Article Component Papers (PERSPECTIVES ON EFFECTIVE LEADER BEHAVIOR)

Fleishmanetal.1991.LQ.2.245-287.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Article Component Papers (PERSPECTIVES ON EFFECTIVE LEADER BEHAVIOR)

TAXONOM~C EFFORTS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF LEADER BEHAVIOR:

A SYNTHESIS AND FUNCTIONAL INTERPRETATION

Edwin A. Fleishman* Michael D. Mumford

Stephen J. Zaccaro George Mason Un;vers~ty

Kerry Y. Levin Arthur L. Korotkin Westat Incorporated

Michael 6. Hein Middle Tennesse State University

A systematic definition of the behaviors contributing to effective organizational leadership is required

for both theory development and the design of training interventions. This article describes an attempt

to formulate a general taxonomy capable of describing the functional behavioral requirements for

effective organizational leadership. This effort began with a review of earlier taxonomic efforts for

describing leader behavior and with the specification of the demands placed on leaders in organizational

settings. A subsequent analysis of the actions required for an adaptive response to these demands led

to the specification of 13 leader behavior dimensions. This taxonomy was then evaluated with respect

to the existing taxonomic literature, principles of taxonomic development, and other available evidence.

Finally, the taxonomy’s relationship to other theoretical systems was discussed, along with some of

its broader implications for understanding the determinants of leadership performance.

*Direct all correspondence to: Edwin A. Fleishman, Department of Psychology, George Mason University,

4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 220304444.

Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ISSN: 1048-9843

246 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Actions taken by individuals assigned to formal leadership positions have long been held to constitute an important determinant of organizational leadership (Pelz, 1952; Shartle, 1956; Stogdill, 1959). Cognizance of this fact has lead to a number of theories concerned with specifying the causal determinants of effective leadership such as leader traits (Fiedler, 1978), behavioral styles (Fleishman, 1973), transformational acts (Bass, 1985), dyadic relationships (Graen, 1976; Vecchio, 1979) and subordinate perceptions (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Lord, 1977). These theoretical models have, in turn, provided a framework for the construction of programs intended to facilitate the identification and development of key leadership personnel (e.g., Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974; Glickman, Baxter, Fleishman, & Hahn, 1968). Despite this substantial investment in basic research and program development, it has proven difficult to formulate interventions yielding tangible improvements in leader performance (Bass, 1981; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Fleishman, Harris, & Burtt, 1955).

Many factors contribute to the limited effectiveness of these interventions, such as the tendency to focus on only a few causes in a complex field and the operation of manifold, perhaps uncontrollable, political, economic, and environmental influences (Bass, 1981; Mumford, 1986). These efforts, however, are plagued by a far more basic problem. Current models of human performance hold that attempts to improve performance through selection, training, or other interventions, must begin with a clear, precise, and valid definition of the categories of behavioral acts required for adequate performance in the setting at hand (Dunnette & Fleishman, 1982; Fleishman & Murnford, 1989a; Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984; Goldstein, 1986; Guion, 1965; McCormick, 1979). In the leadership arena, however, it is unclear whether a comprehensive taxonomy of leader tasks, explicitly taking into account functional performance requirements, has been formulated (Hackman & Walton, 1986). Lacking a taxonomy of this sort, it seems unlikely that substantial progress can be made in the construction of leadership development programs and the generation of more effective models for understanding leader performance.

In light of this situation, our intent in the present paper is threefold. First, we review extant schemes for classifying leader behavior to identify any common themes emerging in these studies and determine the major impediments to the generation of a viable taxonomic structure. Second, we propose an approach for remediating these deficiencies and describe a classification system resulting from application of this approach. Third, and finally, we review certain evidence bearing on the meaningfulness of this classification scheme and then consider some of its broader implications for research

and practice in the field of leadership.

PREVIOUS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

Formal attempts to define the domain of leadership behavior have a long history. The first such efforts appearing in the late 1930s and early 1940s (for a review, see Bass, 1981, 1990). Over the last fifty years, a number of classification systems for the definition and description of organizational leadership behavior have been proposed. We reviewed the literature on classification systems identified in the psychological, management, and military research literature on leadership behavior.

Table 1 lists the major dimensions of leader behavior held to be important within each of these classification systems. As may be seen, 65 different classification systems

247 Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior

Table 1 Classifications of Leadership Behavior

Coffin (1944) A. Planning

B. Organizing C. Coordinating Barnard (1946) A. Determination of objectives

B. Manipulation of means C. Instrumentation of action D. Stimulation of coordinated effort

Krech and Crutch~eld (1948)

A. Planning B. Policy making C. Expertise D. External representation

E. Control of internal relationships

F. Rewards

G. Arbitration

H. Symbolic activity Hemphill (1949) A. Set group goals with the members

B. Help them reach the group goals C. Coordinate the members

D. Help members Iit into the group E. Interest in the group, not self

F. Humanness Hemphill (1950) A. Initiation

B. Representation C. Fraternization

D. Organization E. Domination

F. Recognition G. Production H. lntegration

I. Communication-down

J. Communication-up

Davis (1951) A. Plan

B. Organize C. Control Hemphill, Siegel, and Westie (1951) A. Delegating

B. Controlling processes C. Encouraging competition D. Enforcing rules and procedures

E. Informing Berkowitz (1953) A. Maintaining standards of performance B. Behavior in a nutrant manner

C. Acting upon awareness of situational

9. Stogdill, Wherry, and Jaynes (1953) A. Policy making B. Administrative coordination

C. Methods planning D. Representation of member interests

E. Personnel services

F. Professional consultation G. Maintenance services

H. Inspection IO. Fleishman (1953a)

A. Consideration B. Initiating structure

11. Stogdill and Shartle (1955) A. Communication B. Representation

C. Organizatin D. Integration E. Relations with subordinates F. Relations with superiors

12. Suttel and Spector (1955) A. Instructing B. Supervising C. Informing

D. Ordering E. Deciding

13. Williams (1956) A. Knowledge

a. Technical competence B. Decision making

a. Plan b. Organize c. Execute d. Direct

B. Interpersonal interaction a. Peers b. Superiors

D. Character a. Work habits

b. Acceptance of ~spo~sibility E. Organization over person

a. Adjustment to the job b. Acceptance of organizational

responsibility F. Policies and records

a. Coordination

b. Integration c. Administrative details

14. Halpin and Winer (1957) A. Consideration B. Initiating structure C. Production emphasis neeas

D. maintaining coordination and team work D. Sensitivity (social awareness)

(conrimed)

248 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Table 1 (Continued)

15. Selznick (1957)

A. Definition of goals

B. Creation of structure

C. Defense of institution D. Reevaluation of internal conflict

16. Koontz, O’Donnell, and Weihrich (1958)

A. Planning

B. Organizing

C. Motivating

D. Controlling

17. Showel and Peterson (1958)

A. Planning and foresight

B. Informal teaching and briefing

C. Supervising and checking

D. Corecting and rewarding

E. Manner of dealing with subordinates

F. Concern with welfare of men

G. Attitude toward job

H. Deportment

I. Technical knowledge

18. Hemphill (1959)

_ Providing staff service for non-operations

area

Supervising work

Business control

Technical markets and production

Human, community, and social affairs

Long range planning

Exercise broad power and authority

Business reputation

Personal demands

Preservation of assets

E. Supervising

Union management relations

D. Manpower coordination and

F. Staffing

administration

E. Work organization, planning, and

G. Negotiating

preparation

H. Representing

Manufacturing process supervision

22. McGrath (1964)

A. Monitoring

25.

B. Forecasting

Stogdill, Goode, and Day (1965)

Taking direct action

D. Creating conditions

23. Department of Defense (1965)

A. Group nature

B. Environment

C. Knowing your job

D. Mission

E. Using reward and punishment

F. Discipline

G. Writing and speaking

H. Keeping your men informed

I. Planning your career

J. Knowledge of your men

K. Your relations with your men

L. Your men’s moral and physical welfare

M. Leaders and leadership

N. Morale

0. Esprit de corps

24. Mahoney, Jerdee, and Carroll (1965)

A. Planning

B. Investigating

C. Coordinating

D. Evaluating

19. Roby (1961)

solution D.

Obtain information needed for decision

making

Bring about congruence of goals B. Balance group resources and capabilities

with environmental demands

C. Provide group structure for problem A. General persuasive leadership

B. Tolerance for uncertainty

C. Tolerance of follower freedom of action

D. Representation of the group

E. Influence with superiors

F. Production emphasis

G. Consideration I

H. Consideration II

I. Retention of leadership role

20. Shultz (1961) A. Establishing and prioritizing group goals

B. Recognizing and integrasting the various

cognitive styles existing within the group C. Maximizing the use of group members

abilities D. Helping members solve problems 26. Nealy and Fiedler (1968)

involved in adapting to external realities A. Production

21. Prien (1963) B. On-the-job training

A. Employee supervision C. Control of materials and supplies

B. Employee contact and communication D. Maintenance

(conrinued)

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior

Table 1 (Continued)

249

E. Cost control

F. Setting standards

G. Selection and placement

H. Coordination of work

27. MacKenzie (1969)

A. Staff

a. Select

b. Orient c. Train

B. Control

a. Establish reporting system

b. Develop standards

c. Measure results d. Take corrective action

e. Reward

C. Communicate

D. Develop

E. Direct

a. Delegate

b. Motivate c. Coordinate

d. Manage differences

F. Organize

a. Establish position qualifications

b. Create position descriptions

c. Delegate relationships

G. Plan a. Develop policies

b. Set procedures

c. Budget

d. Program e. Set objectives

28. Bennett (1971)

A. Decide

B. Plan C. Analyze

D. Interact with people E. Use equipment

29. Helme (1971)

A. Team leadership

B. Resourcefulness

C. Command of men

D. Mission persistence

E. Executive direction

F. Tactical staff skills

G. Technical staff skills

34. Olmstead, Cleary, and Salter (1973)

A. Social skills

B. Communication skills

C. Adaptability

D. Motivation E. Forcefulness

F. Mental ability

G. Decision making

H. Administrative skills

I. Organizational identification

J. Supervisory skills

K. Physical competence

L. Technical and tactical competence

M. Problem solving ability N. Effectiveness in leadership role

35. Helme (1974)

30. Wofford (1971)

A. Order and group achievement

B. Personal enhancement C. Maintenance of interpersonal relationships A. Maintain morale

D. Security B. Set example E. Dynamic achievement orientation C. Define goals

31. Bowers and Seashore (1972)

A. Support B. Interaction facilitation

C. Goal emphasis

D. Work facilitation

32. Miller (1973)

A. Supporting

B. Abdicating

C. Information sharing

D. Delegating

E. Group decision making

F. Persuading

G. Does favors

H. Encourages competition

I. Rewards

J. Supervises

K. Enforces rules and procedures

L. Defines goals

M. Monitoring

N. Negotiating

0. Participation

33. Mintzberg (1973)

B. C.

Legal and social symbolic duties Motivate subordinates

Obtain information from others

Collect internal information Transmit information to other organiza-

tional members

Transmit information to others

Initiate change

Deal with unexpected changes

Negotiate with others

Allocate resources

(continued)

250 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Table 1 (Continued)

D. Attain goals

E. Know members

F. Communicate

G. Maintain discipoline

H. Motivate subordinates 36. Reaser, Vaughan, and Kriner (1974)

A. Task professionalism

B. Task oriented consideration

C. People oriented consideration

D. Personal/ interpersonal consideration

37. Gilbert (1975)

A. Unit command

B. Operations and training

C. Manpower and personnel

D. Logistics E. Intelligence

F. Troop welfare

38. Olmstead, Lackey, and Christensen (1975) A. Making decisions

B. Assigning tasks

C. Rewarding others

39. Clement and Ayres (1976) A. Communications

B. Human relations

C. Counseling

D. Supervision

E. Technical

F. Management

G. Decision making H. Planning

1. Ethics

40. Oldham (1976)

A. Rewarding

B. Punishing

C. Setting goals

D. Designing feedback system

E. Placing personnel

F. Designing job systems

41. Olmstead, Cleary, Lackey, and Salter (1976) A. Collect information and intelligence

B. Process information and intelligence

C. Analyze information and intelligence D. Disseminate information and intelligence E. Develop contingency plans

F. Execute maneuver scheme G. Plan fire support H. Supervise delivery of fire support

I. Issue orders J. Supervise execution of order

K. Stay abreast of situation L. Maintaining communications capability M. Maintaining communications flow

42. Tornow and Pinto (1976) A.

C. D.

J. K.

Long range thinking and planning

Coordination of other organizational units

and personnel

Internal control

Products and services responsibility

Public and customer relations

Advanced consulting

Autonomy of financial commitments

Staff service

Supervision

Complexity and stress Advanced financial responsibility

Board personnel responsibility

43. Katz and Kahn (1977)

A. Induction of structure

B. Interpretation of structure

C. Use of structure 44. Fine (1977)

A. Analyzing

B. Negotiating

C. Consulting

D. Instructing E. Exchanging information

45. Dowel1 and Wexley (1978)

A. Working with subordinates

B. Organizing work of subordinates

C. Work planning and scheduling

D. Maintaining efficient quality production E. Maintaining equipment and machinery

F. Compiling records and reports

46. Olmstead, Baranick, and Elder (1978)

A. Information acquisition

B. Providing intelligence

C. Anticipating contingencies

D. Timeliness of adjustment of plans

E. Effectiveness of adjustment

F. Planning

G. Decision making

H. Coordination

1. Communication

47. Winter (1978) A.

B. C. D. E.

F. G.

H. I.

Disciplines

Rewards Understands Monitors results Influences

Delegates Develops subordinates

Team builds Plans and organizes

Sets goals

(continued)

