A Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Master of Arts in the

Graduate School of the Ohio State University


George W. Norris, B.A.


The Ohio State University 2000

Master's Examination Committee:

Dr. Robert S. Billings, Adviser

Approved by

Dr. Eric A. Day

Dr. John P. Wanous


Department of Psychology


Three of the predominant perspectives in the leadership effectiveness literature are the trait, behavioral, and the situational perspectives. The contributions of each perspective are briefly reviewed and a framework for the integration of these three perspectives is proposed. This framework holds that leader traits influence leader behaviors, which in tum influence leadership effectiveness. Situational variables are thought to have a direct effect on behaviors and a moderating effect on the relationships between traits and behaviors and between behaviors and leadership effectiveness. A portion of this framework, the effect of traits on behaviors, is then tested empirically. Traits are operationalized using McClelland's (1987) and Minor's (1978) motivation constructs, including three categories of motivation: power motive, affiliation motive, and achievement motive.

Three hypotheses were tested, each compared the level of a trait to behaviors that were thought to follow from that trait. The traits were measured through self-report measures, and they were compared to behavioral ratings made by the immediate supervisors of those rated. The data used was collected from employees in a large international manufacturing company headquartered in the Midwestern United States.


Structural equation modeling was used to analyze how the motivation traits of power motive, affiliation motive, and achievement motive affect a predicted set of behaviors. Little support was found for the relationship between power motive, and affiliation and their respective behavioral sets, but significant support was found for the relationship between achievement motive and its predicted behaviors. Possible explanations for findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.


For my parents whose continuous love and support have helped make all of my achievements possible.



I wish to thank my advisor, Robert Billings, for tremendous support, guidance, and patience in helping me create this work. His insights, creativity, encouragement and teaching ability have contributed greatly to my academic and personal growth.

I thank Steve Hunt who provided the data, without which this work would not have been possible. I thank Steve for emotional support and encouragement and for being a good example of an enthusiastic and diligent researcher.

I thank my wife whose hard work and emotional support made it possible for me to complete this work.

I thank Yuri Tada for her assistance and advice in completing the statistical analysis.



June 23, 1965 Born - Columbus, Ohio

1987 B.A. Psychology, DePauw University Minor: Business Administration

1987-1996 Arbitrage Clerk, The Chicago Mercantile Exchange

Loan Servicing, The Huntington Mortgage Company

Real Estate Sales, HER Realtors

1997-present. Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University


Major Field: Psychology

Focus of Studies: Industrial/Organizational Psychology




Abstract......................................................................................... n

Dedication..... . . . . . IV

Acknowledgments... V

Vita.............................................................................................. VI

List of Tables......... . .. . Vin

List of Figures. IX


1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1

2. Methods 24

3. Results................................................................................... ... 33

4. Discussion......... . . . . . 44

List of References 54


Appendix A - Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales............................ 58

Appendix B - Trait Measurement Scales.......................................... 67

Appendix C - Correlations Among All Trait Measures and Behavior Rating

Scales.................................................................. 74



Table Page

1. Selected Leadership Behaviors Rating Scales.................................... 25

2. Trait and Behavior Measures Matched by Construct... . . 28

3. Trait Measurement Means and Standard Deviations.......................... .... 34

4. Correlations among and between the Power Motive Model trait

measures and behavioral ratings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5. Correlations among and between the Affiliation Motive Model

trait measures and behavioral ratings 36

6. Correlations among and between the Achievement Motive

Model trait measures and behavioral ratings.............................. 37

7. Power Analysis using RMSEA 43

8. Correlations Among All Trait Measures and Behavior Rating Scales.......... 75



Figure Page

1. Vroom's Schematic Representation of Variables Used

in Leadership Research.................................................. ... 4

2. Causal Relationships in the Multiple Linkage Model......... .. . . 5

3. Competency Model: Intra-Individual Components.............................. 6

4. General Framework for Leadership Effectiveness............................. ... 7

5. Power Motive Model.. 28

6. Affiliation Motive Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29

7. Achievement Motive Model.. , 29

8. Power Motive Model with parameter estimates 38

9. Affiliation Motive Model with parameter estimates 39

10. Achievement Motive Model with parameter estimates 40




Leaders have important effects on the organizations they lead. Because of this psychologists and other behavioral researchers have conducted innumerable studies of what makes a good leader. The early research held that a leader's characteristics were stable and inborn and thus this research looked for leadership traits. The majority of the trait research done during the first half of the zo" century involved finding the correlations between a leader's characteristics and a criterion of leader success. In an

influential review of the research through the late 1940's, Stogdill (1948) sounded a discouraging tone concerning finding a set of traits that would indicate a strong leader. The problem according to Stogdill's review was that although it is possible to define a set of traits for good leaders, the importance of the traits for good leadership changes with the situation.

After this review the overall emphasis in leadership research shifted from looking at traits toward identifying and focusing on different types of behavior that made leaders more or less effective. One of the attractive aspects of the behavioral perspective is that behaviors are thought to be more malleable than traits, thus they can be taught to managers to increase their leadership abilities and effectiveness. The shift away from traits left behind the idea that it was necessary to find the natural born leader to carry out


the leadership responsibilities (Fleishman, 1953; Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Katz & Kahn, 1952; Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950).

Sometime after the rise in importance of the behavioral perspective in the leadership literature, researchers became aware that there was another important set of factors that helped determine the effectiveness of leaders. This area of research focused on the aspects of the situation in which the leader was placed, and how those situational aspects influenced the effectiveness ofthe leader. As this area was explored empirically the research made it increasingly apparent that different leadership traits or behavior may be more effective in different situations. No fewer than six major theories use different situational factors to try to explain leadership effectiveness. These theories include: path goal theory (House & Mitchell, 1974), situational leadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977), leadership substitutes theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), multiple-linkage model (Yukl, 1971), LPC contingency model (Fiedler, 1964), and cognitive resources theory (Fiedler, 1986).

By exploring these different perspectives researchers and theorists have uncovered many important influences on leadership effectiveness, and in the process the leadership literature has become broader and more meaningful. It is fairly clear from the literature that all three ofthese approaches (trait, behavioral and contingency), have made a contribution to explaining the effectiveness of leaders. However, the problem with the leadership literature, is that it is fragmented. Thus, most of the empirical work in this area considers only the factors of one of the three main areas of leadership that have been explored (trait, behavioral, or contingency). The main purpose ofthis thesis is to explore


some of the linkages between two of these three approaches by examining the relationship between specific leader traits and behaviors. The specific trait that will be explored here is managerial motivation, which is one's desire to oversee and influence others in the work setting.

Before testing the trait-behavior relationship it is helpful to have some background information that will support the empirical work that follows. First, a general framework is presented that consolidates the various perspectives on leadership effectiveness, then a basic review of the leadership literature and its evolution is offered, and finally a more detailed description and explanation of the traits and behaviors to be tested here is provided. As described in more detail below the data used in this thesis was obtained during a consulting project with a large, international manufacturing company with headquarters in the Midwestern United States. The purpose of this consulting project was to determine which employees had the highest potential for success in managerial work within the organization. Before getting to the empirical component of this thesis, a framework is developed that suggests how the relationship between traits and behaviors might fit into a larger model.

