderson (Note 10). The following studies reported significant LPC interaction effects for some class of leader behavior but did not find a significant LPC main effect for that particular behavior category: Burke (1965), Chemers (1969), Fiedler (1967, 1972a), Graham (1973), Nealey & Blood (1968), Rice & Chemers (1975), Shiflett & Nealey (1972), Shima (1968), Green & Nebeker (Note 30), Fiedler (Note 34). *• High, middle, and low refer to high, mid-range, and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. b These results were based on analyses using factor scores of the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale rather than the total LPC score. " This study also reported a significant interaction effect involving LPC and some situational factor for this category of leader behavior.

& Barren, Note 20). Finally, studies designed to test the motivational hierarchy analysis of leader behavior have yielded mixed results (Larson & Rowland, 1973; Rice & Chemers, 1975; Green et al., Note 29; Green & Nebeker, Note 30). The value-attitude interpretation of LPC rejects the proposition that secondary goals facilitate our understanding of the LPC construct. The value-attitude model relies solely on the primary goals of high- and low-LPC persons (interpersonal and task success, respectively). From the perspective of the value-attitude model, the addition of secondary goals only adds confusion to the LPC concept. The strength of the basic values differentiating high- and low-LPC persons is somewhat obscured by focusing on the relalively infrequent instances when the data are consistent with the operation of the hypothesized secondary goals. If one takes seriously the proposition that LPC is an attitude measure, the occasional findings showing inconsistency between attitudes

(LPC) and behavior are not surprising (or reason to develop a radically new interpretation of LPC). Given the generally tenuous relationships between attitudes and behavior, we should not be surprised by results showing that low-LPC leaders are not always task oriented in their behavior and that high-LPC persons are not always relationship oriented in their behavior. The relationship between attitudes and behavior is far too complex to expect a simple and complete isomorphism between the two concepts (Bern & Allen, 1974; Campbell, 1963; Mischel, 1968, 1973; Rokeach, 1968). The value-attitude interpretation is deliberately based on the attitudinal correlates of LPC and the factors that influence such attitudes among high- and low-LPC persons (i.e., differential reactions to success and failure). Since attitudinal data are most strongly and consistently related to LPC in both an empirical and conceptual sense, these data were given greatest emphasis in interpreting the LPC construct. In contrast,

1222

ROBERT W. RICE

Fiedler's (1972a) motivational hierarchy interpretation places primary emphasis on data describing the behavior of high- and low-LPC leaders. From the perspective of the valueattitude model, Fiedler has erred in emphasizing such data in his interpretation of LPC. Since leader behavior data are not most strongly related to LPC in either an empirical or a conceptual sense, these data should not serve as the primary focus for an interpretation of LPC. Admittedly, leader behavior data may hold the key to eventual understanding of the differential effectiveness of high- and low-LPC leaders. However, such data are not a good starting point for defining the construct measured by the LPC scale. A better understanding of LPC emerges when one places primary emphasis on those data that are strongest in their conceptual and empirical relationships with LPC (namely, the attitudinal correlates of LPC and factors influencing such attitudes). This focus leads

to a position more consistent with Fiedler's (1964, 1967) earlier theorizing than with his most recent motivational hierarchy model. The other two interpretations of LPC, the social distance and cognitive complexity models, do not place great emphasis on observable behaviors shown by high- and lowLPC persons. Both these interpretations are more directly concerned with judgmental and affective data. However, the leader behavior main effects would appear generally consistent with the view that high-LPC persons generally maintain less social distance from others than do low-LPC persons. Individual Task Performance The previous section dealt with data describing the behaviors of high- and low-LPC persons, that is, what they did. The present section reviews data concerned with evaluating how well high- and low-LPC persons performed on certain tasks. Such data can

Table 10 Summary of Studies Correlating Leader LPC and Criteria of Individual Performance as a Function of Situational Favorableness Octant0 and summary of findings Octant I 14 of 17 correlations in predicted direction (negative) 7 of 8 significant correlations were negative

Octant II 1 of 1 correlation in predicted direction (negative) No significant correlations Octant III 18 of 18 correlations in predicted direction (negative) 12 of 12 significant correlations were negative

Criteria for determining situational favorableness (reference)

High leader GA score, high experience, high IQ (Csoka, 1974; Csoka & Fiedler, 1972b) High leader GA score, high training (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972a) High leader GA score, high judges' ratings of task structure and position power (Hill, 1969b) Experimenter judged leader-member relations, task structure, and position power all to be high (Cleven & Fiedler, 1956) High leader GA score, judges rated task structure high and position power low (Hill, 1969b)

High leader GA score, low training, high leader score on position power questionnaire (Csoka, 1975) High leader GA score, low training (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972a) High leader GA score, high experience, low IQ (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972b; Csoka, Note 18) High leader GA score, low experience, low IQ (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972b; Csoka, Note 18) High leader GA score, low experience, high IQ (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972b; Csoka, Note 18) High leader GA score, low experience, high or low IQ (Csoka, 1974) High leader GA score, judges rated the task to be unstructured and position power to be high (Hill, 1969b)

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE Table 10

1223

(continued)

Octant" and summary of findings Octant V 12 of 12 correlations in predicted direction (positive) 9 of 9 significant correlations were positive

Criteria for determining situational favorableness (reference)

Low leader GA score, high training, high leader score on position power questionnaire (Csoka, 1975) Low leader GA score, high training (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972a) Low leader GA score, high experience, high IQ (Csoka, 1974; Csoka & Fiedler, 1972b; Csoka, Note 18) Low leader GA score, judges rated the task to be structured and position power to be high (Hill, 1969b)

Octant VI 0 of 1 correlation in predicted direction (positive) No significant correlations

Low leader GA score, judges rated the task to be structured and position power to be low (Hill, 1969b)

Octant VII 2 of 2 correlations in predicted direction (positive) No significant correlations

Low leader GA score, judges rated task structure to be low and position power to be high (Hill, 1969b)

Octant VIII 16 of 16 correlations in predicted direction (negative) 8 of 8 significant correlations were negative

Low leader GA, low training, low leader score on position power questionnaire (Csoka, 1975) Low leader GA score, low training (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972a) Low leader GA score, high experience, low IQ (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972b) Low leader GA score, low experience, high IQ (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972; Csoka, Note 18) Low leader GA score, low experience, low IQ (Csoka & Fiedler, 1972b) Low leader GA, low experience, high or low IQ (Csoka, 1974)

Note. LPC = least preferred co-worker; GA * See Figure 1 above.

group atmosphere.

be provided by other group members, a source outside the group, or the LPC person himself. In fact, the only two studies relying on selfjudgments failed to find any significant effects (Chemers et al., 1966; Anderson, Note 10). Thus, all data reviewed in this section involve evaluation of the task performance of highand low-LPC persons by either group members or external agents. Such data proved to be highly related to LPC; 44% (41/94) of the relationships within the sample of studies formally classified were significant. Two sets of data are considered separately in the discussion below: (a) studies specifying the position of the LPC person in terms of one octant in the situational favorableness dimension introduced in Figure 1, and (b) studies not relying on this standard method for classifying the LPC person's situation. Octant classification.