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior

Table 1 (Continued)

251

K. L.

Conceptualizes

Takes initiative

Positive expectations

Realistic expectations

Task achievement

Use of influence

Management control

Advising and counseling

Coercion

48. Morse and Wagner (1978)

A. Motivating and confhct handling

B. Providing development

C, Organizing and coordinating

D. Strategic problem solving

E. Information handling

F. Managing environment and resources

49. Elliott, Harden, Giesler, Scott, and Euske

(1979)

A. Maintenance and supply

B. Unit record keeping

C. Training administration and assessment

D. Counseling and personnel management

E. Evaluation

50. Bass (1981) A. Defining

8. Providing means for goal attainment

C. Providing and m~ntaining group

structures

D. Maintaining group cohesiveness and member satisfaction

E. Facilitating group task performance

51. Bass (1981)

A. Defining goals

B. Explaining how goals will be met

C. Defining evaluation criteria

D. Providing feedback

E. Allocating rewards

52. Cribben (1981)

A. Plan

B. Organize C. Staff

D. Direct E. Coordinate F. Gain cooperationg

G. Control

II. Review and evaluate

1. Lead (set high standards)

C. Negotiate with peers D. Cultivate good relations with staff and ser-

vice groups

E. Respond to requests, demands, requirements

F. Oversee the flow of work

G. Are alert to work output and morale

H. Represent subordinates

I. Retain control over their own lives

J. Attempt to cope with their own tensions

K. Strive to attain valued organizational rewards

54. Farr (1982)

A. Provide direction

a. Setting goals

b. Problem solving

c. Decision making

d. Planning

B. Implement

a. Communicate

b. Coordinate

c. Supervise

d. Evaluate

C. Motivate

a. Applying the principles

b. Teaching

c. Counseling

55. Department of the Army-FM22IQ0 (1983)

G. H.

Know yourself and seek self-improvement

Be technically (tacticalty) proficient

Seek responsibility and take responsibility

for your actions

Make sound and timely decisions

Set the example

Know your soldiers and look out for their

well-being

Keep your soldiers informed

Develop a sense of responsibility in your

subordinates

Ensure that the task is understood, super-

vised, and accomplished

Train your soldiers as a team

Employ your unit in accordance with its capabilities

56. Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (1982) A. Plan

B. Organize

c. Staff

J. Budget: time, thought, talent, and behavior D. Direct

53. Sayles (1981) E. Control A. Work to implement personal career plans 57. Hitt, Middlemist, and Mathis (1983)

B. Endeavor to be sensitive to expectations A. Decision making of immediate supervisors B. Planning

252 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Tabie 1 (Cont~ued)

C. Directing D. Organizing E. Controlling

F. Boundary spanning G. Information processing

58. Jacobs (1983) A. Sensing information B. Communicating information

C. Making decisions D. Communicating implementation E. Stabilizing F. Implementing G. Getting feedback

59. Luthans and Lockwood (1984) A. Socializing

9. Motivating and reinforcing C. Managing conflict D. Training and developing E. Planning and coordinating

F. Problem solving and deciding G. Exchanging information

H. Monitoring/controlling

1. Interacting with outsiders

60. Metcalfe (1984) A. Procedurai proposing B. Proposals related to job activites

C. Giving information

D. Stating guidelines

E. Evaluating

F. Disagreeing

G. Attacking

H. Defending

1. Building

J. Supporting K. Summarizing

L. Seeking information

M. Seeking feelings N . . Seeking proposals 0. “Bringing in”

P. Testing understanding

Q. Checking out R. Open S. Inviting participation

T. Shutting out

61. Page (1985) A. Supervising B. Planning and organizing C. Decision making D. Monitoring indicators E. Representing F. Coordinating

62. Misumi (1985) A. Performance: Problem solving/goal

achievement

B. Maintenance: Group preservation activities

63. Komaki, Zlotnick, and Jensen (1986)

F. G.

Performance consequences: Indicating

knowledge of performance Performance monitors: Collecting infor- mation about performance Performance antecedents: Providing

instructions for performance Own performance: Referring to the man- ager’s own performance Work related: Referring to work, but not

performance Nonwork related: Not pertaining to work

Solitary: Not interacting with others 64. Leadership Assessment Program (as cited in

Van Fleet and Yukl, 1986) A. Decision making

a. Judgment b. Problem analysis c. Decision

B. Administrative a. Planning and organizing

b. Delegating C. Administrative control D. Communication-interperson~

a. Influence b. Sensitive

E. Personal/ motivational a. Initiative

65. Van Fleet and Yukl(I986)

A. B. C.

D. E.

F. G. H. I. J. K.

L. M.

N. 0.

:. R. S. T. U. V. W.

_ I Showing consideration Providing praise and recognition

Training and coaching Disseminating information Encouraging decision participation Delegating Innovation Facilitating the work Monitoring operations Monitoring the environment Representing the unit Managing conflict Emphasizing performance

Inspiring subordinates Goal setting Planning Criticizing Career counseling Problem solving Clarifying work roles Administering discipline Facilitating cooperation and team work Monitoring reward contingencies

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 253

were proposed between 1940 and 1986. Given the magnitude and comple~ty of this research literature, it is possible that even this review does not represent an exhaustive description of all available taxonomies. Nevertheless, this list appears sufficiently comprehensive to permit some general conclusions to be drawn concerning the nature of leadership taxonomies.

Similarities Among Clasdication Systems

A careful examination of the data presented in Table 1 yields some interesting clues concerning the kind of dimensions commonly found useful in describing leader behavior. in nearly every classification system, dimensions are proposed focusing on (a) the facilitation of group social interaction, and (b) objective task accomplishment. These two general dimensions are, of course, similar to the consideration and initiating st~cture dimensions identifed by Fleishman (1953a,b,c) and Halpin and Winer (1957), in the factor analysis of subordinate responses to questionnaire items describing the frequency with which supervisors perform different leadership tasks. Although these two dimensions have been rediscovered a number of times and have been found to predict performance in a number of settings (Fleishman, 1973, 1989a, 1989b; Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Fleishman, Harris, & Burtt, 1955; Karmel 1978), Mott (1972) points out that their predictive power is sometimes moderate or low. Thus, it appears that the parsimony inherent in the use of two general summary dimensions may lead to some loss in descriptive accuracy.

The second general trend apparent in Table 1 arises from the consistent appearance of m~agement/administrative functions, such as the Preservation of Assets and Staffing, in many of these cl~si~cation systems (Hemphill, 1959; Prien, 1963; Tornow & Pinto, 1976; Winter, 1978). The obvious implication here is that certain aspects of the managerial role are held to be relevant to the description of leadership behavior in organizational settings. Furthermore, the characteristics of these classification schemes point to two distinct kinds of managing activities likely to be relevant to organizational leadership. The first of these being concerned with the maintenance and utilization of human resources, and the second being concerned with the maintenance and utilization of ~ut~~iu~ resources. Illustrations of this point may be found in Nealey and Fiedler’s (1968) dimensions labeled On-the-Job Training of Personnel and Control of Materials and Supplies, as well as Gilbert’s (1975) dimensions of Troop Welfare and Logistics. Interestingly, this distinction seems to parallel the notions of consideration and initiating structure. This suggests that there is no necessary inconsistency between a two-factor approach and multiple-role dimensions, if it is assumed that a hierarchical classification system is operating involving both first and second order dimensions.

The third major trend apparent in these classification efforts concerns the emergence of certain temporal shifts in the kind of dimensions postulated. From the middle of the 1950s to the middle of the 197Os, most classification systems emphasized the importance of interactional dimensions. This trend is illustrated in Stogdill, Goode, and Day’s (1965) dimension labeled Representation of the Group and Influence with Superiors, as well as Berkowitz’s (1953) dimensions labeled Behaving in a Nutrient Manner and Maintaining Coordination. Between the middle of the 1970s and the middle of the 198Os, a new trend emerged as these classification systems began to emphasize

254 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

dimensions concerned with information acquisition and utilization. Clement and Ayres (1976), for instance, propose not only the traditional social relations dimensions, but

also dimensions concerned with communication, planning, and decision making. This same trend is apparent in the work of Dowel1 and Wexley (1978), Fine (1 “/), Jacobs (1983), Olmstead, Baranick, and Elder (1978). Specification of these diI..ensions may be related to the emergence of cognitive psychology and a new-found sensitivity to the role of cognition in guiding social behavior (Bandura, 1986; Feldman & Lindell, 1988;

Lord & Foti, 1986). To the extent that leadership requires goal-oriented action, the addition of these dimensions represents a significant extension of earlier taxonomic efforts.

Differences Among Classification Systems

Beyond these three general trends, however, even a cursory inspection of Table 1 indicates a great deal of diversity in the nature of the dimensions postulated by these classification systems. One important source of these differences may be found in the divergent theoretical frameworks employed by different investigators. As Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) note, differences in theoretical frameworks lead to differences in the specification of relevant behaviors and appropriate summary dimensions. This point is nicely illustrated in the classification schemes proposed by Katz and Kahn (1977) and Schultz (1961), where the application of systems theory and interaction process analysis, respectively, lead these investigator to propose markedly different kinds of dimensions.

Another source of differences in the nature of the dimensions postulated by different investigators may be found in the methods used to develop the classification structure. In the Tornow and Pinto (1976) and Prien (1963) studies, factor analyses of task ratings were used to specify dimensions of leadership behavior. Because these studies employed samples at different organizational levels and in different organizational settings, as well as rather different task descriptors, it is not surprising that different dimensions of leadership behavior emerge. These observations, of course, underscore the limited utility

of purely quantitative procedures due to their sensitivity to variation in analytic techniques, measurement procedures, and sample characteristics. More centrally, however, they indicate that methodological differences in classification procedure may have a marked impact on Dimensions structure (Fleishman & Qu~ntance, 1984).

A final factor contributing to this variation in dimensional structure may be found in the intended application of the classification. In their treatment of general taxonomic

principles, Fleishman and Quaintance point out the key role played by the purpose of the classification effort in conditioning the conceptual basis for and eventual nature of the classification system. The import of this effect may be sen in contrasting Olmstead, Cleary, and Salter’s (1973) classification scheme with Gilbert’s (1975) system. Because the former was intended to summarize behavioral indications of differential officer effectiveness while the latter was intended to summarize behavior per se without respect to its performance implications, very different dimensions emerged. Similarly, the classification schemes proposed by Fleishman (1953b,c) and Bowers and Seashore (1972) display substantial similarity to each other with respect to the number and nature

of the postulated dimensions, as well as in their concern with obtaining a general, highly

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 255

parsimonious description of leader behavior. These systems, however, are quite different

than those formulated by Miller (1973) and VanFleet and Yukl (1986), where the primary concern was precision of description.

Taxonomic Principles

Given the number of classification schemes found in the literature, it might, as first glance, appear that the classification of leader behavior has become an obsession having

little bearing on the significance of such activities for advancing our understanding of leadership performance. It should, however, be recognized that the construction of particularly effective taxonomic systems has provided a basis for many fundamental

advances in the sciences (Sokal & Sneath, 1963). As Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) point out, taxonomic efforts serve the sciences not only by specifying the phenomenon of interest, but also by specifying its crucial structural components and the range of permissible generalization. Their observations indicate, moreover, that well-defined taxonomic systems serve to induce some parsimony in complex phenomenal fields while simultaneously providing a necessary framework for hypothesis generation (Messick, 1989). Although Fleishman and Quaintance’s (1984) observations justify the effort devoted to developing classifications of leader behavior, they also point to a

fundamental problem. More specifically, the diversity of these schemes implies that we have not yet formulated a general, consensual classification of organizational leadership behavior. Not only does this deficiency make it difficult to formulate principles for leadership identification and development, it also ensures that theoretical progress will become a halting, haphazard affair. Thus, at this juncture, the question arises as to how one might go about formulating a general classification of organizational leadership behavior.

One might, of course, argue that certain inherent properties of leader behavior effectively prohibit formulating a general, consensual classification scheme. The history

of classification efforts in other areas of psychology, however, tends to negate this proposition (Gustafson, 1984). Rather, it appears that our inability to formulate a general classification of organizational leadership can be traced to a failure to attend to the basic principles of taxonomic science. According to Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) three essential steps are likely to be required in any classification effort. The first requisite step is explicit definition of the targeted behavioral domain. Unfortunately, classifications of leader behavior have typically ignored this step,

combining, for example, such diverse phenomena as emergent, charismatic, and appointive leadership under a single rubic.

The second essential step in generating viable classifications entails specification of the causal variables conditioning the observed properties of objects within a common domain (Cronbach 1971; Fleishman & Mumford, 1988; James, Muliak, & Brett, 1984; Messick, 1989). This principle is illustrated in the earlier taxonomic efforts of Fleishman (1975, 1982), where viable ability taxonomies were formulated by explicitly delineating the variables on dimensions likely to cause and, therefore, summarize task performance in different domains (Fleishman & Mumford, 1988, 1989a). This same principle underlies current structural modeling techniques for the definition of summary dimensions (Gustafson, 1984; James, Muliak, & Brett, 1984; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1979), as well as

256 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

other ability taxonomies, the periodic table, and more recent biological taxonomies (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984). In the leadership literature, however, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Shultz, 1961), no mention is made of causal hypotheses. Rather, dimen- sions are typically defined solely on the basis of manifest behavioral similarity or face validity as is apparent in the taxonomic schemes proposed by Dowel1 and Wexley (1978),

Luthans and Lockwood (1984), and Mintzberg (1973). Without explicit causal hypotheses, it is virtually impossible to specify stable, conceptually significant summary dimensions, establish their meaningfulness and substantive interrelationships, and formulate appropriate evaluation strategies (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984). These outcomes of an orientation toward manifest content rather than generative dimensions make it difficult, in turn, to formulate stable, general taxonomies applying in well-defined domains.