Developing an Framework for Leadership Effectiveness

There have been many models or frameworks suggested which try to explain what contributes to leadership effectiveness, but few have tried to incorporate all three of the three main approaches covered in the empirical literature, those being the trait, the behavioral, and the contingency approaches. The attempts to integrate the three areas of leadership effectiveness can be found in the empirical literature (e.g. Vroom, 1997), reviews of the literature (e.g. Yukl, 1998), and practitioner materials (e.g. S.T. Hunt,


personal communication, March 13,2000). Since each one of these approaches (trait,

behavioral, and contingency) makes valuable contributions to understanding leadership

effectiveness, but none in itself is able to explain leadership effectiveness alone, a model

that draws upon all of these approaches could provide a stronger and more complete

explanation of the factors that contribute to leadership effectiveness.

Vroom (1997) posits a framework (figure 1), and calls it a "schematic

representation of the variables used in leadership research" but does not try to test it. In

fact in the book chapter where this model appears he deals exclusively with the

relationship between leader behavior and organizational effectiveness.

Leader Behavior

Organizational Effecti veness

Situational Variables

Personal Attributes

Situational Variables

Figure 1. Vroom's Schematic Representation of Variables Used in Leadership Research

While Vroom's model includes aspects from the three most heavily researched

areas of leadership effectiveness it does so in a way that limits its applicability to

leadership effectiveness research. For example, Vroom's model does not allow for the

moderating effect of situational variables on the relationships between the main

constructs. Also Vroom uses organizational effectiveness as the final resultant variable.

Organizational effectiveness probably overlaps substantially with leadership


effectiveness but could also include things that would not be included in leadership

effectiveness. For example, it is fairly easy to imagine actions that a leader could take

that would increase the sales performance of an organization (this being a potential

measure of organizational effectiveness) at the expense ofthe relationship between the

managers and workers in the organization, thus diminishing leadership effectiveness.

While Vroom's model includes components from all ofthe main leadership

effectiveness areas, Yukl's multiple linkage model (Yukl, 1971, 1981, 1989) covers only

the linkage between leader behavior and leadership effectiveness.

Leader .. Intervening .. Criteria of unit
Behavior A~ ... Variables ~ ... Effecti veness
Subordinate Effort
I Role clarity & task skills
I External coordination
I Organization of work
I Situational
:- .. Variables A~ Situational
(N eutralizers Variables
-------------------- .. Variables I
(Substitutes) I

Figure 2. Causal Relationships in the Multiple Linkage Model

Even though Yukl's multiple linkage model only covers the right hand side of the

framework proposed by Vroom, it contributes at least one useful idea to an overall

framework. Yukl emphasizes the interplay of situational variables and their ability to

moderate the relationships between variables. Although it has been proposed that

situational variables interact with leader behaviors in determining leader effectiveness, it

is difficult to empirically identify the exact nature of such interactions, but it is logical


that this interaction exists. For example, identical behaviors in different situations will

sometimes lead to different levels of effectiveness. When considering the trait-behavior

relationship, the moderating effects of situational variables could cause the same trait to

manifest itself in different behaviors.

Finally, the third model that has come to the attention ofthe author is one used by

S. T. Hunt, an industrial/organizational psychologist, in his consulting work for a large

international consulting firm (personal communication, March 13,2000). He uses the

competency model, shown in figure 3 in presentations to client companies.

Attributes Behaviors Results
Personality Decisions Sales Volume
Motivation Communication » Product
Knowledge & ./ Project Planning Development
Skills Effort Market Share

Situational Influence and Constraints
Organizational Culture
Resources and Coworker Support
Competition and Market Access Figure 3. Competency Model: Intra-Individual Components

This model is like the Vroom model because it includes trait, behavior, and

situation components, and has them in a similar configuration. Also like Vroom's

framework this one has no moderating effects on the relationships between constructs.

As mentioned above this is problematic because the same behaviors may cause different

results (effectiveness) depending on the situation in which they occur. Although this


framework like the others has some shortcomings it adds a dimension that the others do

not. Since this is a practitioner framework it has been used extensively as a model for the

measurement of, and the improvement of leadership effectiveness. While the use of this

model in an applied setting does not ensure its overall validity, it may at least suggest

ecological validity because it is regularly presented to, and accepted by organizational


So what do these three frameworks suggest about an overall framework for

leadership effectiveness? First they provide support for a framework that integrates the

trait, behavioral, and situational perspectives of leadership effectiveness. Second and

more specifically they agree on the proposed relationships among the major constructs in

the leadership literature: traits lead to behaviors, which lead to leadership effectiveness,

with these relationships moderated by situational variables. In addition, situational

variables are predicted to have a direct effect on leader behavior. Please see the graphical

representation of the proposed framework in figure 4.

Leader ~ Leader ""- Leadership

Traits Behaviors v" Effectiveness
Situational Variables Figure 4. General Framework for Leadership Effectiveness

The task of integrating the literature is challenging but worthwhile because each

of the three main perspectives provides explanatory power that can contribute to an


overall model or framework, as proposed here. To better understand the contributions of the trait, the behavioral and the situational approaches they are reviewed below.

Literature Summaries

The Trait Approach

The early trait research was conducted in the 1930's and 1940's and was based on the idea that leaders were born with traits that made them effective leaders, thus it was the researcher's initial aim to find these qualities. Early research focused on traits that researchers were able to measure like physical characteristics (e.g. height, appearance), aspects of personality (e.g. self-esteem, dominance, emotional stability), and aptitudes (e.g. general intelligence, verbal fluency, creativity; Yukl, 1998). Hundreds of these early studies were done with fairly disappointing results (Stogdill, 1974).

More recent trait research has narrowed the focus to more specific traits like high energy level, stress tolerance, integrity, emotional maturity and self-confidence. Reviews of the trait research have found all of the above traits to be related to managerial effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Yukl, 1989). Most of the trait research done to this date is not entirely consistent with the framework in figure 4 because it focuses on the direct linkage between traits and leadership effectiveness, as opposed to examining the mediating role of behaviors.

The Behavioral Approach

Much of the research done using the behavioral approach to understanding leadership effectiveness has focused on the relationship between leader behavior and leadership effectiveness. This research began in the 1950's with the Ohio State and 8

University of Michigan leadership studies which respectively came up with two-factor and three-factor categorizations of effective leadership behavior (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin & Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Katz & Kahn, 1952; Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, & Floor, 1951; Katz et al., 1950). The two-factor Ohio State taxonomy of leadership behaviors included task-oriented behavior (referred to as initiating structure) and relations-oriented behavior (referred to as consideration), while the Michigan taxonomy added participative leadership behavior to these first two sets of behavior.

Many years of empirical research with these two and three factor categorizations for behaviors indicated that they were too confining to accurately describe behaviors that lead to effective performance. Because the findings with these early behavioral approaches were not very helpful, broader and more descriptive taxonomies of leadership behaviors emerged. One of the most widely accepted is (Yukl, 1987), which proposes 14 categories for classifying leadership behavior. This taxonomy is specific enough to give more meaningful information about how leadership behaviors help determine leadership effectiveness.

By focusing on more specific behaviors researchers have found a number of behaviors that relate to leadership effectiveness. For example, Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber (1984) have found that positive reward behavior, including praise and contingent rewards, usually increases subordinate satisfaction and performance. Also clarifying behavior, which is one of the categories in Yuki's (1987) taxonomy, has been shown to be related to managerial effectiveness (Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990). Clarifying behavior could be considered a sub-category of initiating structure (from the two factor taxonomies), and would include such behaviors as explaining responsibilities,


assigning work, giving instructions, and setting priorities, standards and deadlines. By working with these more specific behaviors, researchers have had some success in verifying the causal linkage between behavior and leadership effectiveness, which is suggested in the general framework for leadership effectiveness, presented above.