Table 10 summarizes

the findings of all studies, both inside and outside the sample, in which the author or authors classified the LPC person's situation as representing one octant of the situational favorableness dimension. In every case, the criterion measure in these data was supervisory evaluations of the performance of high- and low-LPC persons in a leadership role. These data differ from those provided by conventional contingency model research in that the leader's performance rather than the group's performance is the criterion of leadership effectiveness. Assuming that this is a comparable criterion of leadership effectiveness, these data provide strong support for the basic thesis of the contingency model. Ninety percent (63/67) of the correlations presented in Table 10 are in the direction predicted by the contingency model. Further,

ROBERT W. RICE

1224

55% (37/67) of these correlations are statistically significant. Although the data in Table 10 generally support the contingency model, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, with few exceptions, leader evaluation of group atmosphere served as the major determinant of situational favorableness. As has been frequently pointed out (see, e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Graen et al, 1970; Mitchell et al., 1970), leader response to the Group Atmosphere Scale may be confounded by performance (or perceptions of performance). Second, these data do not represent as many truly independent replications as Table 10 suggests. All but nine correlations in Table 10 are derived from Csoka's study of four military work organizations. Data from these four settings were subjected to several different sets of analyses using different cutting scores and different factors to determine situational favorableness (e.g., IQ, experience, training).

The results of these several analyses were reported in different publications (Csoka, 1974, 1975; Csoka & Fiedler, 1972a, 1972b; Csoka, Note 18). Thus, the 58 correlations listed in Table 10 from Csoka's studies are not completely independent of one another. Third, the criteria used by the authors to classify their study into an octant varied somewhat from study to study (e.g., sometimes judges' ratings of task structure were employed, other times leaders' perceptions were employed). The summary data presented in Table 10 are no better than the quality of the classification decisions made by the authors. As a final limitation, it should be noted that the vast majority of data in Table 10 are taken from military settings and may not generalize to other environments. The seriousness of these several limitations must be evaluated by further research. Nonstandard classification. Table 11 summarizes all statistically significant findings,

Table 11 Significant Differences

in Individual Task Performance by High- and Low-LPC Persons

Criteria for performance evaluation Evaluation of school principals by superintendent (McNamara, cited in Fiedler, 1972b) Evaluation of school principals by teachers (McKague, 1968) Evaluation of mess sergeants by superior officers (Csoka, 1975) Evaluation of public utility managers by supervisors (Goldstein & Cole, 1969) Evaluation of faculty members by dean (Prothero & Fiedler, Note 24) Evaluation of laboratory group leader by followers (Chemers, Fiedler, Lekhyananda, & Stolurow, 1966) Evaluation of laboratory group leader by observer (Meuwese & Fiedler, Note 21)

Conditions under which Conditions under which performance of low-LPC persons performance of high-LPC persons was evaluated more favorably was evaluated more favorably High experience

Low experience

Principal described group atmosphere favorably Mechanistic organizational climate

Organic organizational climate

Leaders rated task structure high

Leader rated task structure low

Stable condition of power and influence

Unstable condition of power and influence Cross-cultural interaction

Within-culture interaction

Note. High- and low-LPC persons are persons with high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. The following studies did not report any significant LPC effects for the class of variables described in the table: Eagly (1970), Bass, Fiedler, & Krueger (Note 6), Fox (Note 9), Anderson (Note 10). « The relationship between principal's LPC and followers' ratings of loader effectiveness was not significant in this condition, and the direction of this relationship was not reported.

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

from both inside and outside the sample, in which the relationship between LPC and individual performance criteria was reported without any effort on the part of the author or authors to classify the LPC person's situation into a single octant of the situational favorableness dimension. An examination of these data suggests that the performance of low-LPC persons was generally evaluated more favorably than the performance of high-LPC persons in relatively favorable, stress-free situations (groups with favorable atmosphere, within-culture interactions, experienced supervisors, mechanistic climate, stable conditions of power and influence, and structured tasks). On the other hand, the performance of high-LPC persons was evaluated more favorably than the performance of low-LPC persons under corresponding conditions of relatively greater stress (cross-cultural interaction, inexperienced supervisors, organic climate, unstable conditions of power and influence, and unstructured tasks). These data support the general thesis of the contingency model if one assumes that the conditions under which high-LPC persons performed well represent the intermediate range of the situational favorableness dimension and that the conditions under which low-LPC persons were most effective represent very favorable situations. Further research is aeeded to assess the adequacy of these assumptions. Additional data illustrating the relationship between LPC and individual task performance were provided by Fiedler's (1972b, 1973b) contingency model analysis of leadership training. Fiedler's analysis proposed that the effect of leadership training and experience is moderated by both the nature of the situation and the LPC score of the trainee. Specifically, in situations classified as very unfavorable for untrained or inexperienced leaders, training and experience are thought to improve performance of high-LPC leaders but not low-LPC leaders. Exactly the opposite prediction is made for situations classified as intermediate in favorableness for untrained or inexperienced leaders (i.e., lowLPC leaders, but not high-LPC leaders perform better as a result of training and experience). These predictions have been supported by a number of studies representing

1225

diverse subject populations. Since several of these studies used supervisory ratings of leader performance as the criterion of leadership effectiveness, these data are relevant to the present discussion. Interpretation of Individual Performance Data Taken together, these data indicate that individual performance is strongly and predictably related to LPC when information provided by the LPC person is used to evaluate the favorableness of the situation. The strength of this relationship was one of the more surprising outcomes of the review. In previous reviews, evaluations of the group leader's performance have not been differentiated from evaluations of the group's performance in considering contingency model research. The difference in batting averages for these two classes of data suggests that this distinction is an important one. Approximately 50% of the individual performance relationships were statistically significant, but only 18% (81/455) of the relationships between leader LPC and group performance were statistically significant in the review of these data (Rice, 1976). The individual task performance data have at least two important implications: First, LPC may be a useful predictor of individual task performance in a variety of organizational and research settings. Future research should systematically examine the utility of LPC in this role. Second, differences in the individual task performance of high- and low-LPC leaders may well account for any observed differences in group performance; that is, the apparently more predictable relationship between LPC and individual performance may be responsible for many of the group performance effects on which the model has traditionally focused. Neither the four previous interpretations of LPC nor the value-attitude interpretation appears particularly relevant to these data. The propositions of these different models appear to be neither supported nor refuted by the individual performance data. However, such data do point out the potential value of the LPC variable and the importance of clarifying the construct space of this variable.