As alluded to above, the third, and final, step in any taxonomic effort is evaluation

of the classification scheme (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984). Here, an attempt is made to provide evidence indicative of the meaningfulness through an ongoing series of construct validity tests. Many sources of evidence might be, and indeed should be, marshalled for the substantive meaningfulness of the proposed dimensions including (a) internal validity assessments, examining the structure of dimensional assignments,

and dimensional interrelationships, and (b) external validity assessments, examining predictive relationships, relationships with other classifications, and general theoretical support for the system. Unfortunately, because many leadership classifications disregard this step, $ becomes difficult to place the proposed dimensional set in a well-established nomothetic net capable of contributing to dimensional refinement and facilitating general application (Cronbach, 1971; Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984; Fleishman &

Mumford, 1991). Although the failure of many leadership classifications to attend to these principles

might account for our failure to formulate stable, general taxonomic systems, these same observations also point to a potential solution. While it may prove difficult to

formulate all-encompassing classifications of leader behavior, focusing on circumscribed well-defined domains of leader behavior may allow the specification of viable hypotheses concerning the dimensions likely to cause and, therefore, summarize

leader behavior. Because the identification and development of effective organizational leaders constitutes a salient practical concern underlying many research programs, we will, in the ensuing discussion, attempt to formulate a general classification of organizational leadership behavior. Although application of this strategy may entail some sacrifice in breadth, ignoring phenomena such as emergent leadership, it seemed likely that a focus on performance requirements within this domain might permit specification and subsequent evaluation of key causal dimensions.

FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Organizational Systems

To understand leadership behavior as an organizational phenomenon, one must begin by considering the nature of organizations. Although various models have been proposed for understanding organizations, a consensus has emerged which holds that organizations are best described and understood through socio-technical systems theory

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 257

(Katz & Kahn, 1977; Ulrich & Wieland, 1981). Moreover, since its original proposal

by Von Batalnaffy (1948), evidence has accrued for the utility of this paradigm in understanding such diverse phenomena as cycles of growth and change (Tushman & Anderson, 1986), social rigidity (Schneider, 1987), and responses to innovation (Bryan,

1980; Burns & Stalker, 1961). Systems theory holds that organizations emerge because individuals can achieve goals

through collective action that could not be attained by individuals working alone (Katz & Kahn, 1977). To meet these goals, organizations extract selected human and physical resources from the surrounding environment. These raw materials are then manipulated in a transformation process derived from a division of labor, its associated role structure,

and the technical or physical machinery in use. The transformed products will, hopefully, be employed by other systems, resulting in resource acquisition, goal attainment, and maintenance of the socio-technical transformation process. During this transformation process, certain organizational subsystems will monitor outcomes, subsystems actions, and the broader environment to obtain feedback used as a basis for organized change. As one result of monitoring a feedback, a division of labor will

emerge among individuals and subsystems of individuals as a means for enhancing the efficiency of this transformation process.

As social systems, organizations are confronted with three fundamental problems

in constructing a viable transformation process leading to continued goal attainment. First, the external environment itself is unstable, resulting in fluctuations in resources, markets, and goal priorities, as well as the feasibility and effectiveness of alternative courses of action. Second, the subsystems arising from this division of labor represent loosely coupled units whose actions must be integrated to ensure continued goal attainment. Third, as social systems, organizations are ultimately dependent on a set

of unique and highly autonomous subsystems, these being individual human beings whose involvement in an organization may be conditioned by affiliative and esteem needs not directly relevant to concrete production, and whose actions may be influenced by a variety of socio-development, perceptual, and cognitive mechanisms. Environmental variation, subsystem differences and human diversity will, in turn, result in substantial complexity and conflict, as well as a host of uncertain paths to continued

goal attainment. To reduce complexity and conflict, organizations will often specify legitimate and

expected role requirements, ensure interchangeable roles across individuals and formulate a hierarchical arrangement of relevant domains of responsibility, thereby giving rise to bureaucratic organizational structures (Jaques, 1977). A bureaucratic structure implies, however, that some individuals will be assigned to roles requiring the creation, maintenance, direction, and coordination of certain subsystems to ensure appropriate goal definition and eventual goal attainment. It is in these boundary role positions that bureaucratic organizations permit effective leadership (Katz & Kahn, 1977).

Functional leadership

In the sense defined above, organizational leadership behavior constitutes a functional phenomenon by virtue of its focus on goal definition and attainment. As Hackman

258 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

and Walton (1986) point out, 7&e key assertion in thefunctionalapproach to leadership is that the leader’s main job is to do, or get done, whatever is not being adequately handledforgroup needs (McGrath 1964,~. 75). Ifa leader manages, by whatever means, to ensure that allfunctions critical to both task accomplishment andgroup maintenance are adequately taken care of; then the leader has done his or her job well (p. 75).

This functional approach to leadership implied by systems theory suggests a relatively straightforward strategy for defining the domain of organizational leadership behavior. By proposing that leadership is a property of individuals occupying functional social roles, this approach implies that effective leader behavior will be reflected in those overt or covert actions taken by the individual, interacting with other relevant subsystems, that influence the transformation processes occurring in these subsystems in such a way as to enhance and maintain organizational adaptation through subsystem goal attainment (Mumford, 1986). This definition displays some similarity to earlier definitions of leader behavior (Fleishman, 1973). However, the current definition has a number of implications worthy of further consideration.

To begin, this functional definition of leader behavior clearly implies an intentional goal-oriented act on the part of the individual. Thus, leadership cannot be attributed to the unintentional side effects of actions which did not seek to influence system performance. However, acts which lay a groundwork for effective influence attempts, by maintaining group functioning, communicating objectives, or providing requisite resources, are taken into account, as are acts concerned with initial goal definition and priority setting (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Hackman & Walton, 1986; Matsui, Osawa,

& Terari, 1975). Although this definition allows for upward and lateral, as well as downward, influence attempts, it does not require direct interpersonal contact. Thus, a CEO may attempt to influence organizational members, and exhibit leadership, simply by developing a new budget. Finally, leadership is held to be conditioned, but not determined, by position occupancy because influence attempts which fail to contribute to goal attainment and organizational adaptation cannot be said to represent effective leadership. This is in line with Fleishman’s (1973) earlier definition.

While these observations are of some import, this functional organizational approach has another, perhaps more significant, implication for the definition of leader behavior. Although it is recognized that many social forces shape organizational goals and the nature of the requisite influence attempts, leadership is viewed as a property of the individual. Thus, influence attempts completely specified by environmental demands or normative role requirements represent a management function. Leadership, on the other hand, requires some degree of personal discretion or choice concerning exactly when, where, how, and why action will be taken to influence subsystem goal attainment. Because complex organizational systems will provide multiple avenues for influencing the subsystem goal attainment, some of which are more useful than others, effective leadership lies in the specification, selection, and implementation of the actions actually influencing subsystem goal attainment in the desired fashion.

The specification, selection, and implementation of actions to bring about goal attainment signifies a form of practical problem solving (Hogarth, 1980; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Scandura, 1977; Simonton, 1988; Sternberg, 1986). Thus, this functional approach implies that leadership behavior represents a form of organizationally-based problem solving, implemented in a social context, where an

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 259

attempt is made to bring about goal attainment by influencing the actions of other subsystems. Leadership behavior is viewed as a complex, opportunistic, social problem- solving syndrome involving many cognitive capacities (Fleishman & Friedman, 1990) in the generation, selection, and implementation of influence attempts.

A TAXONOMY OF LEADER BEHAVIOR

If its granted that the domain of organizational leadership behavior is defined by successful social problem solving directed toward organizational goals, then one might ask whether this domain definition provides any guidance as to how one would go about constructing a general taxonomic system for describing organizational leadership behavior. Because the goals and problems confronting leaders vary across organizations and organizational settings, one might expect substantial variability in leader behavior, as well as in the variables influencing the course of individual problem-solving efforts. It is also true, however, that the effective generation, selection, and implementation of problem solutions will always be conditioned by certain basic, requisite activities. These requisite activities provide core causal constructs that suggest a framework for constructing a general classification of organizational leadership behavior (see Table 2 and Figure 1). In this section, we attempt to sketch out these core or superordinate dimensions of leadership activities. Subsequently, we examine the leader behavior dimensions subsumed under these superordinate categories. Finally, we describe the relationships among these dimensions (Figure 2).

Superordinate Dimensions

lnforma tion Search and Structuring To select and implement actions intended to influence subsystem functioning, one

must first recognize that there is a need for influence to be exerted. Recognition of this need requires leaders to obtain information about goals, goal attainment, and the nature of subsystem functions to identify new desirable goals or actual and potential discrepancies in goal attainment (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; Reitman, 1964). Furthermore, to construct a problem and generate potential solutions, it will be necessary to seek out information indicative of alternative interpretations, the conditions associated with the situation, and restrictions on potential problem solutions (Kahneman, 1972; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Krietler & Krietler, 1987). Thus, by specifying the nature and existence of a problem, information acquisition activities are likely to provide a crucial basis for effective organizational leadership. Recent work in cognitive psychology indicates, however, that information per se does not provide a fully sufficient basis for solution generation (Medin & Ross, in press; Snow & Lohman, 1984). Rather, this information must be organized and interpreted using available, or perhaps created, categorical knowledge structures, or schema, which provide a basis for memory, judgment, and inference (Barsalou, 1983; Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982; Siegler & Richards, 1982). Although these categorical structures may induce some bias in leaders’ thoughts on a problem (especially among novices) they appear to provide an effective system for information storage and application (Feldman & Lindell, 1988; Siegler & Richards, 1982). In fact, the impact

T ab

2 D

ef in

it io

n s

of t

h e

L ea

d er

sh ip

eh av

io r

D im

en si

on s

(L B

D s)

In fo

rm at

io n

ea rc

an d

S tr

u ct

u ri

n g

In fo

rm at

io n

se i

n P

ro b

le m

ol vi

n g

A cq

ui ri

In fo

rm at

io n

G at

he ri

ng ,

as si

m il

at in

st or

in g

ra w

fo rm

at io

n fr

pe rt

in en

so ur

ce s.

O rg

an iz

in g

an d

E va

lu at

in g

In fo

rm at

io n

C at

eg or

iz in

g an

d co

nv er

ti ng

in fo

rm at

io n

in to

ef ul

ow le

dg e

aw ar

en es

s by

re fu

ll y

co ns

id er

in g

so ur

ce s,

m el

in es

ac cu

ra cy

re le

va nc

an d

ov er

al l

us ef

ul ne

in r

es pe

re le

va nt

al s

an d

or ga

ni zi

st ru

ct ur

es .

F ee

db ac

k an

d C

on tr

F ol

lo w

in g

gu id

an ce

, di

re ct

iv es

, an

d ac

ti on

s to

ar n

w he

th er

th ey

e un

de rs

to od

d im

pl em

en te

d at

l le

ve ls

; de

te rm

in in

w he

th er

e en

d re

su lt

s of

y ou

r gu

id an

ce ,

di re

ct iv

es ,

an d

ac ti

on s

w er

e w

ha t

w as

pe ct

an d

de si

re d.

Id en

ti fy

in g

N ee

an d

R eq

ui re

m en

B ei

al er

t to

is ti

po te

nt ia

l pr

ob le

ar ea

s or

ss ib

il it

ie s

fo r

im pr

ov in

g an

is ti

sy st

em ,

m et

ho d,

at us

; id

en ti

fy in

g si

ni fi

ca nt

ct or

s or

ns tr

ai nt

s th

in fl

ue nc

e th

e na

tu re

pr ob

le m

e re

qu ir

em en

fo r

pr ob

le m

lu ti

on .

P la

nn in

g an

d C

oo rd

in at

in g

C on

ce iv

in g

w ay

s an

d m

ea ns

co m

pl is

h jo

bs ,

go al

an d

m is

si on

s w

it h

av ai

la bl

e re

so ur

ce s

an d

so lv

e pr

ob le

m s

w it

h re

sp ec

t to

id en

ti fy

in g

ne ed

s an

d re

qu ir

em en

ts ;

co ns

ul ti

w it

h ot

he rs

de r

ap pr

is e

th em

p la

an d

ac ti

vi ti

an d

be co

m e

kn ow

le dg

ea -

bl e

as t

o w

ha t

th ey

e do

in g

pl an

ni ng

; co

nf ir

m in

g w

ha t

as si

st an

ot he

ca n

an d

w il

l pr

ov id

C om

m un

ic at

in g

In fo

rm at

io n

T ra

ns m

it ti

ng ,

ex ch

an gi

ng ,

re po

rt in

pa ss

in g

in fo

rm at

io n

th e

fo rm

w or

ds ,

m es

sa ge

em ot

io ns

, id

ea s,

gn al

s by

m ea

su ch

s pe

ak in

w ri

ti ng

, fa

ci al

pr es

si on

, ge

st ur

es ,

au to

m at

da ta

oc es

si ng

, or

y co

m bi

na ti

of t

he se

th er

di -

vi du

al s

gr ou

ps .

M an

ag in

g P

er so

n n

R es

ou rc

O bt

ai ni

an d

A ll

oc at

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

R eq

ui si

ti on

in g,

oc es

si ng

, cl

as si

fy in

an d

as si

gn in

g pe

rs on

ne l

ac co

rd an

w it

h au

th or

iz at

io ns

, qu

al if

ic at

io ns

, an

d ne

ed s.