The Contingency or Situational Approach

The situational approach came about after the trait and behavioral approaches and attempts to answer some important questions that the trait and behavior theories could not. For example, how is a leader with certain traits and behaviors effective in one situation but not in another? Or, how is it that two managers can have different traits and exhibit different behaviors but both are highly effective leaders in the same situation? The theories that attempt to answer these questions are necessarily complex because they are dealing with situational components that can very widely, but nonetheless affect a person's leadership effectiveness (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Examples of situational components are constraints, demands, expectations and opportunities. The findings with these components suggest that effective leaders are able to overcome constraints and to meet demands and expectations. Further, leaders are successful when they are able to expand their range of choices, exploit opportunities, and shape the impressions formed by others about their competence and expertise (Kieser, 1984; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1975; Stewart, 1982; Tsui, 1984). According to Yukl (1981) effective leaders act to modify the situation to make it more favorable. The components of Yukl's model are more difficult to define than those from the trait and behavioral approaches, making operational definitions for research more problematic. For example, there are more possible ways to exploit opportunities (YukI's construct) than to define traits like self-confidence, or


behaviors like giving instructions. The situational approach's greater variability and/or complexity makes findings solely from this area more difficult to implement.

Why Traits and Behaviors Have Not Been Considered Together

While the right hand side of the proposed model covers the behavioral approach to understanding leadership, the part that has received less attention is the left hand side of the model which suggests a relationship between leadership traits and leadership behaviors. The direct relationship between leader traits and leadership effectiveness was the linkage that early trait researchers explored without considering the possible mediating effect of behaviors. Researchers generally turned away from the trait approach after Stogdill's (1948) influential review of the trait literature. In his review Stogdill concluded that understanding the traits of the leader was not sufficient to understand a leader's effectiveness. He continued by stating that there was no set of leader traits that were ideal for a leader because the "personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities and goals ofthe followers." (Stogdill, 1948, p.64). The findings of Stogdill's review had the effect of discouraging further trait research instead of encouraging researchers to consider other variables that influence leadership effectiveness in addition to the traits of leaders (Yukl, 1998).

While Stodgill's negative review had the effect of tarnishing the trait approach to understanding leadership effectiveness, there was a second reason why traits and behaviors were not considered together. The emergence of the behavioral approach provided an attractive new alternative to the trait approach and thus research energies tended to flow away from one and into the other. Because one approach was in favor, and the other out of favor it may have been difficult to see how traits could be causally


linked to behaviors. In retrospect Stogdill's (1948) findings and subsequent remarks could have been more carefully interpreted as: traits alone were not enough to understand leadership effectiveness. This nuance may have been difficult to pick up given the weak overall findings produced from the review of the trait literature.

The Link Between Traits and Behaviors

Traits are useful because they can be measured and help predict behaviors.

Behaviors are crucial because they are the manifestations of traits that lead to leadership effectiveness. The problem is that the relationship between traits and behaviors is not commonly explored in the leadership literature, even though the existence of this relationship is implied and it's relative importance does seem to be proposed. For example, Yukl and Van Fleet (1992, p.150) in an overview of the leadership literature state that:

Advances in trait research have been in large part due to a change of focus from abstract personality traits and general intelligence to specific skills and traits that can be related directly to behaviors required for effective leadership in a particular situation.

Later in the same review Yukl and Van Fleet (1992, p. 153) reemphasize this trait/behavior relationship in a slightly different light when they say: "It is difficult to understand how leader traits can affect subordinate motivation or group performance unless we examine how traits are expressed in the actual behavior of leaders." This statement in an influential overview of the leadership literature by Yukl and Van Fleet (1992) supports the idea that traits and behaviors are causally related.


Given this strongly implied relationship between traits and behaviors, it is somewhat surprising that it has rarely, if ever, been fully explicated and explored as such. For example, in the previously mentioned work which contained the model proposed by Vroom (1997; figure 1), the trait to behavior relationship is not explained or explored. In this thesis it is the intention of the author to empirically test the relationship between traits and behaviors.

The Choice of a Trait to Explore

The data used in this thesis was taken from a consulting project that proposed to identify leaders that would be successful in management positions. To determine which candidates had the greatest management potential, employees completed a wide array of measures that covered many different areas and included trait measures. The trait measures used here have been validated internationally by the consulting firm that completed this project. In addition to the trait measures used, behavioral rating scales were selected from the competencies suggested by the Lominger Leadership Architect (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1996). These competencies were selected by the middle and upper level managers in the firm that commissioned the study. For each competency the managers, guided by an industrial/organizational psychologist, created a behaviorally anchored rating scale that gives specific example behaviors which indicate a high, middle, or low rating on that given competency.

Examination of the trait and behavioral measures used in this consulting project made it clear that many items dealt with the motivation of participants to become managers. This trait is labeled managerial motivation in the empirical literature (McClelland, 1987; Miner, 1978; Yukl, 1998). Managerial motivation is a multifaceted


construct that indicates a person's motivation to take a leadership position in an organization. To give a better understanding of this trait, a basic review of managerial motivation will now be provided.

Theoretical Development of Managerial Motivation as a Trait

Managerial or leadership motivation is a trait that has been thoroughly explored through empirical work. A prominent line of research in this the area has been conducted by David McClelland (1965; 1987). His original conceptualization of managerial motivation focused on a single component, need for achievement (McClelland, 1965). Later conceptualizations became multidimensional, including other needs including need for power (n Power), need for affiliation (n Affiliation), and Activity Inhibition (McClelland, 1975). McClelland further hypothesized that a specific combination of each of these three dimensions could produce what he termed the leadership motive pattern (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). Specifically, the leadership motive pattern consisted of moderate to high levels of n Power, high levels of Activity Inhibition, and lower levels of n Affiliation. McClelland and Boyatzis (1982) provided empirical support for this multidimensional framework of leadership motivation by completing a long-term study, in which the criterion was the level of management attained. Applicants were first measured for their levels of n Power, n Affiliation and Activity Inhibition and then after periods of 8 and 16 years their levels of management attained were measured. Their findings indicated that the leadership motive pattern was significantly correlated with the managerial advancement at both the 8 and 16 year intervals. This finding supports taking a multifaceted approach, which would include need for achievement, need for power, and need for affiliation when trying to understand leadership motivation.


Another researcher who has done extensive work in the area of leadership motivation is John Miner. He has proposed a set of constructs through which he attempts to explain how motivation as a trait leads to leadership effectiveness. Miner has found that those who have experienced the most career advancement score higher on the motivational subscales of desire to exercise power, desire to compete with peers, and positive attitude toward authority figures. According to Miner these three subscales can be combined to determine a person's managerial motivation. The positive correlation between managerial motivation and managerial success is supported by 33 studies, which have been done over a period of30 years (Miner, 1978, 1985).

If one compares the constructs developed by McClelland and Miner it is possible to see overlap between their motivational subscales. For example, the way McClelland defines need for power is very similar to the way Miner defines and operationalizes the desire to exercise power. McClelland's definition of need for power focuses on the satisfaction a person derives from influencing others and arousing strong emotions in them (McClelland, 1987). Miner defines desire to exercise power as telling others what to do and enforcing the words with appropriate positive and negative sanctions (Miner, 1978). McClelland focuses slightly more on why a leader would want to influence others, while Miner focuses on how that influence is carried out. However both concepts have, at their core, the desire to influence others.