ROBERT W. RICE

1226

Table 12 Significant Comparisons of High- and Low-LPC Persons on Objective Measures of Cognitive Ability Direction

Test (reference) Knowledge of human relations skills (Carp, Vitola, & McLanathan, 1963) Embedded Figures Test (Weissenberg & Gruenfeld, 1966) Embedded Figures Test (Gruenfeld & Arbuthnot, 1968) Army General Classification Test (Wearing & Bishop, Note 3) Remote Associates Test (Jacoby, 1968) Verbal IQ on School and College Ability Test (Bass, Fiedler, & Krueger, Note 6)

curvilinear curvilinear low LPC low LPC high LPC middle LPC

Note, High, middle, and low LPC refer to high, mid-range, and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. The following studies failed to find any significant LPC effects for the class of variables described in the table: Fiedler (1954), Fishbein, Landy, & Hatch (1969b), Nealey & Blood (1968), Shifflett (1974), Shima (1968), Triandis, Mikesell, & Ewen (Note 35).

Ability Test Correlates of LPC Several studies have compared the performance of high- and low-LPC persons on various measures of cognitive ability. In terms of batting average, this research has been fairly successful; 31% (8/25) of the relationships in the sample were significant. All significant effects from such research are listed in Table 12. LPC was more strongly related to measures of specific cognitive abilities than to general intelligence measures. Although only 1 of 14 relationships between LPC and general intelligence was significant in the sample, 64% (7/11) of the relationships between LPC and more specific ability measures were significant. The most consistent finding among these data concerns the relationships between LPC and measures of creativity. Using several different subject populations, Jacoby (1968) found positive correlations between LPC and scores on the Remote Associates Test, a test of creativity. Similarly, Triandis et al. (Note 35) reported a marginal (p < .06) positive correlation between LPC and judged creativity of two written passages. The findings concerning field independence-dependence are less consistent. One result suggests that low-LPC persons are more field independent, but additional findings suggest that this relationship is curvilinear and that it may be moderated by masculinity of the respondent. Finally, the relationship between LPC and a test of human relations skills was not statistically reliable across the entire range of LPC scores;

there was a significant positive correlation between these two measures only for respondents falling within one standard deviation of the mean on LPC. Inasmuch as many of these studies relied on moderator variables, used limited ranges along the LPC dimension, or showed some lack of replicability (e.g., LPC and EFT), few firm conclusions can be drawn from these data. However, the batting average for these data is sufficiently high to merit further investigation into LPC differences in cognitive and possibly noncognitive abilities. It may well be that such differences in individual ability account, in part, for the LPC-related differences in individual task performance discussed in the previous section. As an aside, it is interesting to take note of a fairly consistent pattern of interactions between LPC and intelligence. Although LPC is not directly related to intelligence, it appears that LPC effects can be systematically moderated by intelligence (Chemers et al., 1975; Csoka, 1974; Csoka & Fiedler, 1972b; Bass et al., Note 6; Meuwese & Fiedler, Note 21; Morris & Fiedler, Note 31; Fiedler, Note 34). These findings indicate that interactions between LPC and IQ influence a wide range of dependent measures including follower satisfaction, group process, leader and group member behavior, personality scores, and individual task performance. Many of these interactions show a pattern suggesting that more intelligent low-LPC persons and less intelligent high-LPC persons engage in similar behaviors and create similar reactions

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

within the group. The work in this area has been quite scattered, and there has been no attempt to investigate the dynamics of such effects systematically. Others' Reactions to High- and Low-LPC Persons The previous section dealt with data in which the behavior of high- and low-LPC persons was described and evaluated by different sources. This final section considers how others react to such behavior in terms of the attributions made about high- and low-LPC persons as people. The focus of these data is on the judgments that high- and low-LPC persons elicit from other group members. Comparisons of other group members' judgments about high- and low-LPC persons were significant in 19% (9/47) of the relationships in the sample. Table 13 presents the significant main effects for this class of data for studies both inside and outside of the sample. There was no overall trend for either high- or low-LPC persons to be evaluated more favorably by other group members,

1227

but many of the significant effects in this class of variables do appear consistent with the proposition that low-LPC persons are task oriented. For example, sociometric choice data indicate that low-LPC persons were more frequently nominated as task-oriented group members and were perceived as more valuable and desirable members of laboratory task groups. Further, low-LPC persons were seen as having greater task expertise and greater potential for military leadership. These data also provide some support for the proposition that high-LPC persons are primarily concerned with interpersonal relationships. For example, high-LPC persons were seen as more understanding and interested in other group members. Although the data in Table 13 suggest that high-LPC persons are often better liked by other group members, it is clear that this is not always the case. For example, high-LPC persons were more often nominated as the least enjoyed member of laboratory task groups. Apparently, situational factors influence the reactions elicited by high- and low-LPC group members. The interaction effects presented in Table 14 provide some

Table 13 Significant Main Effects in the Reactions of Other Group Members to High- and Low-LPC Persons Judgment (reference) Liking for group members (Eagly, 1970) Positive description of leader on semantic differential (Chemers, Fiedler, Lekhyananda, & Stolurow, 1966) Description of leader as understanding and interested (Chemers et al., 1966) Sociometric choice as least enjoyed member of laboratory group (Rice & Chemers, 1973) Sociometric choice on positive leadership criteria among ROTC cadets (Bass, Fiedler, & Krueger, Note 6) Peer and superiors' rating of leadership potential of ROTC cadets (Rudin & Fiedler, cited in Fiedler, 1967; Fox, Note 9) Sociometric choice as most enjoyed and most valuable member of laboratory groups (Rice & Chemers, 1973) Subordinates' evaluation of leaders' technical expertise (Fox, Note 9) Sociometric choice as task-oriented West Point cadet (Gottheil & Lauterbach, 1969)

Direction" high high high high high low low low low

Note. High- and low-LPC persons are persons with high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale; ROTC = Reserve Officers' Training Corps. The following studies did not report any significant LPC effects for the class of variables described in the table: Fiedler (1954), Gottheil & Vielhaber (1966), Graham (1968), Hunt (1971), Nealey & Fiedler (1968), Sample & Wilson (1965), Wearing & Bishop (Note 3), Fiedler, London, & Nemo (Note 13), Fiedler, Bass, & Fiedler (Note 19). • High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale.