D ev

el op

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

S et

ti ng

an da

rd s;

st er

in g

pr om

ot io

ns ,

sc ho

ol in

an d

pr of

es -

si on

de ve

lo pm

en t

fo r

th e

de se

rv in

te ac

hi ng

di vi

du al

s th

in gs

th ey

kn ow

de r

ac co

m pl

is h

as si

gn ed

sk s

in cr

ea se

th ei

r po

te nt

ia l

va lu

e to

e or

ga ni

za ti

on .

M ot

iv at

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

In it

ia ti

ac ti

on s

re w

ar d

an d

re co

gn iz

e pe

rf or

m an

ce ;

pr ov

id in

g a

cl im

at e

an d

so ci

co nd

it io

ca pa

bl e

of f

ac il

it at

in g

pe rf

or m

an ce

;

in su

ri ng

th e

ne ed

s an

d va

lu es

i nd

iv id

ua ls

n be

et ;

ex hi

it in

g an

te re

in a

pr ov

id in

g su

pp or

t fo

r in

di vi

du al

s an

d th

ei r

ef fo

rt s.

U ti

li zi

an d

M on

it or

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

D iv

id in

g w

or kl

oa ds

; as

si gn

in g

re sp

on si

bi li

ti es

; ob

se rv

in g

pe rf

or -

m an

ce s,

ep ar

in g

an d

m ai

nt ai

ni ng

po rt

ch ar

ts ,

lo gs

, ti

le s,

j ou

na ls

, ca

le nd

ar s,

co rd

an d

ch ec

kl is

a m

ea ns

on it

or in

m or

al e,

el fa

re ,

pe rf

or m

an ce

, an

d tr

ai ni

ng .

M an

ag in

g M

at er

ia l

R es

ou rc

O bt

ai ni

an d

A ll

oc at

in g

M at

er ia

l R

es ou

rc es

eq ui

si ti

on in

g an

d is

su in

g su

pp li

an d

eq ui

pm en

re qu

es ti

an d

pr ov

id in

g fa

ci li

ti es

d su

pp or

re qu

es ti

an d

di sb

ur si

fu nd

M ai

nt ai

ni ng

at er

ia l

R es

ou rc

S to

ri ng

, sa

fe gu

ar di

ng ,

se rv

ic in

re pa

ir in

g su

pp li

an d

eq ui

m en

re pa

ir in

g fa

ci li

ti es

d ve

hi cl

es ;

sa fe

gu ar

di ng

nd s

an d

do cu

m en

ts .

U ti

li zi

an d

M on

it or

in g

M at

er ia

l R

es ou

rc es

P re

sc ri

bi ng

su pp

li es

, eq

ui pm

en t,

ci li

ti es

, tr

an sp

or ta

ti on

, an

fu nd

s w

il l

be u

se d;

ep ar

in g

an d

m ai

nt ai

ni ng

po rt

ch ar

ts ,

re ce

ip ts

, lo

gs ,

fi le

s, j

ou rn

al s,

le nd

ar s,

ec kl

is ts

, an

d au

to m

at ic

da ta

co rd

s as

a m

ea ns

on it

or in

g th

e st

at us

pp li

es ,

eq ui

m en

fa ci

li ti

es ,

tr an

sp or

ta ti

on ,

fu nd

an d

do cu

m en

ts .

262 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

of information search and structuring on leader behavior has been illustrated not only in recent taxonomic work (Jacobs 1983), but also in studies by Mintzberg (1973) and Komaki, Desselles, and Bowman (1989), where it was found that leaders devoted substan- tial time to information acquisition activities (e.g., meetings, observations, or discussions with lieutenants), and that these activities were related to leader performance.

Information Use in Problem Solving Simply having information about a problem does not imply that an effective problem

solution contributing to organizational effectiveness can be or will be generated. In recent years, a variety of studies have been carried out attempting to delineate the basic processes underlying the application of information in generating problem solutions (Medin & Ross, in press; Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Sternberg, 1986). While the results obtained in these studies are complex, they suggest that application of certain general processing strategies or metacognitive rule systems to existing knowledge structures leads to a planned and organized set of activity selections believed to bring about goal attainment (Hayes & Flower, 1986; Halff, Holan, & Hutchins, 1986; Krietler & Krietler, 1987; Sternberg, 1986). From time to time, the importance of this solution generation step has been questioned because of a tendency for managers to “grab” the first available solution (Cyert & March, 1963; Manz & Sims, 1986), the nonobservable nature of many solution generation efforts (Mitzberg, 1973), and reliance on group resources (Shaw, 1963). Recent work by Carroll and Gillen (1985,1986) and Nutt (1984a, 1984b) indicates, however, that organizational effectiveness and leader performance criteria are, indeed, related to managerial planning and problem-solving activities, even though they may be opportunistic and covert. Further support for the importance of such activities can be found in the strong relationship between basic problem-solving capacities, such as intelligence, and leader performance (Horner, 1983; Mumford, 1986) as well as in prior

taxonomic work by Yukl(198 1) and Farr (1982).

Managing Material and Personnel Resources Our last two superordinate dimensions, managing material resources and managing

personnel resources, derive from the fact that a plan must be implemented. Within organizational settings there are two basic kinds of action one might take to influence a socio-technical system. First, one’s plan might involve manipulation of the physical or material resources being employed within a subsystem, as is the case in budget cuts or obtaining new equipment (Shorris, 1984). Second, one might attempt to influence subsystem actions by acting on the people doing the work to change their behavior through mechanisms such as goal definition and training (House & Mitchell, 1968). If it is granted that individuals will differ in their propensity to apply these alternative influence mechanisms, then the earlier work of Fleishman (1973), Fiedler (1957) Likert (1961), and Fine (1974) has served to underscore their impact on leader performance. It should be recognized, however, that in many instances of effective leadership both kinds of influence actions are likely to occur in an integrated fashion, thereby allowing both the social and technical aspects of the organization’s transformation process to be taken into account. Thus, for example, executive attempts to revive a corporation during transformations periods may result in changes in the corporation’s logo and culture as well as in its technology (Tushman & Anderson, 1986).

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 263

Information Search and Structuring

L I Information Use

in Problem Solving

v u/

Managing Managing

Personnel < ) Material

Resources Resources

Figure 1. Interrelationships Among the Superordinate Dimensions

Recognizing that appropriate actions on people or material depends on the organization’s goals, its environment, and the conditions of the transformation process, it becomes apparent that information acquisition and structuring provides a basis for generation of the problem solutions and the specification of viable influence attempts. Figure 1 presents a schematic overview of the four superordinate dimensions’ roles in an integrated sequence of leader action. These interrelationships, of course, imply some interdependencies among categories of leader behavior suggesting that leader behavior represents an integrated, albeit complex, performance oriented towards organizational adaptation. Failure to perform satisfactorily on any one of these dimensions will, moreover, result in a weak or misguided influence attempt. Although explicit specification of these interdependencies represents something of a departure from prior taxonomic efforts, the existence of multiple hurdles suggests one reason why it is difficult to lead effectively or develop leadership capacity: To wit, a leader lacking information is not likely to take correct action, while a leader incapable of generating a viable plan will also be ineffective, even when information is available. Finally, these interdependencies specify mediation and, therefore, explain why information acquisition may not bear a strong direct relationship to overt management action in observational research.

leader Behavior Dimensions

Only a few classifications of leader behavior have been used in a hierarchical approach to taxonomic systems (Farr, 1982; MacKenzie, 1968). Prior work by Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) and Gustafson (1984) indicates, however, that these hierarchical systems might provide a viable mechanism for compromising simultaneous demands for breadth and descriptive accuracy. Because there is a need for precision in the description of leader behavior, and because these superordinate dimensions represent complexities, it seems desirable to break each of these categories down into a more discrete set of summary dimensions. We have chosen to refer to these 13 lower-order dimensions as Leader Behavior Dimensions (LBDs).

264 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Dimensions of Information Search and Structuring

Analysis of the information search and structuring category leads to specification of three lower-order LBDs. The first two dimensions represent mechanisms for acquiring information (labeled framework and control and information acquisition, respectively). The importance of the feedback and control dimension is reflected in prior work indicating that monitoring of problem solution implementation to identify existing problems and necessary adjustments in action sequences represents a crucial determinant of effective real-world problem solving (Brown & Campione, 1986; Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981). These monitoring, feedback, and control activities may, in fact, represent a crucial determinant of leader performance, since action plans calling for ongoing adjustment are often required in complex organizational systems where unintended consequences emerge, and feedback is both ambiguous and extended over time (Jaques, 1977). Of course, information concerning subsystem actions and goal attainment not directly relevant to past problem solutions must also be obtained, leading to specification of the information acquisition dimension. By providing a basis for problem definition, these dimensions are likely to represent fundamental forms of leader behavior in organizational settings.

The third LBD subsumed under this general rubic has been labeled organizing and evaluating information. Essentially, this category represents a problem construction dimension where information is screened, organized, and evaluated with respect to existing position goals. Studies by Sternberg (1986, 1988), Similansky (1984), Dillion (1982), and Getzels and Csikzentmihalyi (1975) indicate that this LBD represents a discrete set of activities having a marked impact on complex problem-solving endeavors by shaping the perceived nature of the problem. Other work by Chi, Glaser, and Rees (1982), Gick and Holyoak (1983), and Siegler and Richards (1982) has also served to underscore the importance of expertise in the effective utilization of information in problem construction. However, since (a) the application of expertise in organizing and evaluating information is often distorted by stereotypical categorical structures (Feldman & Lindell, 1988) and (b) the efficacy of such activities may also be influenced by time pressures and stress (Getzels & Csikzentmihalyi, 1975; Fiedler 8z Garcia, 1987), these activities cannot be viewed as a simple cybernetic process. This observation is reinforced by the role of personal and organizational values in goal definition and discrepancy evaluation as well as by the fact that problem construction may involve redefinition of goals in transformational acts and the need to maintain effective operations under conditions of environmental change.

Dimensions of Information Use in Problem Solving Once information has been obtained and a problem identified, a problem solution

must be formulated. Here, pertinent information structures will be activated and manipulated using basic processing rules to identify additional information requirements, potential constraints on problem solutions, viable courses of action, and the potential payoffs associated with these actions (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; Hayes & Flower, 1986; Medin & Ross, in press; Sternberg, 1986, 1988). These potential action sequences and their anticipated outcomes will then be evaluated to arrive at a potential problem solution (Hogarth, 1980). The activities subsumed under this dimension, thus, represent actual cognitive problem solving. We have chosen to label this LBD as

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 265

identifving needs and requirements precisely because it reflects an idea for problem solution rather than actual, implemented solution. Indeed, this has been a point of confusion in studies examining leader influence apart from its cognitive underpinnings.

When initial problem construction activates extant scripts on stored problem-solving sequences, this activity may be virtually automatic. Certainly, many personal and organizational conditions, such as multiple role demands or time constraints, may lead to an over-reliance on script application (Manz & Sims, 1986). However, when novel, apparently significant problems arise, it can be expected that leaders will engage in the kind of controlled processing operations described by Sternberg (1986), where information is systematically encoded from memory or external sources, and extant knowledge and principles are used to construct and evaluate potential action sequences (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1966). While these activities may be covert and opportunistic, the work of Carroll and Gillen (1987) and Simonton’s (1988) findings indicate that these activities may have a marked impact on leader performance. Furthermore, the success of these endeavors will be influenced by many factors, including system expertise, tacit knowledge, motivation, self-esteem, creativity, critical thinking skills, and social skills, among other variables.

Simply having generated an idea for solving a problem or meeting a perceived group need does not imply that the leader will act on it. In some cases, the physical, emotional, and social resources required to implement a potential problem solution may not be available, or alternatively, the anticipated personal and organizational payoffs may not be judged sufficient to justify action. In still other cases, the problem solution may require actions outside the leader’s perceived authority. However, if it appears possible to implement this idea, the leader will begin to engage in activities subsumed under this second information-use LBD, referred to as planning and coordination.

Planning and coordination activities entail detailed specification of the nature and timing of an influence attempt within an organizational context. Thus, actions must be specified and coordinated with other subsystems or ongoing subsystem activities. The significance of planning and coordination activities has been emphasized in many prior taxonomic efforts (Farr, 1982; Stogdill, 1959; Yukl, 1981). The work of Carroll and Gillen (1987) Gillen and Carroll (1985), and Nutt (1984a) indicates that they may have substantial impact on leader performance. When simple prescribed solutions are in use, planning and coordination activities may not be extensive. However, such activities will be of greater import when (a) the problem solution is novel, (b) support from multiple subsystems is required in the influence attempt, and (c) ongoing subsystem operations are complicated, involving multiple interdependencies. Additionally, these activities are likely to become more salient when the subsystems involved display poor communication, distrust, or intergroup competition. Based on these observations, it can also be expected that power, persuasive skills and social skills, such as dominance, Machiavellianism, self-motivating persuasion, and prestige will play a crucial role in determining the nature and course of these activities.

As alluded to above, communication is the third information-use LBD likely to have a marked impact on leader performance. Communication is used, of course, coordination with other organizational units and in persuasive efforts intended to obtain requisite support for the influence attempt. Thus, the many influences on the effectiveness of persuasive communications are germane here (Bandura, 1986).

266 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Communication, however, may also be required in solution generation, especially when information must be obtained from subordinates or supervisors (Vroom, 1976). However, influence can not be exerted unless it is perceived and acted upon by the members of the targeted subsystems. Thus, it is not surprising that definitions of leadership proposed by Fleishman (1973) and Simonton (1988) emphasize the importance of such activities as do many of the taxonomies described earlier. The significance of this LBD underscores the need for skilled use of communication mechanisms as well as the significance of actions leading to acceptance of a communication such as perceived expertise, trust, and participation whenever the infuence attempt is targeted on people rather than material.