The concepts of need for achievement and need to compete with others also have a significant amount of overlap. McClelland defines need for achievement as a person's drive to succeed at a difficult task, attain a standard of excellence, or develop a better way of doing something (McClelland, 1987). Miner's definition of desire to compete is


described as a person's desire to win for themselves and their subordinates, and to accept challenges that allow for this opportunity. The slight difference in these constructs seems to be that McClelland focuses on the task as the challenge, while Miner is more focused on competition with others as driving behavior. To further clarify the difference between these two constructs it may be useful to consider their sources. McClelland's need for achievement tends to be more of an intrinsic motive (McClelland, 1987), which fits with the task orientation specified in the definition, while Miner's desire to compete with others may also include the desire to beat out others to gain extrinsic rewards (Miner, 1978). While the focus differs slightly concerning what drives the need, the main point is that both definitions emphasize the person's need to succeed when facing a challenge.

Two more constructs that have some overlap, but not as much as the first two sets, are McClelland's need for affiliation and Miner's positive attitude toward authority figures. According to McClelland a person with a strong need for affiliation is especially concerned with being liked and accepted, making them especially sensitive to cues indicating hostility or rejection (McClelland, 1987). Miner's positive attitude toward authority figures also focuses on relationships between people but emphasizes relations with one's supervisor, specifically not provoking negative reactions from one's supervisor. The main difference between these constructs is that McClelland's need for affiliation can apply to relations with other workers above, at the same level, and at levels below the respondent, while Miner's construct specifically addresses relations with superiors.

Minor and McClelland's affiliation constructs share their basic intent to understand relations between coworkers, and to identify a trait that explains a person's 16

overall attitude toward getting along with others in the workplace. While they have this commonality at a general level, if one takes a closer look at the directionality of these motives, important differences become more evident. McClelland's need for affiliation is presumably directed toward those with whom one is in the most contact, which in most cases would be coworkers. Miner's positive attitude toward authority figures is expressly directed toward those with greater authority. Because ofthe different directions that these needs are focused it is clear that different motivations must drive them. Need for affiliation is most probably driven by the desire to be well liked among ones equals, while positive attitude toward authority figures can be seen as a desire to gain approval from and fit in with those that have the power to advance or promote ones career. The latter motive would seem to be rooted in ambition, while the former is rooted in a basic need for acceptance from peers without much concern for advancement.

While these two affiliation constructs have the least in common of the three sets of constructs proposed by McClelland and Miner they do have the important core similarity of trying to explain why people generally relate well or poorly with others. Because of this similarity they will be combined for use in the empirical component of this thesis.

The Setting in which Managerial Motivation Was Developed and Applies

While management is needed in organizations of all sizes, all of these components of managerial motivation were derived and tested in large, bureaucratic organizations. This point is important because research has shown for example that different levels of n Achievement, n Power and n Affiliation are needed for success in large organizations than are needed for success in small organizations (McClelland, 1977). Likewise,


research has shown that people within different departments in the same large organization need different levels of these facets to achieve the maximum amount of success at their given job (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). For example, it has been found that high n Achievement by itself is helpful in a sales position, but a manager in a large organization does not benefit much from a high n Achievement alone.

The data used here was collected in a large hierarchically organized organization, and it is thought that the data generated in this setting might be more easily interpreted using constructs that were developed in this same setting. Also, while the link between behaviors and leadership effectiveness is not empirically explored in this thesis, the behavior-leadership effectiveness link might be more easily implied since the data collection and construct development setting are similar.

Up to this point in the current work a framework for the overall effectiveness of leadership has been proposed, and background on managerial motivation as a personality trait has been provided. The next section begins the empirical component of this thesis as it examines the relationships between personality traits and the behaviors.


The intention of this thesis is to show an empirical linkage between the facets of managerial motivation as developed by McClelland and Miner and the ratings of behavior that are hypothesized to be manifestations of these facets. To make the linkage between the trait of managerial motivation and the behaviors that that should follow from this trait, it is first necessary to match the facets of the trait with the behavioral ratings in the data set available to the author. Remember from above that the behavioral rating dimensions were chosen by middle and upper management as ones that were important


for managerial success in the subject organization. Full definitions and the behaviorally anchored rating scale that goes with each definition is provided in Appendix A. An explanation of the relationship between the sets of behaviors and Miner and McClelland's motivational constructs follows.

Power motive

The first facet of managerial motivation is the power motive which draws its substance from McClelland's need for power or Miner's desire to exercise power. The behavioral ratings taken from the Lominger Leadership Architect (Lombardo & Eichinger, 1996) that matched up best with the power motive are command skills, and motivating others. Command skills, is a set of behaviors defined as not being afraid to take charge when trouble comes, and to do what it takes to get the job done despite resistance, which would include taking unpopular stands for the sake of the organizations long term objectives. The behaviors in the command skills set fit well with Miner's desire to exercise power which at its core deals with being motivated to tell others what to do and following up on those requests or demands.

The second group of behaviors that fit well with the power motive is called motivating others. As defined here motivating others is a set of behaviors that includes finding what excites and or influences a subordinate and using it to get the best performance from a subordinate. Motivating others also includes empowering others by sharing responsibility, ownership and visibility. The behaviors in this category matched up with McClelland's conceptualization of need for power, as it deals with the satisfaction that one derives from influencing and arousing strong emotions in others. These behavior sets are summarized briefly here but more detailed explanations are


provided in appendix A. In the appendix examples of behavior for those who rank low, moderate, or high in each of these behavior sets are also provided. Hypothesis 1 follows from matching the power motive with these behavior sets.

Hypothesis 1: The greater an individual's power motive, the more likely the behaviors found in the command skills and motivating others scales will occur in that individual.

Affiliation motive

The next facet of managerial motivation is the affiliation motive. As explained earlier in this thesis the constructs proposed by Miner and McClelland that deal with affiliation do not have as much overlap as those in the other facets of managerial motivation. Miner's construct in this area is positive attitude toward authority figures, and McClelland's is need for affiliation. As mentioned previously, Miner's construct is narrower in focus than McClelland's because it deals only with relations between a worker and his or her superiors, and does not include relations between a worker and peers or subordinates. What the two have in common is that they deal with an innate motive for getting along with others. More specifically those who are rated high in affiliation motive (by either construct) are concerned about what others think about them and are especially concerned about being liked and accepted by others. There are two behavioral rating scales that provide behaviors which should follow from the affiliation motive. These scales are integrity and trust, and interpersonal savvy.

The first scale, integrity and trust, rates one's behavior in telling the truth in an appropriate and helpful manner, and openly stating opinions even when these views may not be popular at the time. A person that is rated highly on this scale is widely trusted, 20

does not blame others for his or her own mistakes, and does not misrepresent him or herself for personal gain or protection. People that show these behaviors are usually motivated by their desire to be liked and accepted by others in the long run. Being accepted and gaining approval is at the core of both McClelland's and Miner's construct.

The second scale in this area is interpersonal savvy, which rates peoples on the behaviors they use to relate to others. More specifically the behaviors in this area include building rapport with others, listening to others, and using diplomacy and tact with others. The others referred to here is broadly defined so that it can include people at all levels inside and outside of the organization. A person who is rated by their manager as displaying these behaviors is thought to be manifesting their motivation to affiliate with others. Thus, hypothesis 3 follows.

Hypothesis 2: The greater an individual's affiliation motive the more likely the behaviors found in the interpersonal savvy and integrity and trust scales will occur in that individual.