1228

ROBERT W. RICE

Table 14

Significant Interaction Effects in the Reactions of Other Group Members to High- and Low-LPC Persons

Type of judgment (reference) Followers' esteem for leader in cross-cultural laboratory experiment (Chemers, Fiedler, Lekhyananda, & Stolurow, 1966) Followers' esteem for leader in cross-cultural laboratory experiment (Chemers, 1969) Nursing assistants' satisfaction with supervisor (Nealey & Blood 1968) Subordinates' satisfaction with supervision (Nealey & Blood, 1968) Subordinates' satisfaction with supervisor (Sashkin, Taylor, & Tripathi, 1974)

Condition under which low-LPC person was evaluated more favorably

Condition under which high-LPC person was evaluated more favorably Cross-cultural interaction in groups with leaders given irrelevant training

Cross-cultural interaction in groups with leaders given relevant cultural training Leader holds subordinates in high esteem First-level supervisors

Cross-cultural interaction in groups with leaders given irrelevant training Leader holds subordinates in low esteem Second-level supervisors

Generally well-satisfied subordinates

Generally dissatisfied subordinates

Note. High- and low-LPC refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale. "• There was no significant difference in evaluation of high- and low-LPC leaders when they were given relevant cultural training.

hint to the possible nature of these situational contingencies. These data suggest that high-LPC persons are generally liked in relatively stressful situations, such as working with dissatisfied subordinates, supervising subordinates held in low esteem, and crosscultural interactions in the absence of culturally relevant training. On the other hand, group members are generally more favorable in their reactions to low-LPC persons under the corresponding conditions of low stress (satisfied subordinates, subordinates held in high esteem, and culturally relevant training). Of course, any efforts to interpret these data are necessarily limited by the post hoc classification of situations as being more or less stressful. Interpretation of Reaction Data The data in this class are not particularly strong in terms of batting average, but they generally suggest that the actions of high- and low-LPC persons communicate their respective concerns with interpersonal and task success with sufficient clarity for a consistent pattern to emerge in the reactions of other group members. Although the reactions of

other group members suggest that low-LPC persons are task oriented and high-LPC persons are relationship oriented, it is clear that neither style elicits uniformly positive regard from other group members. Situational stress appears to moderate the relative favorableness of attitudes toward high- and low-LPC persons. Such results support the value-attitude interpretation and Fiedler's (1964, 1967) needs-and-values interpretation of LPC; both of these interpretations propose the basic task-interpersonal distinction. The social distance interpretation appears to be contradicted by the finding that low-LPC persons are sometimes better liked; on the basis of this interpretation one would expect the less distant high-LPC persons to be better liked in general. These data do not appear relevant to the cognitive complexity model; they neither support nor refute this approach. Main effects showing that low-LPC persons are perceived as task oriented and high-LPC persons are perceived as relationship oriented appear inconsistent with the motivational hierarchy interpretation. Such data suggest that the goals of high- and low-LPC persons do not change as a result of situational

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

factors, as is proposed by the hierarchy model. However, some of the interactions presented in Table 14 can be interpreted as consistent with the motivational hierarchy model. The hierarchy model proposes that the behavior of low-LPC persons is relationship oriented in very favorable (stress-free) situations and that the behavior of high-LPC persons is relationship oriented in unfavorable (stressful) situations. Applied to the data in Table 14, this analysis suggests that other group members consistently respond positively to persons who show high levels of relationship-oriented behavior (low-LPC leaders in very favorable situations, and high-LPC leaders in less favorable situations). A positive correlation between these variables seems quite reasonable. The value-attitude model provides an alternative interpretation of the group member reaction data in Table 14. This model proposes that the behavior of low-LPC persons is generally task oriented and the behavior of high-LPC persons is generally relationship oriented. From this perspective, these data reflect the appropriateness of the individual style - situation match. The supportive interpersonal style thought to be characteristic of high-LPC persons is appreciated by other group members only in relatively stressful situations. In relatively stress-free environments, such behavior may be less appropriate and may result in less favorable reactions than the more task-oriented style of low-LPC

1229

leaders. Studies with careful measurement of the situation, individual behavior, and group member reactions are needed to choose between this analysis of the data in Table 14 and the interpretation offered above on the basis of the motivational hierarchy model. Determinants of LPC A considerable body of research has developed in which the impact of LPC differences has been explored for a variety of different responses. However, relatively little work has examined factors that influence response to the LPC scale. Biographical correlates indirectly address this question. As is shown in Table 15, high- and low-LPC persons have been compared on a fairly broad range of biographical factors, for example, birth order, number of years on the job, age, size of work unit, organizational level, and occupation. Although the batting average for such data is quite respectable (9/28 = 32% significant relationships within the sample), there is little consistency among the results. For nearly every statistically reliable finding listed in Table 15, there is at least one nonsignificant effect that can be cited for the same variable. Given these contradictory results, the diverse nature of the biographical factors considered, and the difficulty of identifying cause and effect for some of these relationships, it is difficult to interpret these data at the present time.

Table 15 Significant Biographical Correlates of LPC Biographical characteristic (reference) Age (ranging from 12 to 16 years) (Fiedler & Hoffman, 1962) Firstborn (versus later born) (Chemers, 1970; Hardy, 1972, Fox, Note 9) Military officers with command experience (versus no command experience) (Bons, Bass, & Komorita, 1970) Military officers assigned to a combat command (versus a noncombat command) (Bons et al., 1970) Managerial level in business organization (Alpander, 1974) Work in a small office (versus a large office) (Becker & Stafford, 1967) Affiliated with Protestant (versus Catholic) religion (Fiedler & Hoffman, 1962) Duration of physical disability (Potter & Fiedler, 1958)

Direction" low low low low high high high high

Note. LPC = least preferred co-worker. The following studies did not report any significant relationships between LPC and biographical variables: Eagly (1970), Lawrence & Lorsch (1967), Nealey & Blood (1968), Shifflett (1974), Posthuma (Note 1), Bass, Fiedler, & Krueger (Note 6). * High and low refer to high and low scores on the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale.