Dimensions of Managing Personn~ Resources When the nature of the perceived problem and its solution requires dealing with

people to enhance or maintain the transformation process, there appear to be four basic avenues for action in organizational systems. One of these avenues, underscored by

both Fleishman (1973) and House and Mitchell (1968) is motivating personnel resources. This dimension includes actions taken to increased cohesiveness, build commitment, provide resources, manage conflict, or demonstrate concern and confidence in people. A second potential avenue for exerting influence has been illustrated in recent discussions of the leader as a role model, mentor, or symbol (House & Mitchell 1988; Tushman & Anderson, 1986). Here, we refer to actions targeted on developing personnel resources through actions such as modeling, coaching, training, and providing feedback, which serve to enhance the performance capabilities of subordinates with respect to continued goal attainment.

A third way one might attempt to enhance or maintain subsystem performance is by obtaining and allocating personnel resources. Although influence attempts of this sort have received less attention in the leadership literature than motivational and developmental intervention, their potential significance has been illustrated in Graen’s (1976) studies of the relationship between leader performance and subordinate differentiation. Broadly speaking, this dimension is held to subsume any activity which attempts to enhance group functions by identifying individuals who can effectively fill requisite technical or social roles in the subsystem and assigning these individuals to tasks.

The fourth and final LBD for influencing personnel resources has been labeled utilizutio~ and monitoring of personnel resources. This dimension is intended to subsume supervisory, policy setting, and control activities that channel interpersonal behavior and task performance activities along lines contributing to group or subsystem performance through mechanisms such as scheduling, performance monitoring, or establishing safety regulations.

Dimensions of Managing Material Resources Although the leadership literature has traditionally focused on interpersonnel

influence strategies, in socio-technical systems one can also effect subsystem performance by changing the technical work process. The first LBD subsumed under this rubic is obtaining and a~lo~~t~ng material resources. The behaviors captured by this dimension are illustrated in the taxonomic work of Tornow and Pinto (1976), as

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 267

well as House and Mitchell’s (1981) path goal theory, and include activities such as

budgeting, financing, and acquiring new technologies required for people to perform the requisite work.

A second dimension of leader behavior relevant to materially-oriented influence attempts is the maintenance of material resources. This dimension is intended to capture behaviors concerned with preservation and maintenance of the materials, machines,

and supplies that provide a basis for production. The third, and final, dimension lying in this arena might be referred to as utilizing

and monitoring material resources. This dimension is intended to reflect the fact that the maintenance and enhancement of goal attainment can be influenced by policies

leaders establish to maintain and monitor the subsystem’s technical infrastructure.

Dimensional Organization

As might be expected, based on our foregoing comments, these LBDs were not intended to reflect independent subdomains of leader behavior. Figure 2 presents the hypothesized relationships among these LBDs as organized actions of leader problem solving. Although the nature of the hypothesized relationships flows from the content of the LBDs and the general model presented earlier, three other comments seem called for. First, communication serves as both a mediator and a moderator, underscoring both the general significance of such activities and the fact that consideration behaviors

building expertise and trust may lay a groundwork for many interpersonal influence attempts (Fleishman, 1973). Second, this failure indicates that, although influence may, and perhaps should, be exerted through multiple avenues in a coordinated and integrated fashion, effective influence attempts are likely to be contingent on a variety of earlier, up-front activities such as information ordering and planning and coordination, Unless sufficient attention is given to these activities, it is unlikely that influence will be wielded effectively with respect to the maintenance and enhancement of organizational functions. Third, in addressing many broad, significant organizational problems, these general activities are likely to occur in a dynamic, progressive sequence

involving multiple, overlapping goals and team-oriented collaboration (Fleishman & Zaccaro, in press).

Beyond these general observations concerning the structure of LBD relationships, some attention should be given to their operational content and impact on leader

performance. As noted above, the impact of the activities subsumed under any given LBD will vary with the nature of the problems posed by system operation. As a result, the significance of these LBDs is likely to vary with organizational type and position demands. Thus, executives may spend substantially more time in organizing and evaluating information or identifying needs and requirements (Pelz, 1952), while middle managers may devote more time to communication, planning, and coordinating (Fleishman & Friedman, 1990; Pelz, 1952; Shorris, 1984). Furthermore, specific behavioral illustrations of each LBD will necessarily vary with the particular problem at hand. Thus, this taxonomy, while arguing for some generalities in the leadership process, does not imply uniform leader behavior or suggest that only one set of leader characteristics will act to condition performance. Instead, one is more likely to find

a common behavior set reflected in the LBDs and a complex syndrome of leader

268 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

I I , f Acquiring

Information Organizing and + Identifying + Planning and +

Evaluating Needs and Coordinating Information Requirements _

No&v * Feedback and control is presented to reflect its role in actual leadership activities

Figure 2. Interrelationships Among the Leader Behavior Dimensions

characteristics oriented around certain core attributes required for effective influence attempts in most organizational settings (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Simonton, 1988).

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Comparative Evidence

As with any new classification scheme, evidence for the meaningfulness of these LBDs must be obtained from multiple sources as part of an ongoing construct validation effort (Fleishman & Mumford, 1988, 1991). Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) note that one useful source of evidence may be found in the overlap between the proposed system and alternative descriptive systems formulated using different samples and methods for different purposes. Thus, an attempt was made to assess the ability of these LBDs to

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 269

Table 3

Overlap Between Leadership Behavior Dimensions and General Literature

#D“ #cb SD’ %c’ Content’

Information Search and Structuring

Acquiring Information 28 21 5 32 9H, 17C, 19D, 2lB, 23A, 23B, 24B,

277Ba, 28D, 32M, 33C, 33D, 35E,

36A, 37E,4lA, 4lK,41L,41M,46A,

48E, 57G, 58A, 59G, 6OL, 60M, 655

Organizing and Evaluating

Information 12 10 2 15 15D, 27Bb, 27Bc, 36A,41B, 4lC, 435,

44A, 48E, 57G, 60K, 64Aa

Feedback and Control 60 39 10 60 IB, 2C, 6B, 6C, 7B, 7D, 9H, IOB, 14B,

16D, 17C, 18B, 18C, 2lF, 23E, 23F,

24D, 271,27E, 32F, 321,325, 38C,

39D, 39F, 40A, 40B, 40D, 41H, 411,

415,43C, 431,43L, 45B, 45F, 47D,

474,49B, 5lC, 52D, 52G, 52H, 54Bd,

56D, 56E, 57C, 57E, 58G, 59H, 6OF,

60G, 6OP, 6OT, 61D, 62B, 63A, 64D,

65D, 65U

Information Use in Problem Solving

Identifying Needs and

Requirements 32 29

Planning and Coordinating 63

Communicating Information 43

2A, 6B, 8C, IOB, 14B, 15A, 19A, 20A,

22B, 23D, 25B, 27Bb, 28C, 32C, 32D,

33G, 33H, 35C, 37A, 44A, 48D, 48F,

50A, 5lA, 53B, 53E, 57G, 59F, 6lC,

62A, 64Ab, 65G

IA, IC, 3A, 3B, 5H, 6A, 6C, 9A, 9B,

9D, lOB, IID, 13Fa, 13Fb, 13Fc, 15B,

17A, 18F, 19C, 21E, 22B,24A, 24C,

27Ga, 27Gc, 27Gd, 27Ge, 28B, 39E,

30A, 35D, 36A, 41E, 4lF, 4lG, 43A,

43B, 45A, 45B, 471,475,48C, 52A,

52E, 54Ad, 54Bb, 56A, 57B, 59E, 60B,

60D, 61B, 6lF, 62A, 63C, 64Ba, 65G,

650,65P

51, 55,7E, IOB, llA, 12C, 13Ca, 13Cb,

14B, 21B, 23G, 23H, 25A, 27C, 32C,

32F, 33E, 33F, 36A, 39A, 41D, 43F,

43H, 44C, 44E, 46B, 461, 5lB, 54Ba,

55G, 57F, 58B, 58C, 59G, 591,6OC,

6lE, 62A, 63C, 63D, 63E, 65D, 65K

(continued)

270 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Table 3 (continued)

#Da id %D' %c’ Conrent'

Managing Personnel Resources

Obtaining and Allocating

Personnel

Developing Personnel

Resources

Motivating Personnel

Resources

Utilizing and Monitoring

Personnel Resources

Managing Material Resources

Obtaining and Allocating

Material Resources

59 43

32 24

66 IB, 2B, 2D, 5D, 6B, 7A, 8D, lOB, IIC,

,12D, 14B, 16B, 18H, 181, 19B, 20A,

21D, 235,24F, 26G, 26H, 27Aa, 27Ab,

2lFa,27Fb,27Fc, 3IA,31B, 32G, 331,

335,36A, 37C, 38B, 39F, 40E, 40F,

43C,43L,~B,45B,4?A,47B, 52B, 52C,

525,53C,55J,56B,WZ, 57D,59A,6IA,

62A, 63C, 64Bb, 65F, 65H, 6SK

36 7C, lOA, 12A, 14A, 17B, 25H, 26B,

27D, 30B, 32B, 32D, 32E, 320,36B,

36C, 36D, 37B, 39F, 43L, 45B, 47R,

48B, 49C, 51E, 55H, 59D, 62B, 65C,

65E, 650,65R

68 3F, 3G, 3H, 5B, 6B, 6D, 6E, 6F, 8B,

9D, 9E, lOA, 11B, IlE, 14A, 16C,

16D, 16E, 16F. 16G, 17E, 17F, 17G,

17H, 18E, 185,21C, 23K, 23L, 23M,

23N, 230,24F, 24G, 24H, 27Ea, 27Eb,

27Ec, 27Ed, 3OC, 30E, 3 lC, 32A, 32H,

321,32N, 33A, 33B, 35A, 35B, 35G,

35H, 36B, 36C, 36D, 37F, 38C, 39B,

39C, 39F, 43C, 43L, 45B, 478,4lC,

47G, 47H, 48A, 49D, 5OC, 52F, S2I,

S3H, 54Ca, 54Cb, 54Cc, 55D, 5SE,

5SF, 57C, 59B, 605,600,6OS, 62B,

64Da, 64Db, 64Ea, 65A, 658,65E,

65L, 65N, 65P, 654

52 lB, SD, SG,2C,6B, 8A, llC, 12B,

13Bq 13Bd, 14C, 14D, 16B, 17D, 188,

ZOB,20C, 21A,21F,22A, 24D,24E,

26A, 26F, 30D, 323,37B, 39D, 39F,

431,43L, 45B, 45C, 47R, 49C, 5ID,

51E, 52H, 53F, 53G, 54Bc, 551, SSK,

59C, 60E, 60Q, 63B, 65C, 65G, 6SQ

38 28, IOB, 14B, 16A, 18D, 18H, 19B,26C,

31A,3lC,32G,331,34J,36A,37D,39G,

40F, 43D, 43E, 44B, 47D, 49A, SOB,

50E, 53C, 53D, 61A, 62A, 64Db, 6SH

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 271

Table 3 (Continued)

Managing Material Resources (cont’d)

Maintaining Material Resources 13 13 2 21 9G, IOB, 14B, 18D, 185,26D, 27D,

33A, 36A, 39F, 45B, 45E, 62A

Utilizing and Monitoring Mate-

rial Resources 28 20 5 32 2C, IOB, 14B, 18D, 21F, 24B, 24E,

26A, 26E, 28E, 30D, 32J,36A, 37B,

39D, 39F, 41H, 43G, 431,43K, 45A,

45B, 45C, 45D, 47D, 470,58F, 62A

Nom: ’ Number of similasr dimensions proposed in the literature. * Number of classification systems proposing similar dimensions.

’ Percent of dimensions in the literatuere similar to the proposed leadership behavior dimensions.

d Percent of classification systems in the literature containing dimensions similar to the proposed leadership behavior

dimensions.

’ Dimensions in Table I assigned to the propoosed leadership behavior dimensions.

account for the dimensions proposed by the 65 systems for classifying leader behavior described earlier.

To accomplish this, dimensions proposed in earlier systems concerned with technical competence, personal characteristics, general problem solving, and general decision making were eliminated, due to inconsistency with the definition of leader behavior in

use. The content of the remaining dimensions was then reviewed with respect to the LBD definitions presented earlier, and a given dimension was assigned to one or more of the

LBDs only if it appeared to reflect similar behavioral content. After these content assignments had been made, an attempt was made to determine (a) the number of

dimensions found in the literature that could be assigned to each LBD, and (b) the number of classification schemes proposing one or more dimensions similar to each LBD.

The results obtained in this analysis of dimensional overlap are presented in Table 3. Of the 590 dimensions examined in the comparative effort, 89% could be assigned

to one or more of the LBDs, while only 11% of the dimensions could not be

unambiguously assigned to one or more of the LBDs. As might be expected, given the number of LBDs, each LBD accounted for a relatively small percentage of the dimensions found in the literature. Of somewhat greater import, however, was our

finding that the median number of analogous dimensions identified was 25, indicating that most of the LBDs find substantial justification in the extant literature. Some additional support for this conclusion was provided by the finding that, with two exceptions, each of the LBDs had analogs in at least 38% of the existing classification schemes, while some LBDs, typically those concerned with overt social behavior, had

analogs in more than 60% of the schemes. The two exceptions to this rule of thumb were the LBDs labeled organizing and evaluating information and maintaining material resources, perhaps because they involve limited overt social interaction. Even bearing this caveat in mind, however, the high degree of overlap observed between these LBDs and earlier attempts to describe leader behavior provides some evidence indicative of the meaningfulness of this classification scheme.