Achievement motive

The final facet of managerial motivation is the achievement motive which has been addressed from slightly different vantage points by McClelland's need for achievement and Miner's desire to compete with others. The Lominger-derived behaviorally anchored rating scales that best matched up with the achievement motive are priority setting, action oriented, problem solving, and results. The behaviors in each one of these behavioral scales are closely related to each other because they all deal with components of a person's drive to succeed at a difficult task. The action oriented scale covers behaviors that involve accepting responsibility, or seizing opportunities to


improve efficiency and then being full of energy to address problems. This scale also deals with behaviors that cause a worker to reach out to help other members of the organization so that the work of the organization can be done efficiently and effectively.

The next important set of behaviors that are thought to originate from someone with high achievement motive are measured by the problem solving and prioritizing scales. These behaviors are likely to occur after one has taken the initiative to accept a task responsibility, as described above. The problem solving scale includes good questioning and probing behavior which allows one to properly assess the task(s) to be completed, as well as looking beyond the obvious to find hidden problems and patterns. These problem-assessing behaviors include good communication behaviors, and requests for criticism and input from people with diverse knowledge and background. In addition to problem solving behaviors another scale measures priority setting behavior. This scale measures behaviors that show one is adept at determining which tasks should be done first to achieve the most efficient and effective problem solution. These decision making and implementation behaviors include consideration of customer needs, organizational needs and business climate as well as delegation of responsibilities to others.

These three scales (action oriented, problem solving, and priority setting) are primarily focused on the task at hand and because of this orientation they seem to be behavioral outgrowths of McClelland's need for achievement. This construct, more than Miner's need to compete with others, seems to be focused on doing the task exceedingly well while fulfilling one's need to achieve. As noted in a previous section of this thesis, McClelland's need for achievement is defined as one's drive to succeed at a difficult task, attain a standard of excellence, or develop a better way of doing something (McClelland,


1987). Miner's need to compete with others explains the achievement motive in a slightly different way that includes motivation derived from competition with others. This leads to the last of the behavioral rating scales which includes more of this component.

The final behavioral scale for achievement motive of managerial motivation includes more of Miner's sense of competition and is called results. This scale rates behaviors that consistently cause one to be a top performer in the organization through a bottom line approach. Behaviors in this scale are indicative of someone who exceeds their goals by not accepting the way things are but instead pushes themselves and others to achieve goals and make improvements.

Hypothesis 3: The greater an individual's achievement motive the more likely the behaviors found in the action oriented, problem solving, priority setting and results scales will occur in that individual.

Table I in the methods section below has an alphabetical listing of all of the behavioral rating scales and their definitions.




As mentioned previously the data used for this research was collected during a consulting project within a large international manufacturing company based in the Midwestern United States


The overall consulting project included 147 employees, but operational issues including the availability of some measures in languages other than English, limited the number of employees with complete sets of data to 105. The 105 participants that completed all of the necessary instruments represented employees with technical training and a few with management experience. Part of the rationale in the practice of selecting future managers from this technically skilled group is that their technical knowledge, which has been acquired through specialized training prior to and on the job, gives them additional knowledge of the business that is useful when managing the business. Of the 105 participants 80% were engineers. Other participants with technical training included chemists, health and safety managers, and those responsible for quality control. The few with management experience included a product manager and an operations manager, and even a plant manager. Again, one of the main points of the consulting work for which this data was colleted was to identify those who could be effectives leaders so that


they could be moved into higher levels of management. The participants' ages ranged

from 24 to 59, with an average age of39. In addition 97% of participants were

Caucasian. The sample covered employees in both the US and Europe.

The participants completed five instruments ranging from test batteries for verbal,

mathematical, and common sense knowledge to questionnaires measuring general

personality characteristics and motivation. Items for this thesis were taken from the

general personality and motivation questionnaires.

Measuring Leadership Behaviors

The behavioral ratings were provided by the participant's manager. The

behavioral scales used here are a subset (9) of the total (15) included in this data set. The

behavioral ratings and measures used in this investigation were chosen from the larger

pool based on their definitional similarities with McClelland and Miner's motivation

constructs as described above.

Managers' behavioral ratings were developed to measure leadership potential and

included ratings of 15 different competencies, as well as a general or overall rating of

leadership potential. The competencies were drawn from the Lominger Leadership

Architect competency model, and were chosen by several senior Manufacturing Division

managers based on their relationships to effective leadership within the organization.

The competencies are listed and described in Table 1.

Action Oriented

Enjoys working hard; action oriented and full of energy for the things that he/she sees as challenging; not fearful of acting with a minimum of planning; seizes opportunities when they arise.

Table 1. Selected Leadership Behaviors Rating Scales (continued)


Table 1. (continued)

Command Skills

Not afraid to take charge when trouble comes; does whatever it takes to get the job done despite resistance; takes unpopular stands if necessary; faces difficult situations with guts and tenacity; encourages direct and tough debate but is not afraid to end it and move on; looked to for direction in a crisis; relishes leading.

Integrity and Trust

Is widely trusted; seen as a direct, truthful individual; can present the unvarnished truth in an appropriate and helpful manner; keeps confidences; does not blame others for hislher own mistakes or misrepresent him/herself for personal gain or protection.

Interpersonal Savvy

Relates well to all kinds of people, up, down, and sideways, inside and outside the organization; builds appropriate rapport; listens; builds constructive and effective relationships; uses diplomacy and tact; truly values people; can diffuse even high-tension situations comfortably.

Motivating Others

Can motivate many kinds of subordinates and team or project members; can assess each person's hot button and use it to get the best out of them; pushes tasks and decisions down; empowers others; invites input from each person and shares ownership and visibility; makes each individual feel their work is important; is someone people like working for and with.

Priority Setting

Spends his/her time and the time of others on what is important; quickly zeros in on the critical few tasks and puts the trivial aside; can quickly sense what will help or hinder accomplishing a goal; eliminates roadblocks; creates focus.

Problem Solving

Solves difficult problems with effective solutions; asks good questions and probes all fruitful sources for answers; can see underlying or hidden problems and patterns; is excellent at honest analysis; looks beyond the obvious and does not stop at the first answer.


Can be counted on to exceed goals successfully; is constantly and consistently one of the top performers; very bottom-line oriented; steadfastly pushes self and others for results.

To come up with behaviors that comprise the behaviorally anchored rating scales,

several senior managers from the Manufacturing Division provided examples of actual

employee behaviors that illustrated good or bad performance with regard to each

competency. These critical incidents were then used to develop the behaviorally

anchored rating scales to guide managers' performance ratings. When rating employees,

managers reviewed the competency definition and used the behaviors listed on the rating


scale to rate an employees absolute level of performance using a 1 to 9 scale (I = poor performance, 9 = high performance). The behaviorally anchored rating scales are provided in Appendix A.

Measuring Leadership Traits

During the course of the overall project five instruments were used to assess employee traits, they are as follows: the Numerical Critical Thinking test (NCT), the Verbal Critical Thinking test (VCT), the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) and the Motivational Questionnaire (MQ), and the Tacit Knowledge Inventory for managers (TKIM). The first four instruments are published by Saville & Holdsworth, and the final measure is published by Wagner & Sternberg. The motivational traits that are of interest in this work are best assessed through scales within the OPQ and the MQ. Specific scales were selected from the OPQ and the MQ so that the definition of the scale matched all or part of McClelland's or Miner's definition for each of the three facets of managerial motivation (power, achievement, and affiliation). For example, the Motivation Questionnaire has a scale for power which is defined as the extent to which people are motivated by the opportunities for exercising authority, taking responsibility, negotiating and being in a position to influence others. The definition of this power scale is a match for both McClelland's and Miner's power motive constructs. For a full listing of the scales used, their definitions and example items please see Appendix B.