1230

ROBERT W. RICE

Test-retest stability data reviewed by Rice (1978b) provide further indirect evidence for determinants of LPC. This review indicates that the stability of the LPC score is often very low in certain situations, for example, after military training, management development workshops, or participation in relatively lengthy experiential learning exercises. However, these studies have generally assessed stability without any effort to determine whether these experiences result in any systematic change in LPC. Muller (1970) provided the only data experimentally addressing this question. He manipulated the frequency of interaction between leader and subordinates in a laboratory study. Postexperimental measurement of LPC indicated that frequent interaction led to higher leader LPC scores than infrequent interaction did. More research along these lines could considerably increase our understanding of the LPC construct. Conclusions Taken as a whole, the data support Fiedler's (1964, 1967, 1971b) often repeated proposition that persons with low scores on the LPC scale are primarily task oriented and persons with high LPC scores are primarily relationship oriented. The present review documents this basic difference in orientation with a level of detail and completeness not previously available. The value-attitude interpretation of LPC attempts to clarify what it means to be task or relationship oriented. This interpretation proposes that high-LPC persons value interpersonal success relatively more than do low-LPC persons and that low-LPC persons value task success relatively more than do high-LPC persons. It is further proposed that these values serve as criteria for a whole network of attitudinal judgments about oneself, others, and the environment. High-LPC persons tend to base such judgments on interpersonal success, and low-LPC persons tend to base such judgments on task success. From the perspective of the value-attitude model, attitudes toward one's least preferred co-worker are only one component of a larger

network of attitudes that are all related to more central personal values. (The cognitive structure proposed here is modeled after Rokeach's, 1968, analysis of values and attitudes.) In addition to clarifying task and interpersonal orientations, the value-attitude interpretation also attempts to integrate motivational and cognitive perspectives on LPC. Motivation and cognition go hand in hand from the perspective of this interpretation. Persons primarily motivated to achieve task success are thought to have complex and accurate cognitions within the realm of task performance. Similarly, persons primarily motivated to achieve interpersonal success are thought to have complex and accurate cognitions within the realm of interpersonal relations. Given the value-attitude interpretation of LPC, it seems quite reasonable that taskoriented and relationship-oriented persons respond differently to instructions to describe "the person with whom you find it most difficult to get the job done" (Fiedler, 1967, p. 41). Respondents who primarily value task success (low-LPC persons) describe their least preferred co-worker quite negatively because such a co-worker threatens their highly valued outcome of task success. On the other hand, respondents who primarily value interpersonal success (high-LPC persons) can maintain relatively positive attitudes toward their least preferred co-worker; a co-worker with whom it is difficult to get the job done does not necessarily pose a threat to their highly valued outcome of successful interpersonal relations. The value-attitude interpretation is best viewed as an elaboration, integration, and clarification of previously offered interpretations of LPC. It does not depart radically from Fiedler's most basic ideas about LPC, especially his earlier positions. In fact, it represents a conscious movement back to some of the propositions of these earlier positions. However, as is pointed out at various points in the text, the value-attitude interpretation seems to provide a better overall fit with the data than does any other single interpretation previously offered.

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

Leader Attitudes and Values Versus Leadership Style Fiedler (1964, 197 Ib) has long referred to the LPC scale as a measure of leadership style. For Fiedler, leadership style refers to the underlying needs and motives of the leader, not the overt behavior patterns displayed by the leader. This is a rather idiosyncratic use of the term; most researchers use leader behavior and leadership style synonymously. Part of the difficulty in understanding and communicating the meaning of LPC may stem from this idiosyncratic use of the term leadership style.1 For researchers incorrectly viewing LPC as a measure of leadership style similar to the leader behavior measures used in the Ohio State University or University of Michigan traditions, the construct space of LPC must appear quite distorted. The data seem far more orderly if LPC is viewed explicitly as a measure of leader attitudes and values. From this perspective, it seems perfectly reasonable that LPC is more strongly related to other measures of intra- and interpersonal attitudes than to any other general class of variables. This finding is consistent with the widely held notion that an individual attitude is usually one component of an interrelated cluster of attitudes. From the value-attitude perspective, it also seems perfectly reasonable that the behavior of low-LPC leaders is generally, but not always, task oriented and that the behavior of high-LPC leaders is generally, but not always, relationship oriented. Given the tenuous relationship among attitudes, values, and behavior, one should not expect that task-oriented leaders will always engage in high levels of task-relevant behavior and that relationship-oriented leaders will always engage in high levels of relationship-relevant behavior. In certain situations the personal values tapped by the LPC scale may not be relevant motivators of leader behavior. Furthermore, there may be situations in which task-oriented leaders perceive interpersonal behaviors as the most expedient means of achieving their goal of task success. Similarly, there may be certain situations in which relationship-oriented leaders perceive task behaviors as an ap-

1231

propriate means of achieving their goal of successful interpersonal relations. To avoid the problems introduced by the leadership style terminology, it would be preferable to refer to LPC as a measure of value-related attitudes. It is interesting that Fiedler's (1958, 1964) early presentations of the model did discuss LPC as a measure of leader attitudes. And of course, Fishbein et al. (1969b) proposed that LPC is best viewed as an attitude measure. However, in recent years LPC has been almost deified as a measure of leadership style. It would be valuable to return to a position explicitly recognizing that LPC is a measure of attitudes. Refinement of the Measure The present review strongly supports the proposition that responses to the LPC scale can be used to classify persons as task oriented or relationship oriented. However, the LPC scale may not be the best method for identifying task-oriented and relationship-oriented persons. Several findings in the review lead to the conclusion that responses to the semantic-differential format of the LPC scale may reflect considerable error variance. First, the overall batting average in the LPC literature was not very high (24%). Although the pattern for statistically significant results appears meaningful, this low batting average may, in part, reflect measurement problems involving LPC. Second, the low test-retest stability of LPC in many training environments suggests that responses to the LPC scale can be easily modified (Rice, 1978b). On the basis of available data, it is not clear whether such change represents change in true score variance (i.e., change in personal values) or simply error variance (i.e., faking or transient response patterns). Finally, it is all too easy for a respondent to provide a thoughtless pattern of responses. Unfortunately, there is no way to distinguish easily between conscientious and thoughtless responses. 7 To Fiedler's credit, he has repeatedly clarified his somewhat idiosyncratic use of the term leadership style and has differentiated it from leader behavior. Unfortunately, these efforts seem to have had little impact.

1232

ROBERT W. RICE

Given the more adequate description of the LPC construct provided by the present review, it may be possible to develop better procedures for measuring values for task and interpersonal success. New procedures may be able to correct some of the shortcomings discussed above. For example, it may be possible to develop a system for content analyzing free-response descriptions of relevant attitude objects such as least preferred co-worker, most socially disruptive co-worker, and least liked co-worker. Open-ended procedures of this type require greater involvement on the part of the respondent and lessen the likelihood of thoughtless responses that introduce error variance. A related refinement in measurement concerns the separate measurement of task and interpersonal values. The LPC scale classifies respondents as either task oriented or relationship oriented. However, it is conceivable that persons could highly value success in both realms. Separate measurement of these two dimensions would provide a finer classification of task and interpersonal values; that is, persons placing high value in both domains could be differentiated from persons placing high value in only one domain. A 2 X 2 matrix could be generated: high or low on task values, and high or low on interpersonal values. This procedure would result in a finer classification of primarily taskoriented persons (high task value and low interpersonal value) and primarily relationship-oriented persons (high interpersonal value and low task value). Presumably, these more pure types are currently mixed in with persons who highly value both these outcomes or highly value neither of these outcomes. Of course, there are many other ways in which the measurement of these two types might be improved. The important point here is that it is necessary to explore alternative methods for measuring task and interpersonal values. This conclusion is particularly rewarding to the author. The present review was initiated to explore the question, what does the LPC scale measure? These closing comments call for improved methods in measuring the differences in values and attitudes now thought to differentiate high- and lowLPC persons. It is hoped that such comments