272 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Empirical Evidence

As with any other relatively new classification system, only a few studies have been conducted to date directly examining the meaningfulness of these LBDs in the description of leader behavior. The results obtained in the four pertinent investigations

do, however, provide some additional evidence indicative of the meaningfulness of this descriptive system. We briefly review this evidence in the ensuing discussion.

In the first investigation, Wallis, Mumford, and Korotkin (1985) obtained descriptions of the tasks performed by commissioned and noncommissioned Army officers. Based on the definition of leadership behavior presented earlier, all non- leadership tasks were eliminated from this task pool. Subsequently, two psychologists familiar with the content and nature of the LBDs were presented with these leadership

tasks and reached a consensus decision concerning the LBDs to which each task should be assigned. Three other psychologists unfamiliar with the LBDs were then presented

with the LBD definitions and task statements, and each individual was asked to allocate these tasks to the LBDs. It was found that these three judges allocated a median of 82% of the commissioned and noncommissioned officer leadership tasks to the same LBD to which they were assigned by the initial panel. Further, similar hit rates were obtained for commissioned and noncommissioned tasks. Because these LBDs

apparently yielded unambiguous and consistent assignments of leadership tasks to these alternative classification categories, this study provided some evidence for the meaningfulness of this taxonomic system with respect to Fleishman and Quaintance’s

(1984) clarity criteria. In the second study, an attempt was made to appraise meaningfulness in terms of

the system’s robustness (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984). Here, an attempt was made to determine whether subject matter experts would arrive at a similar set of dimensions based on their implicit understanding of effective leader behavior in bureaucratic organizations. To accomplish this, Korotkin, Mumford, Levin, Wallis, and Marshall-

Mies (1985) had a panel of five Army colonels review the leadership task lists formulated for commissioned and noncommissioned officers and then cluster these tasks into

dimensions based on functional similarity in task content. Table 4 presents the dimensions generated by these experts along with the 13 LBDs. As may be seen, there was a high degree of overlap between experts’ descriptions of their leadership duties and the LBDs. For instance, dimensions concerned with communicating information, evaluating information, identifying needs and requirements, and planning and coordinating appear in both dimensional sets, while other dimensions generated by the subject matter experts, such as training and counseling and motivating and encouraging

others, would be subsumed under the LBDs labeled motivating and developing personnel resources. Not only does this convergence in dimensional content argue for the robustness of the LBDs (Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984), it also indicates consistency with experts’ implicit understanding of their leadership role.

In a third study, some additional support for this proposition has been provided by Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Fleishman, and Reiter-Palmon (1991). In that investigation, five judges were asked to assign tasks performed by telecommunications, R&D, and Army managers to the 13 LBDs. These task assignments were then analyzed to determine (a) the particular LBD and (b) the percentage of tasks overall that could

T h

eo re

ii cd

m em

im s

In fo

rm at

io n

S ea

rc h

an d

S tr

uc yu

ri n~

cq ui

ri ng

i nf

or m

at io

n O

rg an

iz in

g an

d E

va lu

at in

g In

fo rm

at io

n F

ee db

ac k

an d

C on

tr ol

In fo

rm at

io n

17 s~

in P

ro bl

S ol

vi ng

en ti

fy in

g N

ee ds

a nd

R eq

ui re

m en

P la

nn in

g an

d C

oo rd

in at

in g

~ om

m u~

ca ti

In fo

rm at

io n

5 E

m p

ir ii

la t

~ i~

e~ si

u ~

E va

lu at

in g

~ of

or m

at ~

on a

nd I

de nt

if yi

N ee

ds a

nd R

~ uj

re m

en ts

M ak

in g

D ec

is io

ns a

nd R

ec om

m en

da ti

on s

x 3 .

P la

nn in

C oo

rd in

at in

an d

im pl

em en

ti ng

ct io

ns t

o M

ee t

Id en

ti fi

2 :

M an

ag in

g P

er so

nn el

es ou

rc es

ta in

in g

an d

A ll

oc at

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

R ~

ve io

p~ ng

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

M ot

iv at

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

U ti

li zi

ng a

nd ~

on ~

to ~

P er

so nn

el R e s a u r c e s

M an

ag in

g M

at er

ia l

R es

ou rc

R eq

ui re

m en

C om

m un

ic at

in g

In fo

rm at

io n

M an

ag in

g P

eo pl

e (e

.g .,

A ss

ig ni

ng a

U ti

li zi

ng P

er so

nn el

)

T ra

in in

g an

d In

st ru

ct in

C ou

~ e~

~ ng

, M

ot iv

at in

an d

en co

ur ag

in g

O th

er s

P er

fo rm

in g

A dm

in is

tr at

iv e

P er

so nn

O pe

ra ti

on s

(e .g

.* P

er fo

rm in

g A

nn ua

l P

er fo

rm an

R ev

ie w

M an

ag in

g T

hi ng

s (e

.g .,

A ll

oc at

in g

an d

M ai

nt ai

ni ng

at e&

I R

es ou

rc es

)

5 ”

is J

5 .

O bt

ai ni

ng a

nd A

ll oc

at in

g M

at er

ia l

R es

ou rc

M ai

nt ai

ni ng

at er

ia l

R es

ou rc

U ti

li zi

ng a

nd M

on it

or in

g M

at er

ia l

R es

au rc

M on

it ar

in g

A dm

in is

tr at

iv e

F un

ct io

(e .g

., E

qu ip

m en

t M

ai nt

en an

S ch

ed ul

es )

T ab

le 5

ea d

er sh

ip T

as k

s C

at eg

or iz

ed b

y L

ea d

er B

eh av

io r

D im

en si

on s

A cr

os s

O rg

an iz

at io

n s

A .

In fo

rm at

io n

S ea

rc h

an d

S tr

uc tu

ri ng

1 .

A cq

ur in

g In

fo rm

at io

n 2

. O

rg an

~ ng

d E

v~ ua

ti n~

fo rm

at io

n 3

. F

ee db

ac k

an d

C on

tr ol

. In

fo rm

at io

n U

se i

n P

ro bl

S ol

vi ng

. Id

en ti

fy in

g N

ee ds

a nd

R eq

ui re

m en

5 .

P la

nn in

g an

d C

oo rd

in at

in g

6 .

C om

m un

ic at

in g

in fo

rm at

io n

C .

M an

ag in

g P

er so

nn el

es ou

rc es

. O

bt ai

ni ng

a nd

A ll

oc at

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

8 .

D ev

el op

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

9 .

M ot

iv at

in g

P er

so nn

R es

ou rc

IO .

U ti

li zi

ng a

nd M

on it

or in

g P

er so

nn el

es ou

rc es

. M

an ag

in g

M at

er ia

l R

es ou

rc es

I I

. O

bt ai

ni ng

a nd

A ll

oc at

in g

M at

er ia

l R

es ou

rc es

2 .

M ai

nt ~

ni ng

at er

ia l

R es

ou rc

1 3

. U

ti li

zi ng

a nd

M on

it or

in g

M at

er ia

l R

es ou

rc es

na ss

ig ne

T O

T A

4 4

1 7

1 1

3 9

3 3

I 9 3

2 0

I2 2

4 1

- 2

3 6

2 0

3 9

1 9

I 4 I 8

5 1

1 7

3 6

1 7

1 2

9 9

4 4

4 9

3 4

4 5

6 1

5 0

1 2

2 3

1 4

1 0

2 7

1 5

2 5

2 4

1 6

1 0 0

2 6

2 2

3 6

1 6

2 2

9 8

1 4

2 2

5 0

1 1

2 0

1 4

- 6

4 3

T el

ec o

m m

u n

ic a

ti o

n s

R &

A rm

T o

ta l

O iO

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 275

not be assigned to any LBD. Only 91 of 643 tasks could not be assigned to one of

the LBDs, and 86% of the tasks were assigned by three or more raters to a single LBD. Because these results are comparable to those obtained in earlier studies, and because they come from a diverse sample of leadership tasks drawn from rather different

organizational settings, they provide some compelling evidence for the generality of this taxonomy across organizational settings.

The results obtained by Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Fleishman, and Reiter-Palmon (1991) are summarized in Table 5. Even a cursory inspection of this table indicates that leaders perform a number of tasks related to information search and information use.

In fact, these two superordinate categories accounted for more than half of leaders’ job activities, outweighing the management of personnel and material resources. This assignment pattern provides some support for the cognitive model used in deriving this

taxonomy. Fleishman and Friedman (1990) in a fourth study, provided further evidence

indicative of the meaningfulness of this taxonomic system. They formulated a leadership task inventory which was administered to research and development managers drawn

from ten corporations. These individuals were then asked to rate the time spent on each leadership task, and the resulting task ratings were factor analyzed. Three dimensions emerged in this analysis, the first two reflecting management of personnel and material resources, while the third reflected an amalgamation of the information use and acquisition LBDs. Thus, this study provided some support for the superordinate structure guiding definition of the LBDs.

Substantive Evidence

While these studies provide some evidence indicative of the meaningfulness of the proposed scheme for classifying organizational leadership behavior, it should be recognized that evidence indicative of the meaningfulness of this system may also be

obtained from a number of substantive studies. For instance, because this model underscores the role of social problem solving in leadership, one might expect intelligence to represent an important, albeit not a sole, determinant of leader performance. Thus, it is not surprising that a recent meta-analysis by Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) found that intelligence bears a strong relationship to effective organizational leadership. Similar findings have been reported by Bray, Campbell, and Grant (1974), Horner (1983),

and Termain and Oden (1959). By suggesting that planning and coordination are likely to contribute to effective leadership, this model also anticipates Carroll and Gillen’s (1987), Gillen and Carrolls’s (1985) and Nutt’s (1984a,b) findings indicating that leader planning activities are related to performance in these positions. Similarly, the significance of information in problem solving and planning would lead one to anticipate Komaki, Desselles, and Bowman’s (1989) findings indicating that information search or monitoring activities are related to leader performance.

While general intellectual capacities of this sort would be anticipated by the nature of the LBDs, these LBDs and the propositions underlying their specitication also suggests that other differential attributes conditioning one’s ability to solve the problem confronting the group would be related to leadership. Some support for this proposition has been obtained in studies by Carter, Haythorn, and Howell (1950) and Zaccaro,

276 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Foti, and Kenny (1991). In these studies, the nature of the task confronting this group was varied, and it was found that leader emergence was related to possession of the cognitive skill and temperamental attributes required to solve the problem confronting the group. Similarly, Kanter (1977) and Pelz (1952) found that problem solving demands

change as individuals ascend the organizational hierarchy, and that this is associated with changes in requisite knowledges, skills, and abilities. Because groups or organizations are likely to induce some commonalities in the kinds of problems leaders

must address (e.g., coordinating and directing team members) and certain general attributes are likely to be related to effective social problem solving across a variety of situations due to information acquisition and information use requirements, it is not

surprising that rotation designs have revealed some consistencies in leader emergence (Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991; Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983).

These LBDs also underscore the fact that problem solutions are generated and implemented in a social context. Thus, one might expect, in accordance with the findings of Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) and Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (1991), that

attributes such as dominance and self monitoring would often be of some import to leader performance. Under these conditions, organizational variables acting to restrict effective information use, such as stress or time pressure, should also be related to leader performance, as indicated by Fiedler and Garcia’s (1987) recent work. Finally, the

communication LBD, and its implications for subordinate acceptance of influence, provide a potential explanation for Hollander and Julian’s (1969) findings of a

relationship between leader and follower intelligence. Taken as a whole, there seems to be evidence available for the meaningfulness of

this taxonomy. More specifically, the postulates of this taxonomy find some support not only in prior empirical work, but also in earlier taxonomic efforts and available

empirical studies. While additional evidence along these lines would be desirable, one additional issue needs to be addressed. Here, we refer to the relationship between this taxonomic system and current theories on leader behavior.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES

One way of evaluating our functional definition and the resulting taxonomy of leadership is to examine their relationships with other perspectives of leadership. Our goal is not to incorporate or subsume all other approaches, but rather to show how the taxonomy and its fundamental assumptions are convergent with major theoretical approaches to leadership. Further, the taxonomy can elucidate critical issues in other

perspectives. To illustrate this, we examine the correspondence between our definition and taxonomy of leadership and three theoretical approaches-traits, perceiver-based perspectives, and charismatic and/ or transformational leadership.

Behavior and Traits

We have defined leadership in terms of social problem-solving directed toward organizational goal attainment. Recent studies seeking to reconcile trait approaches with the fact of situational variability in leader responses have also emphasized the leader’s problem-solving role. While this role necessitates a range of personal qualities, two critical

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 277

ones may be social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983;

Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991). As we noted, the initiation of social problem solving requires that leaders recognize that a problem exists. This often means a particular attentiveness to the needs and demands of superordinate and subordinate constituencies.

Also required of leaders is the flexibility to plan and implement one or more of a range of diverse responses corresponding to specific situational requirements.

The key is that particular qualities of leaders allow them to perceive the organizational goal-related requirements of their constituencies and respond accordingly. The responses most likely engendered by the individual characteristics of social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility are located within several of the dimensions in the taxonomy, including information acquisition and utilization and monitoring of

personnel resources. Recent studies have corroborated the possibility of individual qualities of the leader

that enhance successful functional role behaviors. Zaccaro et al. (1991) found that, when situational requirements (i.e., task demands) were varied, the same individuals tended to emerge as leaders across the different tasks, and that these individuals were more likely than nonleaders to engage in the specific behaviors required by each task; no differences were apparent between leaders and nonleaders on behaviors that were

not most relevant for task completion. Also, Zaccaro et al. (1991), investigated self- monitoring as one measure of social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility and found that it was significantly associated with leader rankings. This matches other reported

findings (Ellis, 1988; Ellis, Adamson, Deszca, & Cawsey, 1988; Foti & Cohen, 1986; Garland & Beard, 1977; Rueb & Foti, 1989) including those by Caldwell and O’Reilly (1982), who tied self-monitoring to the role characteristics of organizational leaders. Katz and Kahn (1977) contended that “leadership emerges as individuals take charge

of relating a unit or subsystem to the external structure or environment” (page 532). That is, leadership incorporates a boundary spanning role (Rice, 1963). Caldwell and O’Reilly reported a significant association between the performance of individuals having such roles and self-monitoring. Thus, successful functional leadership is likely tied to individual sensitivity regarding goal-based situational requirements, as well as behavioral adaptability.