A table helps make the hypothesized relationships between the trait measures, theoretical constructs, and behavioral ratings clearer. Please see table 2.


Traits Measures Trait Theory Constructs Behavioral
(P&P tests) Ratings (by
Power Need for Power - McClelland Command Skills
Persuasive Desire to Exercise Power - Miner Motivating Others
Affiliation Need for Affiliation - McClelland Interpersonal
Independent (-) Savvy
Outgoing Positive Attitude Toward Integrity and Trust
Affiliative Authority Figures - Miner
Critical (-)
Achieving Need for Achievement - Priority Setting
Competitive McClelland Results
Level of Activity Desire to Compete with Peers - Action Oriented
Achievement Miner Problem Solving
Competition Table 2. Trait and Behavioral Measures Matched by Constructs

When the contents of table 2 are converted into models, three separate models can be

created to express the specific trait-behavior relationships.


Command Skills


Motivating Others


Figure 5. Power Motive Model




Interpersonal Savvy


Socially Confident

Integrity and Trust


Critical (-)

Figure 6. Affiliation Motive Model

Problem Solving


Priority Setting


Level of Activity


Action Oriented



Figure 7. Achievement Motive Model


Direct Versus Indirect Measurement of Managerial Motivation

To measure their constructs Miner and McClelland both prefer to use projective tests versus direct questionnaires. McClelland prefers the Thematic Apperception Test (TA T) and Miner has devised his own projective test called the Miner Sentence Completion Scales. The rationale behind using projective tests is that they provide information from the subconscious, which according to Miner and McClelland provides truer information about a person's motivation.

Though they have used somewhat different instruments, McClelland and Miner are in agreement that for purposes of predictive validity the constructs described above are best measured with projective tests. Spangler (1992) has provided support for projective tests with a meta-analysis of research done with McClelland's achievement motive which indicates that the TAT is better than questionnaire measures at predicting long term effectiveness outcomes like career advancement or income earned. In this meta-analysis Spangler also found that when trying to identify a person's level of need for achievement without concern for long term outcomes that the questionnaires were sufficient to detect a person's need for achievement. Since the purpose of this work is to identify a person's level of achievement motive, power motive, and affiliation motive and then to compare these to their present behaviors, and is not concerned with projecting outcomes like career advancement, the direct questionnaires used should be sufficient.


The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation as the discrepancy function. The program used for this analysis was RAMONA, which was written by Michael Browne and Gerhard Mels, and is a part 30

of SYSTAT (Browne & Mels, 1997). Parameter estimates and significance tests of these estimates follow in the results section.

Fit of the Models

While hypothesis testing is done to test the relationships within each model, a separate analysis is completed to test the fit of the model. The fit measure used is the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), which indicates the closeness of the fit between the model and the data. While the ultimate goal of any model is to correspond to the real world the RMSEA test only goes so far as to tell us if the model fits the observed data. What the model fitting the data indicates is that the model fitting the real world is more plausible than if the model does not fit the data. The guidelines suggested by Steiger and Lind (1980) when using RMSEA to determine closeness of fit


RMSEA < .05 indicates close fit

.05 < RMSEA < .08 indicates fair fit

RMSEA> .10 indicates poor or unacceptable fit

Using the RMSEA has basically two advantages over traditional hypothesis testing. The first is that it takes into consideration the complexity of the model, and thus gives a measure of model fit that does not simply improve as it becomes more complex (i.e. has more parameters). Instead the RMSEA measures the discrepancy between the estimated true model and the model generated by the sample per degree of freedom. Another advantage of using RMSEA to measure model fit is that it is not a simple hypothesis test that says the model is either an ideal estimate or an unacceptable estimate of how things are in the real world, but instead indicates to what degree the model is a


poor, fair, or close fit to the real world. In addition to indicating the degree of fit, this indicator also acknowledges that at best a model can only come close to estimating real world conditions, whereas traditional hypothesis testing implies that the true or perfectly fit model can be found and confirmed.



In this results section descriptive statistics are presented first in order to help explain basic characteristics of the data used in this research. The hypotheses are then tested by using structural equation modeling to produce parameter estimates for the proposed models. These parameter estimates are tested for significance. To check the overall fit of each of the three models the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is determined and interpreted. Finally, a power analysis is completed for all three structural equation models. When assessing structural equation models for power the RMSEA is used to determine if there was enough power to accurately determine the fit of each model.

Descriptive Statistics

Some basic descriptive statistics, including scale means and correlations are provided here. These tables are useful for later discussion. Please see tables 3 through 6 below.


Instrument Scale Name Stdrdztn Sample Stdrdztn Sample
Power Mean Mean SD SD
MQ Power 30.20 30.19 3.90 3.43
OPQ Persuasive 20.48 23.72 4.94 4.85
OPQ Controlling 21.15 26.45 6.39 4.30
OPQ Innovative 22.15 27.20 5.46 4.88
MQ Affiliation 31.40 31.09 3.10 2.99
OPQ Independent 24.40 26.29 4.27 4.06
OPQ Outgoing 20.33 20.96 6.14 6.60
OPQ Affiliative 25.24 24.48 4.63 4.45
OPQ Socially Confident 21.32 23.40 6.04 5.60
OPQ Caring 26.79 28.08 4.24 3.07
OPQ Critical 22.43 24.47 3.93 3.46
OPQ Competitive 15.45 19.82 4.53 4.67
OPQ Achieving 17.24 26.26 4.39 4.98
MQ Level of Activity 27.30 26.09 5.00 3.48
MQ Achievement 33.80 33.80 3.50 2.57
MQ Competition 29.10 30.02 4.20 3.12
MQ standardization sample n = 700
OPQ standardization sample n = 2987 MQ - indicates that the scale IS from the motivation questionnaire

OPQ - indicates the scale is from the occupational personality questionnaire

Table 3. Trait Measurement Means and Standard Deviations


Motivation Power Persuasive

Others (B) (T) (T)

Controlling (T)


Skills (B)


Motivating Others (B)


.69** .53**


.41 **


~."',.vu is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed test) ** indicates correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed test) (B) indicates a behavioral rating scale

(T) indicates a trait measure

Table 4. Correlations among and between the Power Motive Model trait measures and behavioral ratings


Inter- Inte- Af- Af- So- Car-
per- grity filia- pen- Out- filia- cially ing Criti-
sonal & tion dent gomg tive Confi- (-) cal
Savvy Trust (-) (T) dent (T)
(B) (B) (T) (T) (T) (T) .23*
.23* .59**
.38** .27** .55**
.15 .56** .79** .51 **
.05 .17 .20* .12
.28** .02 .25** -.04 vHU .• VU IS "'F;UUJlvUJ.H

** indicates correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed test) (B) indicates a behavioral rating scale

(T) indicates a trait measure

(-) indicates a negative relationship is predicted with this scale and the trait construct

Table 5. Correlations among and between the Affiliation Motive Model trait measures and behavioral ratings


Com- Ach- Leve Achi- Com-
ty lem Re- peti- of peti-
Set- Solv- sults lev- Activ- eve-
ting ented ing (8) tive ing ity ment tion
(8) (8) (8) (T) (T) (T) (T) (T) .55**

.49** .45**

.23* .32**

* indicates IS at

** indicates correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed test) (B) indicates a behavioral rating scale

(T) indicates a trait measure

Table 6. Correlations among and between the Achievement Motive Model trait measures and behavioral ratings

In addition to the correlations provided above please see Appendix C for a table

that includes the correlations for all trait measures and behavioral rating scales from all

three models.