reflect some degree of success in answering the original question. Reference Notes 1. Posthuma, A. B. Normative data on the Least Preferred Co-Workers Scale (LPC) and the Group Atmosphere Questionnaire (GA) (Tech. Rep. 70-8). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, August 1970. 2. Rice, R. W., Marwick, N. J., Chemers, M. M., & Bentley, J. C. Esteem for least preferred coworker (LPC) as a moderator of the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, April 1977. 3. Wearing, A., & Bishop, D. Leader and member attitudes toward co-workers, intergroup competition, and the effectiveness and adjustment of military squads (Tech. Rep. 21). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, April 1967. 4. Cronbach, L. J., Hartmann, W., & Ehart, M. E. Investigation of the character and properties of assumed similarity measures (Tech. Rep. 7). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, February 1953. 5. Rudin, S. A., Lazar, I., Ehart, M. E., & Cronbach, L. J. Some empirical studies of the reliability of social perception scores (Tech. Rep. 4). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, May 1952. 6. Bass, A. R., Fiedler, F. E., & Krueger, S. Personality correlates of assumed similarity (ASo) and related scores (Tech. Rep. 19). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, March 1964. 7. Bishop, D. W. Group member adjustment as related to interpersonal and task success and affiliation and achievement motives (Tech. Rep. 23). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, April 1967. 8. Golb, E. F., & Fiedler, F. E. A note on psychological attributes related to the score Assumed Similarity Between Opposites (ASo) (Tech. Rep. 12). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, October 1955. 9. Fox, W. M. Least preferred coworker scales: Research and development (Tech. Rep. 70-5). Gainesville : University of Florida, September 1974. 10. Anderson, L. R. Some effects of leadership training on intercultural discussion groups (Tech. Rep. 18). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, June 1964. 11. Steiner, I. D. Interpersonal orientation and Assumed Similarity Between Opposites (Tech. Rep. 7). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, December 1959. 12. Ayer, J. G. Effects of success and failure of interpersonal and task performance upon leader percep-

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE lion and behavior (Tech. Rep. 26). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, September 1968. 13. Fiedler, F. E., London, P., & Nemo, R. S. Hypnotically-induced leader altitudes and group creativity (Tech. Rep. 11). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, May 1961. 14. Brown, D. I., & Smolinski, R. A. The contingency model of leadership effectiveness and its implications for military managers (AD 787 184). WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University, July 1974. 15. Mitchell, T. R., & Foa, U. G. An examination of the effects of cultural training on the interaction of heterocultural task groups (Tech. Rep. 29). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, November 1968. 16. Anderson, L. R., & Fiedler, F. E. The effects of participatory and supervisory leadership on group creativity (Tech. Rep. 7). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, November 1962. 17. Bishop, D. W. Relations between task and interpersonal success and group member adjustment (Tech. Rep. 18). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, June 1964. 18. Csoka, L. S. Intelligence: A critical variable for leadership experience (Tech. Rep. 72-34). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, May 1972. 19. Fiedler, F. E., Bass, A. R., & Fiedler, J. M. The leader's perception of co-workers, group climate, and group creativity: A cross validation (Tech. Rep. 1). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, May 1961. 20. Fiedler, F. E., & Barron, N. M. The effect of leadership style and leader behavior on group creativity under stress (Tech. Rep. 25). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, December 1967. 21. Meuwese, W., & Fiedler, F. E. Leadership and group creativity under varying conditions of stress (Tech. Rep. 22). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, March 1965. 22. Nebeker, D. M., & Hansson, R. O. Confidence in human nature and leader style (Tech. Rep. 72-37). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, May 1972. 23. Chemers, M. M., & Summers, D. A. Group atmosphere and the perception of group favorableness (Tech. Rep. 71). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, December 1968. 24. Prothero, J., & Fiedler, F. E. The effect of situational change on individual behavior and performance: An extension of the contingency model (Tech. Rep. 74-59). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, October 1974.

1233

25. Nebeker, D. M., Beach, L. R., & Green, S. G. Situational favorability and the perception of uncertainty: An experimental demonstration (Tech. Rep. 74-61). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, November 1974. 26. Braxton, R. B,, & Crosby, W. L. A comparative analysis of results using three leadership style measurement instruments (AD 787 200). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University, August 1974. 27. Triandis, H. C., & Hall, E. R. Creative problem solving in culturally heterogeneous groups (Tech. Rep. 16). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, June 1964. 28. Hansson, R. O., & Fiedler, F. E. Perceived similarity, personality, and attraction to large organizations (Tech. Rep. 72-39). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, October 1972. 29. Green, S. G., Nebeker, D. M., & Boni, M. A. Personality and situational effects in leader behavior (Tech. Rep. 74-55). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, May 1974. 30. Green, S. G., & Nebeker, D. M. Leader behavior: Autonomous or interactive? (Tech. Rep. 74-62). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, December 1974. 31. Morris, C. G., & Fiedler, F. E. Application of a new system of interaction analysis to the relationships between leader attitudes and behavior in problem solving groups (Tech. Rep. 14). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, March 1964. 32. Julian, J. W., & McGrath, J. E. The influence of leader and member behavior on the adjustment and task effectiveness of negotiation groups (Tech. Rep, 17). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, October 1963. 33. Blades, J. W., & Fiedler, F. E. Participative management, member intelligence, and group performance (Tech. Rep. 73-40). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, January 1973. 34. Fiedler, F. E. Personality and situational determinants of leader behavior (Tech. Rep. 71-18). Seattle: University of Washington, Organizational Research, June 1971. 35. Triandis, H. C., Mikesell, E. H., & Ewen, R. B. Some cognitive factors affecting group creativity (tech. Rep. 5). Urbana: University of Illinois, Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, May 1962.

References Alexander, S., & Husek, T. R. The anxiety differential: Initial steps in the development of a measure of situational anxiety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1962, 22, 325-348. Alpander, G. G. Planning management training programs for organizational development. Personnel Journal, 1974, 53, 15-21.