Taken together, this research suggests a correspondence between functional leadership and current trait-based perspectives of leadership. The characteristics of

individuals who acquire or occupy the leadership role are identified in terms of their relationships to effective goal-directed behaviors. The dimensions of the proposed taxonomy represent the range of activities that are afforded by the demands of organizational problem solving. The aforementioned research suggests that successful leaders have qualities or abilities that enable the identification of specific organizational

goal requirements and the possibility of responding with any or all of the acts summarized in the taxonomic dimensions. We expect that the taxonomy can facilitate the identification of other leader qualities.

Behavior and Perception

Functional leadership and the corresponding proposed taxonomy is also clearly compatible with the subordinate- or perceiver-based views extant in the current

278 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

leadership literature. Such approaches emphasize leadership as being a function of subordinate perceptions of effective social influence (Hollander, 1979; Hollander & Julian, 1970; Lord, 1977). Such inferences are made from judgments regarding an individual’s actions relative to group and organizational goal requirements. Thus, individuals emerge in the leader role and maintain their status when group members perceive that they have the capabilities to facilitate goal attainment. Formal or appointed leaders also gain expert, referent, and even legitimate power within the organizational group when they demonstrate task competence leading to goal achievement. Thus, the incidence of behaviors linked to functional role requirements as defined by the taxonomy are associated with perceptions of leadership (cf. Lord, 1977).

Further, the taxonomy may provide role-based cues that lead observers to attribute specific acts to leadership qualities (Calder, 1977). That is, evidence of leadership is provided from observed incidences of behaviors reflected in and subsumed under the classifications of the proposed taxonomy. These judgments emerge from the frequency and pattern of these behaviors. The work on the attribution of leadership has been concerned mostly with the process of perceiving leadership without attending much to the particular content of such perceptions. Specifying behaviors according to functional role requirements, as done in the proposed taxonomy, facilitates such efforts. This is demonstrated by Lord, Foti, and DeVader (1984), who examined memory accessibility of stimulus behaviors as indicative of leader prototypicality. Some behaviors rated highest in prototypicality, and therefore most accessible, are those featured prominentIy in the proposed taxonomy, including “emphasizes goals” (indeed, the most prototypic item), “coordinates groups,” “seeks” and “provides information,” and “proposes solutions.” This work suggests the utility of a taxonomy based on functional leader role requirements for perception-based approaches to leadership.

Behavior and leader Types

The proposed taxonomy can also be linked to current research on charismatic and/ or transformational leadership. House (1977) argues that such leaders either articulate ideological goals to guide organizational groups or imbue existing goals with renewed potency. These goals, their a~iculation, and/or their behavioral requirements, while within acceptable ranges for followers, are often contrary to the status quo. However, charismatic leaders emerge typically when organizations are in distress and existing behavioral patterns are dysfunctional (Bass, 1985; House, 1977). Thus, charismatic leaders are operating functionally with respect to organizational goals, but do so by establishing entirely different goal paths.

Indeed, the effect of such leadership is to readjust the orientations of both subordinates and the organization as a whole so that they are more compatible with changing environmental demands and requirements. Further, this is accomplished such that followers become highly motivated to carry out organizational adaptations. Thus, charismatic leadership can be viewed as one of the most influential forms of functional leadership in that these Ieaders (1) ultimately alter the transforming processes of the organizational system to fit more successfully with environmental input and output

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 279

contingencies, and (2) redirect followers’goals and behaviors in alignment with changing conditions. Regarding this last point, House (1977) argues that the behaviors of charismatic leaders result in followers who accept the goals of the leader and believe that they can contribute to goal accomplishment (p. 201). Further, such leaders are more likely to engage in behaviors that arouse motives relevant to the accomplishment of the mission than are leaders who do not have charismatic effects (p. 203).

These aspects of charismatic leadership are clearly compatible with the proposed definition and taxonomy of leadership. This is also reflected in recent work on a related concept, transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). According to Bass, such leaders (1) heighten in followers the importance of task and organizational outcomes, (2) facilitate a transcendence from self-interest, and (3) activate followers’ achievement-oriented motives and needs. Transformational leaders incorporate charismatic effects as well as those behaviors regarding role requirements and the application of reinforcement contingencies. Several LBDs in the taxonomy highlight the transformational behaviors offered by Bass. Those that are perhaps most tied to Bass’s proposals include “identifying needs and requirements,““planning and coordinating,” and “developing and motivating personnel.”

The compatibility demonstrated between the proposed taxonomy and three major theoretical views in the current leadership literature suggest a strong degree of convergent validity in this classification system. Indeed, a functional theme runs through

most prominent leadership theories. A taxonomic system that is tied to this theme enhances theoretical and empirical investigations of these functional aspects. Accordingly, a more unified or overarching perspective can develop.

CONCLUSIONS

Our comments concerning functional models of organizational behavior point to an important conclusion that may be drawn from this effort. Hackman and Walton (1986) note that functional approaches to organizational behavior and leadership performance have received relatively little attention in the literature. To the extent that the present effort has demonstrated that it is possible to formulate viable systems for the description of leader behavior using this approach, then some evidence has been accrued for the value of this paradigm in attempts to understand organizational behavior.

The evidence summarized in this article provides a compelling argument for the potential utility of this framework. More specifically, this paradigm has been linked to organizational systems theory and used to formulate an explicit definition of the domain of leadership behavior. It further permitted hypotheses to be drawn concerning the kinds of dimensions likely to condition and summarize leadership performance. Not only did these dimensions and the associated dimensional structure find some support in earlier taxonomic efforts, they were also found to summarize leadership behavior in operational settings, while yielding inferences about leader behavior consistent with both empirical findings and extant theory.

While these findings argue for the value of this taxonomy and the functional approach from which it was derived, it should be recognized that a viable classification should also point out directions for future research. A review of the nature and implications of the leader behavior dimensions described indicates some potentially useful extensions

280 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

of current research methods. For example, the LBD labeled identzfying needs and requirements suggests that attempts to determine how leaders go about defining problems in different cultures or under different operating conditions might prove useful. Similarly, the importance of the information acquisition and use dimension indicates that studies contrasting expert and novice leaders, with respect to preferred schema and diagnostic cues, could enhance our understanding of leader performance. Also, studies examining the consequences of differential LBD utilization or stylistic differences in the application of these LBDs might also prove useful.

Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) point out that a viable taxonomic system should prove useful, not only in guiding research, but also in addressing certain practical problems. In fact, the nature of these LBDs suggests a number of strategies that might be used to improve leader identification and development efforts. One might, for instance, develop measures intended to capture differential facility in information acquisition and use directly relevant to the domains of leadership problem solutions, and then to apply these scales in deficiency diagnosis or leader selection. In the training arena, these LBDs provide a targeted behavioral framework and suggest some potentially viable extensions of current developmental efforts. More specifically, attempts might be made to develop the procedural and declarative knowledge structures required for the effective generation, selection, and implementation of influence attempts (Halff, Holan, & Hutchins, 1986). Alternatively, developmental interventions might ,be designed to improve the application of cognitive resources by providing mechanisms to compensate for organizational factors, such as stress or time pressure, that inhibit effective resource application.

Given the fact that this is a new taxonomy, applications of this sort must be contingent on continued accumulation of evidence bearing on the system’s construct validity or substantive meaningfulness. Given the evidence reviewed above, there is, however, reason to expect that supportive data will continue to accrue with further research. To the extent such support is obtained, this taxonomy might provide a useful vehicle for the description, prediction, and understanding of organizational leadership. More generally, it makes a point underscored many years ago in the Ohio State Leadership

Studies (e.g., Hemphill, 1949, 1950; Shartle, 1956; Stogdill & Coons, 1957) that leadership is a property of a social group which it in some way serves. By studying leadership behavior within the context defined by functional role requirements, we can obtain viable systems for defining and describing leadership behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Jack Feldman, Larry James, Lee Friedman, Merri-Ann Cooper, Ried Wallis, and Matt Redmond for their comments and contributions.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations ofthought andaction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barnard, C. I. (1946). The nature of leadership. In S. D. Hosclett (Ed.), Human factors in

management. New York: McGraw Hill. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11, 21 l-227.

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 281

Bass, B. M. (1981). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership-Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 2940.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: 7’heory, research, and managerial applications (3rd

Ed.). New York: The Free Press. Bennett, E. B. (1971). Discussion, decisions, commitment, and consensus in “group decision.”

Human Relations, 8, 251-273. Berkowitz, L. (1953). An exploratory study of the roles of aircraft commanders. Brooks Air Force

Base, TX: USAF Human Resources Research Center Bulletin. Bowers, D. B. & S. E. Seashore. (1972). Predicting organizational group effectiveness with a

four factory theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238-263.

Bray, D. W., R. S. Campbell, & D. L. Grant. (1974). Formative years in business. New York:

Wiley. Brown, A. L. &J. C. Campione. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities.

American Psychologist, 41, 1059-1068. Bryan, R. F. (1980). Skippers and strategies: Leadership and innovation in Shetland fishing areas.

Human Organization, 39, 227-241.

Burns, T. & G. M. Stalker. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavis Stock Publications.

Campbell, J. P., M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, & K. E. Weick. (1970). Managerial behavior,

performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Carroll, N. & D. J. Gillen. (1987). Are classical management functions useful in describing

managerial work? Academy of Management Review, 12, 38-5 1. Carter, L. F., W. Haythorn, & M. Howell. (1950). A further investigation of the criteria of

leadership. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 356-358. Chi, M. T., R. Glaser, & E. Rees. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum &

Associates. Clement, S. D. & D. B. Ayres. (1976). The matrix of organizational leadership dimensions.

Washington, DC: U.S. Army Administration Center. Coffin, T. E. (1944). A three component theory of leadership. Journal of Abnormal Social

Psychology, 39, 63-83. Cribben, J. J. (1981). Leadership. New York: Amacom. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Cyert, R. M. & J. G. March. (1963). A behavioral theory of thefirm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall. Davis, F. S. (1951). Conceptions of official leadership roles in the Air Force. Social Forces, 32,

253-258.

Department of Defense (1965). The armed forces officer. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Department of the Army (1983). Military leadership. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office (FM 22-100). Dillion, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 97-111. Dowell, B. E. & K. N. Wexley. (1978). Development of a work behavior taxonomy for first

line supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 563-572. Dunnette, M. D. & E. A. Fleishman. (Eds.) (1982). Human performance and productivity:

Human capability assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Einhorn, H. J. & R. M. Hogarth. (1981). Behavioral decision theory. In M. R. Rosenzweig &

L. W. Porter (Eds.), Behavioral decision theory. Palto Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

282 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Elliott, M. P., J. T. Harden, R. W. Giesler, A. C. Scott, & N. Euske (979). Z’he process and procedures used for job preparation: Field artillery and infantry, officers and NCOs.

Carmel, CA: McFan Frey & Associates. Farr, J. L. (1982). A Jive-factor system of leadership: Followership: A follower model of

leadership. Greensboro, NC: Farr Associates. Feldman, J. M. & M. K. Lindell. (1988). On rationality. Unpublished manuscript. Fiedler, F. E. (1957). A note on leadership theory: The effect of social barriers between leaders

and followers. Sociometry, 20, 87-94. Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic

Press. Fiedler, F. E. & J. E. Garcia. (1987). New approaches to effective leadership: Cognitive resources

and organizational performance. New York: Wiley. Fine, S. E. (1974). Functional job analysis: An approach to a technology for manpower planning.

Personnel Journal, 53, 8 13-8 18. Fine, S. E. (1977). Job analysis for heavy equipment operators. Washington, DC: International

Union of Operating Engineers. Fleishman, E. A. (1953a). Leadership climate, human relations, and supervisory behavior. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 6, 202-222. Fleishman, E. A. (1953b). The description of supervisory behavior, Journal of Apphed

Psychology, 37, 1-6. Fleishman, E. A. (1953~). The measurement of leadership attitudes in industry. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 37, 153-158. Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. Chapter in E. A. Fleishman

& J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale &

Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Fleishman, E. A. (1975). Toward a taxonomy of human performance. American Psychologist,

30( 12) 1127-l 149.

Fleishman, E. A. (1982). Systems for describing human tasks. American Psychologist, 37(7), 821-

834. Fleishman, E. A. (1989,). Manual for the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (revised). Park

Ridge, IL: Science Research Associates. Fleishman, E. A. (1989b). Manual for the Supervisory Behavior Description (Revised). Park

Ridge, IL: Science Research Associates. Fleishman, E. A. & L. Friedman. (1990). Cognitive competencies related to management

performance requirements in R&D organizations (CBCS Final Report 90-2), Center for Innovation Management Studies, Lehigh University. Fairfax, VA: Center for Behavioral

and Cognitive Studies, George Mason University.

Fleishman, E. A., E. F. Harris, H. E. Burtt. (1955). Leadership and supervision in industry. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University.

Fleishman, E. A. & E. F. Harris. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15,43-56.