Tests of Hypotheses

The hypotheses presented earlier were tested using structural equation modeling

and the results of those tests are provided below. The three models used in the analysis

and the point estimates for the relationships within the models are given below. The first

model is the power motive model, which is seen in figure 8



Motivating Others


Command Skills



* indicates significance at p < .05 ** indicates significance at p < .01

Figure 8. Power Motive Model with parameter estimates

The parameter estimates in the Power Motive Model indicate that the trait

measures are good indicators of the power trait latent variable, and also that the

behavioral ratings are good measures of the behavioral latent variable. The one

relationship in this model that does not reach statistical significance at either level is the

relationship between the power trait and power behaviors. While strength of the trait-

measures for the traits and behaviors seem to show some convergent validity. This weak

behaviors relationship is somewhat disappointing it is encouraging to see that the

power trait-power behaviors relationship does not provide support for the hypothesis 1.

The second model is the affiliation motive model, which is seen in figure 9 below.




Interpersonal Savvy


Socially Confident

Integrity and Trust


Critical (-)

** indicates significance at p < .01

Figure 9. Affiliation Motive Model with parameter estimates

In the affiliation motive model all but one of the trait measures show significant

relationships with the affiliation trait. This would seem to indicate that the trait measures

have at least some convergence in the overall trait that they are measuring. Similarly

both of the behavioral rating scales show significant loadings on affiliation behaviors,

which again indicates some convergence in measuring affiliation behaviors. Going

against predictions, the independent and critical scales showed significant positive

relationships instead of negative relationships with the affiliation trait. Even more

importantly, the affiliation trait-behavior relationship is not statistically significant.

Because the affiliation trait-behavior relationship is not as predicted hypothesis 2 is not


supported. The more encouraging finding here is the fairly strong convergence of the

trait measures on the trait factor and the behavioral measures on the behavioral factor.

The final model is the achievement motive model, which is seen in figure 10.



Level of Activity



** indicates significance at p < .01

Figure 10. Achievement Motive Model with parameter estimates

Priority Setting


Action Oriented

Problem Solving

In the achievement motive model all of the trait measures showed a significant

relationship with the achievement trait. Likewise all four of the behavioral scales showed

significant loadings on achievement behaviors. These significant relationships indicate a

convergence of the trait measures on the achievement trait, and convergence of the

behavioral ratings on the achievement behaviors variable. Most importantly though is the

significant relationship between achievement traits and achievement behaviors. This

significant relationship provides support for hypothesis 3.

In summary, the power and affiliation models provide little or no support for the

relationship between the power or affiliation traits and their corresponding behavioral


factor counterparts. There is however a statistically significant relationship between the

achievement trait and achievement behaviors. Thus according to these results there appears to be little support for hypotheses 1 and 2, concerning the power motive and affiliation motive respectively, and support for hypothesis 3 which addresses the achievement motive.

Fit of the Models

Although it does not indicate the strength of the relationships within the model, the Steiger-Lind root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) indicates the fit of the data to the estimated true model. This provides an estimate of the plausibility of the model to estimate the true model. The fit of these models as measured by the RMSEA is as follows:

power motive model RMSEA: < .001 affiliation motive model RMSEA: .116 achievement motive model RMSEA: .054

The guidelines suggested by Steiger and Lind (1980) when using RMSEA to determine closeness of fit are:

RMSEA < .05 indicates close fit

.05 < RMSEA < .08 indicates fair fit

RMSEA > .10 indicates poor or unacceptable fit

As is evident by these guidelines the power model provides a close fit, the affiliation model provides a poor fit, and the achievement model provides a fair fit that is nearly a close fit.

To summarize, our current results indicate that the power and achievement models provide plausible models for the relationship between traits and behavior, while 41

the model for the affiliation motive does not provide a plausible explanation for the trait behavior relationship.

Power analysis

While a power analysis was not possible prior to collecting this data, it is however important to complete a post hoc power analysis to determine if the sample size was large enough to detect a reasonable effect. The power analysis for structural equation modeling is done with the RMSEA, the measure of fit described above. Thus this post hoc power analysis was conducted to determine if the lack of good fit for two of the models might be due to insufficient sample size.

The post hoc power analysis completed here helps determine if there were enough subjects to reach a .8 power threshold. A power of .8 means that given it is the object to find a close fit ( :::.05 RMSEA) it is possible to accurately reject a poor fitting model (?:.10 RMSEA) 80% of the time if the model is in fact a poor fit. To do a power analysis it is necessary to compare two hypothetical models with different levels of RMSEA. In this case the two levels of RMSEA used were .05 and .10. These levels were chosen because they represent a model that at the high end but just inside the close fit range and the other just inside but at the low end of the poor fit range. Through this comparison of hypothetical models with these two levels ofRMSEA (.05 and .10), one can determine the number of subjects required to achieve power of .8 (or 80%). Table 10 holds the results of this analysis.


Model Degrees of Power with 105 Participants needed
freedom participants for power of .80
Power Motive 8 .30 376
Affiliation Motive 26 .61 152
Achievement Motive 26 .61 152 Table 10. Power Analysis usmg RMSEA

As can be seen in table 10 power is a function of degrees of freedom in such a

way that the more degrees of freedom (i.e. the more complex the model) the fewer

subjects are needed to reach the same power. So, for the two more complex models,

those being affiliation and achievement, only 47 more subjects would be needed to reach

a power of .80. Alternatively, the power motive model with only 8 degrees of freedom

would need approximately 271 more participants to reach a power of .80. Overall the

conclusion that can be drawn from the power analysis is that while all three models lack

sufficient power, the power motive model suffers the most from lack of power. While it

is likely that additional subjects would also change (and possibly strengthen) the

parameter estimates in each of these models, this power analysis is based on estimates of

fit, which means that more power is likely to give a better indication of fit of the model.




This study examined the relationship between traits and behavior using three different types of motivation: power motivation, affiliation motivation, and achievement motivation. Levels of these traits were measured using scales selected from self-report instruments. Through the use of structural equation modeling the results of these measures were compared to ratings on sets of behaviors that were hypothesized to follow from these traits.

Hypothesis one predicted that the greater an individual's power motive, the more likely power behaviors would occur in that individual. While support was not found for this hypothesis, some useful results were found through the analysis of the power motive model. Specifically, the parameter estimates for this model indicate that it is possible to measure the power trait because there is convergence from the different trait scales to the trait. Convergent validity was also found in the ratings of power behaviors by the participant's managers.

The second hypothesis predicted that the greater an individual's affiliation motive the more likely the affiliation behaviors would occur in that individual. As with power trait-behavior relationship the affiliation trait-behavior relationship was not supported in this analysis, and convergent validity was found for both the trait measures and the


behavioral ratings for affiliation. Some additional information that might be useful for any possible future consideration is that the caring scale did not have a significant relationship with the affiliation trait, and affiliation behavior-interpersonal savvy relationship had a boundary value of 1 as a parameter estimate. These findings would indicate that the caring scale could be dropped as a measure of affiliation. Also, the parameter estimate of one for the affiliation behavior-interpersonal savvy might indicate that affiliation may need to be measured by more than two scales.