1234

ROBERT W. RICE

Altman, I. Choice points in the classification of scientific knowledge. In B. P. Indik & F. K. Berrian (Eds.)i People, groups, and organizations. New York: Columbia Teachers College Press, 1968. Ashour, A. S. The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 339-355. (a) Ashour, A. S. Further discussion of Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 369-376. (b) Becker, S. W., & Stafford, F. Some determinants of organizational success. Journal of Business, 1967, 40, 511-518. Bern, D. J., & Allen, A. On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for crosssituational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 506-520. Bons, P. M., Bass, A. R., & Komorita, S. S. Changes in leadership style as a function of military experience and type of command. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 23, 551-568. Burke, W. W. Leadership behavior as a function of the leader, the follower, and the situation. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 60-81. Campbell, D. T. Social attitudes and other acquired behavioral dispositions. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 6). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Carp, F. M., Vitola, B. M., & McLanathan, F. L. Human relations knowledge and social distance set in supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 47, 78-80. Chemers, M. M. Cross-cultural training as a means for improving situational favorableness. Human Relations, 1969, 22, 531-546. Chemers, M. M. The relationship between birth order and leadership style. Journal of Social Psychology, 1970, 80, 243-244. , Chemers, M. M., Fiedler, F. E., Lekhyananda, D., & Stolurow, L. M. Some effects of cultural training on leadership in heterocultural task groups. International Journal of Psychology, 1966, 1, 301-314. Chemers, M. M., Rice, R. W., Sundstrom, E., & Butler, W. M. Leader esteem for the least preferred coworker score, training, and effectiveness: An experimental examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 401-409. Chemers, M. M., & Skrzypek, G. J. Experimental test of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 172-177. Cleven, W. A., & Fiedler, F. E. Interpersonal perceptions of open-hearth foremen and steel production. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1956, 40, 312-314. Csoka, L. S. A relationship between leader intelligence and leader rated effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 43-47. Csoka, L. S. Relationship between organizational climate and the situational favorableness dimension of Fiedler's contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 273-277.

Csoka, L. S., & Fiedler, F. E. The effect of military leadership training: A test of the contingency model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 8, 395-407. (a) Csoka, L. S., & Fiedler, F. E. Leadership and intelligence: A contingency model analysis. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1972, 7, 439-440. (Summary) (b) Eagly, A. H. Leadership style and role differentiation as determinants of group effectiveness. Journal of Personality, 1970, 38, 509-524. Evans, M. G. A leader's ability to differentiate, the subordinate's perception of the leader, and the subordinate's performance. Personnel Psychology, 1973, 26, 385-395. Evans, M. G., & Dermer, J. What does the Least Preferred Co-Worker Scale really measure? A cognitive interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 202-206. Fiedler, F. E. The psychological distance dimension in interpersonal relations. Journal of Personality, 1953, 22, 142-150. (a) Fiedler, F. E. Quantitative studies in the role of therapists' feelings toward their patients. In O. H. Mowrer (Ed.), Psychotherapy: theory and research. New York: Ronald Press, 1953. (b) Fiedler, F. E. Assumed similarity measures as predictors of team effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49, 381-388. Fiedler, F. E. A note on leadership theory: The effect of social barriers between leaders and followers. Sociometry, 1957, 20, 87-93. Fiedler, F. E. Leader attitudes and group effectiveness. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1958. Fiedler, F. E. Leader attitudes, group climate, and group creativity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65, 308-318. Fiedler, F. E. A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1964. Fiedler, F. E. The effect of leadership and cultural heterogeneity on group performance: A test of the contingency model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 237-264. Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Fiedler, F. E. Note on the methodology of the Graen, Orris, and Alvarez studies testing the contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 202-204. (a) Fiedler, F. E. Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 128-148. (b) Fiedler, F. E. Personality, motivational system, and the behavior of high- and low-LPC persons. Human Relations, 1972, 25, 391-412. (a) Fiedler, F. E. Predicting the effects of leadership training and experience from the contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972,5(5, 114-119. (b) Fiedler, F. E. The contingency model—A reply to

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE

1235

Ashour. Organizational Behavior and Human Per- Graham, W. K. Description of leader behavior and formance, 1973, 9, 356-368, (a) evaluation of leaders as a function of LPC. Personnel Psychology, 1968, 21, 457-464. Fiedler, F. E. Predicting the effects of leadership training and experience from the contingency model: Graham, W. K., Leader behavior, esteem for the A clarification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, least-preferred coworker, and group performance. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 59-66. 57, 110-113. (b) Fiedler, F. E. A reply to Schreisheim and Kerr's Gruenfeld, L., & Arbuthnot, J. Field independence, achievement values and the evaluation of a compremature obituary of the contingency model. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: petency related dimension on the least preferred co-worker (LPC) measure. Perceptual and Motor The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Skills, 1968, 27, 991-1002. University Press, in press. Gruenfeld, L. W., Ranee, D. E., & Wissenburg, P. Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. Leaders/tip and effective management. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, The behavior of task-oriented (low LPC) and socially-oriented (high LPC) leaders under several 1974. conditions of social support. Journal of Social Fiedler, F. E., & Hoffman, E. L. Age, sex, and reliPsychology, 1969, 79, 99-107. gious background as determinants of interpersonal perception among Dutch children: A cross-cultural Hardy, R. C. A developmental study of relationships validation. Ada Psychologica, 1962, 20, 185-195. between birth order and leadership style for two Fiedler, F. E., O'Brien, G. E., & Ilgen, D. R. The distinctly different American groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 1972, 87, 147-148. effect of leadership style upon the performance and adjustment of volunteer teams operating in stressful Hill, W. A. The LPC leader: A cognitive twist. 29th Annual Meeting Academy of Management Proceedforeign environment. Human Relations, 1969, 22, 503-514. ings, August 1969, pp. 125-130. (a) Fishbein, M. Readings in attitude theory and measure- Hill, W. A. A situational approach to leadership effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, ment. New York: Wiley, 1967. 53, 513-517. (b) Fishbein, M., Landy, E., & Hatch, G. A consideration of two assumptions underlying Fiedler's con- Hollander, E. P. Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships. New York: Free tingency model for prediction of leadership effectiveness. American Journal of Psychology, 1969, 82, Press, 1978. Hovey, D. E. The low powered leader confronts a 457-473. (a) messy problem: A test of Fiedler's theory. Academy Fishbein, M., Landy, E., & Hatch, G. Some deterof Management Journal, 1974, 17, 358-362. minants of an individual's esteem for his least preferred co-worker. Human Relations, 1969, 22, Hunt, J. G. Fiedler's leadership contingency model: An empirical test in three organizations. Organiza173-188. (b) tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 2, Foa, U. G., Mitchell, T. R., & Fiedler, F. E. Dif290-308. ferentiation matching. Behavioral Science, 1971, 16, Hunt, J. G. Leadership style effects at two managerial 130-142. levels in a simulated organization. Administrative Godfrey, E. P., Fiedler, F. E., & Hall, D. M. Boards, Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 476-485. management, and company success. Danville, 111.: Hutchins, E. B., & Fiedler, F. E. Task-oriented and Interstate, 1959. quasi-therapeutic role functions of the leader in Goldstein, G. S., & Cole, C. W. Leadership variables. small military groups. Sociometry, 1960, 23, 393-406. Journal of the Scientific Laboratories, Denison UniJacobs, T. O. Leadership and exchange in formal versity, 1969, 50, 59-67. organizations. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Gottheil, E., & Lauterbach, C. G. Leader and squad Research Organization, 1970. attributes contributing to mutual esteem among squad members. Journal of Social Psychology, 1969, Jacoby, J. Creative ability of task-oriented versus person-oriented leaders. Journal of Creative Behavior, 77, 69-78. 1968, 2, 249-253. Gottheil, E., & Vielhaber, D. P. Interaction of leader Jones, J. R., & Johnson, M. LPC as a modifier of and squad attributes related to performance of leader-follower relationships. Academy of Managemilitary squads. Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, ment Journal, 1972, 5, 185-196. 68, 113-127. Graen, G., Alvarez, K., Orris, J. B., & Martella, J. A. Kelly, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs (2 vols.). New York: Norton, 1955. Contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Antecedent and evidential results. Psychological Larson, L. L., & Rowland, K. M. Leadership style, Bulletin, 1970, 74, 285-296. stress, and behavior in task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, Graen, G., Orris, J. B., & Alvarez, K. M. Contingency 407-420. model of leadership effectiveness: Some experimental results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, Larson, L. L., & Rowland, K. M. Leadership style 55, 196-201. (a) and cognitive complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 17, 37-45. Graen, G., Orris, J. B., & Alvarez, K. M. Contingency model of leadership effectiveness: Some methodo- Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. Differentiation and logical issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, integration in complex organizations. Administrative 55, 205-210. (b) Science Quarterly, 1967, 12, 1-47.