Fleishman, E. A. & M. D. Mumford. (1989a). Individual attributes and training performance: Applications of ability taxonomies in instructional system design. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fleishman, E. A. & M. D. Mumford (1989b). Abilities as causes of individual differences in skill acquisition. Human Performance, 2, 225-239.

Fleishman, E. A. & M. D. Mumford. (1988). The ability requirement scales. In S. Gael (Ed.), The job analysis handbook for business, government, and industry. New York: Wiley.

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 283

Fleishman, E. A. & M. D. Mumford (1991). ~v~uating~iassi~cations ofjob behavior: aconstruct validation of the ability requirement scales. Personnel Psychology, 44, 523-575.

Fleishman, E. A. & M. K. Quaintance. (1984). Taxonomies of humapl performance: The description of human tasks. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Fleishman, E. A. & S. J. Zaccaro. (in press). Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training andperformance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Foti, R. J. & J. Rueb. (1990, April). Self-monitoring, traits, and leader emergency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Miami, FL.

Getzels, J. W. & M. Csikszentmihalyi. (1976). From problem solving to problem finding. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspective in ereat~v~ty. Chicago: IL: Aldine.

Gick, M. L. & K. J. Holyoak. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 12,306-355.

Gilbert, A. C. (1975). Dimensions of certain Army officer positions derived by factor analysis. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Gillen, D. J. & S. Carroll. (1985). Relationship of managerial ability to unit effectiveness in more organized versus more mechanistic departments. Journal of Management Studies, 22,668- 676.

Glickman, A. S., B. Baxter, E. A. Fleishman, & C. P. Hahn. (1968). Top management development and succession. New York: Macmillan,

Goldstein, J. L. (1986). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.

Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), handbook of industrjal and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McN~ly.

Guilford, J. P. & R. Hoepfner. (1966). Structure of intellect factors and their tests, Los Angeles, CA: Psychological Laboratory, University of Southern California.

Guion, R. (1965). Personnel selection. New York: Wiley. Gustafson, J. E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities. intelligence,

5, 179-203. Hackman, R. J. & R. E. Walton. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In P. S. Goodman

& Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Halff, H. M., J. D. Hollan, & E. L. Hutchins. (1986). Cognitive science and military training.

American Psychologist, 4 1, 113 1 - 1140. Halpin, A. W. & B. J. Winer. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions. In

R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.

Hayes, J. R. & L. S. Flower. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American PsychoZogist, 41,1106-1113.

Helme, W. H. (1971). Dimensions of leadership in a simulated combat situation. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Helme, W. H. (1974). Leadership researchfindings applied to the officerpersonnel management system. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Hemphill, J. K. (1949). The leader and his group. Journal of Educational Psychology 28,225-245. Hemphill, J. K. (1950). Leader behavior description. Columbus, OH: Ohio State Personnel

Research Board. Hemphill, J. K. (1959). Job description for executives. Harvard Business Review 37, 55-67. Hemphill, J. K., A. Siegel, & C. W. Westie. (1951). An exploratory study ofrelations between

perceptions of leader behavior, characteristics, and expectations concerning the behavior of ideaf leaders. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Personnel Research Board.

284 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Hitt, M., R. Middlemist, & R. Mathis. (1983). Management: Concepts and effective practice. New York: West Publishing Co.

Hogarth, R. M. (1980). Judgment and choice. New York: Wiley.

Hollander, E. P., S. W. Julian. (1969). Studies in leader legitimacy: Influence and innovation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocialpsychology (Volume 5). New York: Academic Press.

Horner, T. A. (1983). Killers, fillers, and fodder. Journal of the American War College 32, 27- 33.

House, R. J. & T. R. Mitchell. (1968). Path goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.

Jacobs, 0. (1983). Leadership requirements for the air land battle. Paper presented at the Leadership on the Future Battle Field Symposium, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

James, L. R., S. A. Muliak, & J. Brett. (1982). Causal analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage. Jaques, E. (1977). A general theory of bureaucracy. London: Heineman. Joreskog, K. G. & D. Sorbom. (1979). Advances in structural equation analysis. Reading, MA:

ABT Books. Kahneman, D. (1972). Subjective probabilities: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive

Psychology 3,430-454. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Karmel, B. (1978). Leadership: A challenge to traditional research methods and assumptions.

Academy of Management Review 3,475-482. Katz, D. & R. L. Kahn. (1977). The socialpsychology of organizations (Revised Edition). New

York: Wiley. Kenny, D. A. & S. J. Zaccaro. (1983). An estimate of the variance due to traits in leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology 68,678-685. Komaki, J. L., M. L. Desselles, & E. D. Bowman. (1989). Definitely not a breeze: Extending

an operant model of effective supervision of teams. Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 522-529.

Komaki, J. L., S. Zlotnick, & M. Jensen. (1986). Development of an operant-based taxonomy and observational index of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71,260- 269.

Koontz, H., C. O’Donnell, & H. Weihrich. (1958). Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Korotkin, A. L., M. D. Mumford, K. Y. Levin, M. R. Wallis, & J. Marshall-Mies. (1985). Dimensions of Army leadership performance. Bethesda, MD: Advanced Research Resources Organization.

Krech, D. & R. S. Crutchfield. (1948). Theory andproblems in social psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Krietler, S. & H. Krietler. (1987). Plans and planning: Their motivational and cognitive antecedents. In S. L. Friedman, E. D. Scholnick, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Blueprints for thinking: The role ofplanning in cognitive development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lord, F. M. (1977). Functional leadership behavior: Measurement and relation to social power

and leadership perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly 22, 114-133. Lord, R. G. & R. J. Foti. (1986). Schema theories, information processing, and organizational

behavior. In H. P. Sims & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Z%e thinking organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lord, R. G., C. L. DeVader, & G. M. Alliger. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relationship between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology 71,402-410.

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 285

Luthans, F. 8~ P. L. Lockwood. (1984). Toward an observation system for measuring leader

behavior in natural settings. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and

leadership. New York: Pergamon Press. Mackenzie, R. A. (1969). The management process in 3-D. Harvard Business Review 47, 80-

87.

Mahoney, T. A., T. H. Jerdee, & S. I. Carroll. (1965). The job of management. Industrial Relations 4, 97-l 10.

Manz, C. C. & H. P. Sims. (1986). Beyond imitation: Complex behavioral and affective linkages resulting from exposure to leadership training. Journal of Applied Psychology 7 1, 57 I-578.

Matsui, T., T. Osawa, & T. Terari. (1975). Relations between supervisory motivation and the

consideration and structure aspects of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology 60, 45 l-454. McCormick, E. J. (1979). Job analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Amacom. McGrath, J. E. (1964). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Office

of Career Development, U.S. Civil Service Commission. Medin, D. C. & B. H. Ross. (in press). The specific character of abstract thought: Categorization,

problem solving, and induction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of

human intelligence (Volume 5). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement. New York:

Macmillan.

Metcalfe, B. A. (1984). Microskills of leadership: A detailed analysis of the behaviors of managers

in the appraisal interview. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership. New York: Permagon Press.

Miller, J. A. (1973). The hierarchicalstructure of leadership behaviors. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, Technical Report ~64.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). 7’/ze nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row. Misumi, J. (1985). The behavioralscience of leadership. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

Press. Morse, J. J. & F. R. Wagner. (1978). Measuring the process of managerial effectiveness. Academy

of Management Journal 2 1, 23-35. Mott, T. E. (1972). Characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper and Row.

Mumford, M.D. (1986). Leadership in the organizational context: Conceptual approach and its application. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 16, 212-226.

Mumford, M. D. & S. B. Gustafson. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and

innovation. Psychological Bulletin 104, 27-33. Mumford, M. D., S. J. Zaccaro, F. D. Harding, E. A. Fleishman, & R. Reiter-Palmon. (1991).

Cognitive and temperament predictors of executive ability: Principles for developing leadership capacity (Tech. Rep. MRI 91-1 for U.S. Army Research Institute). Bethesda,

MD: Management Research Institute. Nealey, S. M. & F. E. Fiedler. (1968). Leadership functions of middle managers. Psychological

Bulletin 5, 313-329. Nutt, P. C. (1984a). Planning process archetypes and their effectiveness. Decision Sciences 15,

221-247. Nutt, P. C. (1984b). Types of organizational decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly

29,415-450. Oldham, G. R. (1976). The motivational strategies used by supervisors: Relationships to

effectiveness indicators. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 15, 66-86.

286 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 2 No. 4 1991

Olmstead, J. A., M. J. Baranick, & L. Elder. (1978). Research on training for brigade command groups: Factors contributing to unit combat readiness. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Olmstead, J. A., F. D. Cleary, L. L. Lackey, & J. A. Salter. (1976). Functions of battalion command groups. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Olmstead, J. A., F. D. Cleary, & J. A. Salter. (1973). Leadership activities of company command officers. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization,

Olmstead, J. S., L. L. Lackey, & H. E. Christenson. (1975). Leadership actions as evaluated by experienced company grade ojficers. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Page, R. (1985). 7&e Position Description Questionnaire. Minneapoiis, MN: Control Data Business Advisors.

Pelz, D. C. (1952). Influence: A key to effective leadership in first-line managers. Personnel 29, 205-2 17.

Prien, E. P. (1963). Development of a supervisor position description questionnaire. Journal of Apphed Psychology 47, IO- 14.

Reaser, J. M., M. R. Vaughan, & R. E. Kriner. (1974). Military leadership in the seventies: A closer look at the dimensions of leadership behavior. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of

ill-defined problems. In M. Shelley & G. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgments and optimacity. New York: Wiley.

Roby, T. B.\(1961). The executive function in small groups. In L. Petrullo & B. Bass (Eds.),

~adership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston. Saytes, I,. R. (1981). Leadership: What effective managers usually do and how they do it. New

York: McGraw-Hill. Scandura, J. M. (1977). Problem solving. New York: Academic Press. Schermerhorn, J. R., Jr., J. G. Hunt, & R. N. Osborn. (1982). Managing organizationalbehavior.

New York: John Wiley & Sons. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology 40,437-454. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Evanston, IL:

Row & Peterson. Shartle, C. L. (1956). Executiveperformanceandleadership. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shaw, M. E. (1963). Some effects of varying amounts of information exclusively possessed by

a group member upon his behavior in the group. Journal of General Psychology 68, 71- 79.

Shorris, E. (1984). ~eenes from corporate li$e: l7te p&tics of middle management. New York: Penguin.

Showell, M. & C. W. Peterson. (1958). A criticalincident study of infantry, airborne, andarmored junior noncommissioned officers. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Shultz, W. C. (1961). The ego theory and the leader as completer. In L. Petrullo & B. Bass (Eds.),

Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston. Siegler, R. S. & D. D. Richards. (1982). The development of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg

(Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Similansky, J. (1984). Problem solving and the quality of invention: An empirical investigation.

Journal of Educational Psycho1og.y 76, 377-386. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century

of research? Psychological Bulletin 104, 333-350.

Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior 287

Snow, R. E.& D. F. Lohman. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from

instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 76,347-376. Sokal, R. R. & P. H. R. Sneath. (1963). Principles of numeric taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman

Press. Sternberg. R. J. (1986). Synopsis of a triarchic theory of human intelligence. In S. H. Irvine

& S. E. Newstead (Eds.), Intelligence and cognition. Boston, MA: Nithoff. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature

of creativity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stogdill, R. M. (1959). Zndividualbehaviorandgroupachievement. New York: Oxford University

Press. Stogdill, R. M. & C. L. Shartle. (1955). Methods in the study ofadminjstrat~ve leadership.

Columbus, OH: Ohio State Unive~ity. Stogdill, R. M., O.S. Goode, & D. R. Day. (1965). The Ieader behavior of unjversit.y presidents.

Columbus, Oh: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research. Stogdill, R. M., R. J. Wherry, & W. E. Jaynes. (1953). Patterns of leader behavior: A factorial

study of Navy officer performance. Columbus, Oh: Ohio State University. Suttel, B. J. & 0. Spector. (1955). Research on the spect$c leader behaviorpatterns most effective

in influencing group performance. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Terman, L. M. & F. .I. Oden. (1954). The gifted group at mid-life. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford

University Press. Tornow, W W. & P. R. Pinto. (1976). The development of a managerial job taxonomy: A system

for describing, classifying and evaluating executive positions. Journal of Applied Psychology 61,4fU-418.

Tushman, M. & P. Anderson. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 3 1, 439-465.

Ulrich, R. A. & G. F. Wieland. (198 1). ~rgan~zut~onu~ theory and design. Homewood, IL. Van Fleet, D. D. & G. A. Yukl. (1986). Military Zeadership: An organizational behavior

perspective. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vecchio, R. P. (1979). A dyadic interpretation of the contingency model of leadership

effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 22,590-600. Von Batalnaffy, L. (1948). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New

York: Braziler.

Vroom, V. H. (1976). Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Wallis, M. R., M.D. Mumford, & A. L. Korotkin. (1985). Development of a singIe list of leadersh~pimanagement non-Map or branch specific tasks for officers and noncommissioned of$cers. Bethesda, MD: Advanced Research Resources Organ~ation.

Williams, R. E. (1956). A description of some executive abilities by means of the critical incident technique. Doctoral dissertation. New York: Columbia University.

Winter, D. G. (1978). Navy leadership and management competencies: Convergence among tests, interviews, and performance ratings. Boston, MA: McBer & Company.

Wofford, J. C. (1971). Factor analysis of managerial behavior variables. Journal of Applied Psychology 54, 169-173.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. J., R. J. Foti, & D. A. Kenny. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in

leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology 76,308-3 15.