1236

ROBERT W. RICE

Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row, 1954. McGrath, J. E., & Altman, I. Small group research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966. McKague, U. R. Leadership in schools. Canadian Administrator, 1968, 7, 31-34. McMahon, J. T. The contingency model: Logic and method revisited. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 697-710. Mischel, W. Personality and assessment, New York: Wiley, 1968. Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 252-283. Mitchell, T. R. Leader complexity and leadership style. Joitrnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 166-174. Mitchell, T. R., Biglan, A., Oncken, G. R., & Fiedler, F. E. The contingency model: Criticism and suggestions. Academy of Management Journal, 1970, 13, 253-267. Muller, H. P. Relationship between time-span of discretion, leadership behavior, and Fiedler's LPC scores. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 140-144. Nealey, S. M., & Blood, M. R. Leadership performance of nursing supervisors at two organizational levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 414-422. Nealey, S. M., & Fiedler, F. E. Leadership functions of middle managers. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 313-329. Potter, E. G., & Fiedler, F. E. Physical disability and interpersonal perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1958, 8, 241-242. Rice, R. W. Personality and siluational determinants of leader behavior. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Utah, 1973. Rice, R. W. The esteem for least preferred coworker (LPC) score: What does it measure? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 36, 5360B-5361B. (University Microfilms No. 76-8661) Rice, R. W. Formal classification of research information: An empirical test of the McGrath-Altman approach and an illustrative case. American Psychologist, 1978, 33, 249-264. (a) Rice, R. W. Psychometric properties of the Esteem for Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. Academy of Management Review, 1978, J, 106-118. (b) Rice, R. W., & Chemers, M. M. Predicting the emergence of leaders using Fiedler's contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 281-287. Rice, R. W., & Chemers, M. M. Personality and situational determinants of leader behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 20-27. Rice, R. W., Seaman, F. J., & Garvin, D. J. An empirical examination of the esteem for least preferred coworker (LPC) construct. Journal of Psychology, 1978, 98, 195-205. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

Rudin, S. A. Leadership as psychophysiological activation of group members: A case experimental study. Psychological Reports, 1964, 15, 577-578. Sample, J. A., & Wilson, T. R. Leader behavior, group productivity, and rating of least preferred co-worker. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 266-270. Sashkin, M. Leadership style and group decision effectiveness: Correlational and behavioral tests of Fiedler's contingency model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 8, 347-362. Sashkin, M., Taylor, F. C., & Tripathi, R. C. An analysis of situational moderating effects on the relationships between least preferred co-worker and other psychological measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 731-740. Schreisheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal of current and future directions. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, in press. Schutz, W. C. FIRO: A 3-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960. Shiflett, S. The contingency model: Some implications of the statistical and methodological properties. Behavioral Science, 1973, 18, 429-440. Shiflett, S. C. Stereotyping and esteem for one's least preferred co-worker. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 55-65. Shiflett, S. C., & Nealey, S. M. The effects of changing leader power: A test of situational engineering. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 371-382. Shima, H. The relationship between the leader's modes of interpersonal cognition and the performance of the group. Japanese Psychological Research, 1968, 10, 13-30. Steiner, I. D., & McDiarmid, C. G. Two kinds of assumed similarity between opposites. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 140-142. Steiner, I. D., & Peters, S. C. Conformity and the A-B-X model. Journal of Personality, 1958, 26, 229-242. Stinson, J. E. "Least preferred coworker" as a measure of leadership style. Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 930. Stinson, J. E., & Tracy, L. Some disturbing characteristics of the LPC score. Personnel Psychology, 1974, 24, 477-485. Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press, 1974. Strickland, L. H. Need for approval and the components of the ASo score. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 24, 875-878. Vroom, V. H. Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. Leadership and decision making. Pittsburg, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973. Wagner, C., & Wheeler, L. Model, need, and cost effects in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 111-116.

LEAST PREFERRED CO-WORKER SCORE eissenberg, P., & Gruenfeld, L. W. Relationship union^ leadership dimensions and cognitive style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 5, 392-395. ood, M. T., & Sobel, R. S. Effects of similarity of leadership style at two levels of management on the job satisfaction of the first level manager. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 23, 577-590. ukl, G. A situation description questionnaire for

1237

leaders. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 515-518. Yukl, G. Leader LPC scores: Attitude dimensions and behavioral correlates. Journal of Social Psyckoloey 1970 80 207-212 ' ' Received March 9, 1977 •

Construct validity of the least preferred co-worker score.

Psychological Bulletin 1978, Vol. 85, No. 6, 1199-1237 Construct Validity of the Least Preferred Co-Worker Score Robert W. Rice State University of N...
3MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views