Finally, the third hypothesis predicted that the greater an individual's achievement motive, the more likely achievement behaviors would occur in that individual. Support was found for this hypothesis. Through analysis of the achievement motive model it also became clear that the trait measures are good indicators of the achievement trait and the behavioral ratings are good measures of achievement behaviors. All relationships in this model are significant (p < .01). This encouraging finding may in part be attributed to the fact that this model has more behavioral rating scales, which offer a more complete representation of the behavioral construct than is possible with only two scales in each of the other two models.

Of the three hypotheses proposed it is fairly clear from the results above that this data set does not provide support for the relationship between power and affiliation traits and the behaviors that were predicted here to follow from these traits. On the other hand the trait of achievement as measured here did show significant relationship with achievement behaviors. So why was there so little support for two of the three proposed hypotheses? First, the limitations ofthis research are covered, after which the specific


problems that may have contributed to the lack of support for the power and affiliation trait-behavior relationships is addressed.


This research was subject to at least four limitations that could have biased the results. First, although the sample size was generous by some standards the power analysis indicated that a larger sample might have been more appropriate, at least as the measure of fit was concerned. A second limitation and another issue with the sample is that it is fairly homogenous. The vast majority of the participants are white males between the ages of 30 and 50. More important than their age, gender, and race similarities is the fact they are all well educated. With few exceptions the participants have received special training as engineers, or special on-the-job training.

The third limitation worthy of note is that the measures used were predetermined by the consultant and client, based on the needs of the client. The most serious concern with this issue is that the trait measures and the behavioral ratings could not be matched through a unifying theory, or some other means prior to their selection. More on how this might have specifically effected results is explained below. Finally, Miner and McClelland recommend the use of projective tests to measure power, affiliation and achievement motive. The trait measures in this work were of the direct questionnaire type and may not have tapped into the three different types of motives as well as carefully interpreted projective tests may have.

While limitations are endemic to virtually all behavioral research, the concern here is not that one of these issues may limit the usefulness of the findings, but that together these issues may cause more of a problem than anyone alone. While the


combined effects of these limitations is a concern, some hope is gained by the fact that one of the trait-behavior relationships was found to be significant, which indicates that at least some of the predicted effect has been uncovered. Some of these limitations are addressed below more specifically as speculation is made about why support was not found for hypotheses addressing power and affiliation.

Possible Explanations for the Lack of Support for Power and Affiliation

Now that the general limitations have been noted, it is now time to look at the more specific problems in this research which may have contributed to lack of support for two of the hypotheses.

The Possibility of Range Restriction

One of the first concerns was the possibility of range restriction due to the use of a fairly homogenous sample (i.e. mostly well-educated technical employees, like engineers). It was relatively easy to check for range restriction on the trait measures because scale means and standard deviations from a standardization sample were available. To try to understand if range restriction was an issue with the trait measures, the sample means and standard deviations were compared to the means and standard deviations of the standardization sample. It was only possible to make these comparisons for the trait measures since the behavioral ratings were developed specifically for this project. Table 4 above shows the comparison between the standardization sample statistics and the current sample's statistics.

A quick visual inspection of this table indicates that there are only a few cases in which much of a difference exists between the standardization sample statistics and the sample statistics. Because there are so few cases where the point differences of the


standard deviations are more than a fraction of a point, it was felt that significance testing for these few cases was not necessary. Since restriction of range did not appear to be a problem, it was necessary to search elsewhere for an explanation for the weak relationship between traits and behaviors.

A Measurement Issue

If it is assumed that the overall model for leadership effectiveness (fig. 4) is viable, there are at least two possible reasons why the results here do not support the model. One of the reasons is theoretical and one involves measurement. The basis of the measurement problem is that the constructs used here are broad enough that even with an agreed upon definition it is possible to measure some aspects of the trait and not measure other aspects of the trait.

To give an example of how this measurement issue might be a problem, look at an example from the affiliation motive model. The outgoing trait measure is defined as measuring how cheerful, sociable and inclined to talk to people one is. On the behavioral side of this model interpersonal savvy is defined as relating well to people at all levels, able to build appropriate rapport, builds constructive relationships and uses diplomacy and tact. While these two constructs had the strongest relationships to their respective trait and behavioral latent variables it is possible to see how one could be outgoing, using this definition, without displaying behaviors that fit into the interpersonal savvy set of behaviors. While power and achievement tend to be more easily defined constructs, how one affiliates with others can vary greatly depending on how, and who they choose to affiliate with. Since affiliation can encompass such a broad range of behaviors it may not


be that surprising that the affiliation trait and behaviors as rated using the current scales may have been measuring different parts of the affiliation construct.

This problem may have been exacerbated by the fact that the measures and ratings used in this data set were predetermined, and not chosen based on how well they matched each other. The potential for a measurement problem could have been reduced if the trait measures and behavioral ratings had been matched to cover the same aspects of either power, affiliation or achievement motivation. Matching the trait measures and behavioral ratings would have helped insure that they were not measuring different aspects of power affiliation, or achievement, but instead were accessing the same or similar aspects of each construct.

One way to get a basic feel for whether the trait measures and behavioral ratings are accessing similar aspects of a given construct, is to look at the correlations between the trait measures and the behavioral ratings within a given model. To do this, let us look at the correlation tables provided in the results section of this thesis. As can be seen in the shaded areas of tables 4 and 5, only around half of the correlations between the trait measures and the behavioral ratings in the power and affiliation motive models were above .10, and none of the trait-behavior correlations were above .15. This may be an indicator that the traits measures are not measuring the same aspects of the power and affiliation constructs as the behavioral ratings are. Even when looking at the achievement motive model in table 6, only five of the twenty direct trait-behavior correlations are in the .2 to .3 range, with ten of the 15 remaining falling below .I. These correlations may be indicating that the trait measures are measuring different aspects of the power, affiliation, or achievement constructs than the behavioral ratings are able to access.


Theoretical Issues

The other issue is theoretical and has two parts. First, it was the author's intention to test a part of the framework proposed in figure 4 at the beginning of this thesis, unfortunately this may not be possible. That is while acknowledging early on in this thesis that situational factors have a moderating effect on behaviors, no information was available in this data set that gave insight to what situational factors might be effecting behavior and/or how they might be effecting it.

The second part of the theoretical issue deals with a potential shortcoming in the way the overall framework (fig. 4) was interpreted for this research. While the framework suggests that traits affect behaviors it was assumed that a specific trait and its corresponding behaviors could be separated and looked at individually. It may, in fact, be impossible to determine how one trait leads to a specified set of behaviors. Instead it may be necessary when trying to understand the trait-behavior relationship to look at how sets of traits cause certain behaviors.

Suggestions for Future Research

It is hoped that the inability of these data to provide support for two of the traitbehavior relationships does not discourage future work in trying to explore other traitbehavior relationships. The data used here came with limitations because the trait measures and behavioral measures were not derived from a unifying theory. Any future research in this area could be improved by more carefully matching the trait measures that were used to predict the corresponding sets of behaviors. It would also be a good idea to better balance the number of trait measures with the number of behavioral ratings


within a given model so that each construct has a minimum of around four indicators to ensure proper coverage of both the trait and behavioral constructs.

Also, data used in this thesis included no situational information, and situational factors were most certainly at work in this organization at the time of the data collection. Accounting for situational factors may make it possible to better understand the traitbehavior relationship. With the situational information in hand it would be possible to either control for situational factors or to include their effects to see how they might effect the trait-behavior relationship. Either way, once trait-behavior relationship is better understood future research could then use this knowledge to better predict leadership effectiveness.

Future research in this area may be encouraged by the significant relationships that the trait measures showed with their respective trait variables, and the significant relationships the behavioral ratings showed with their respective behavioral factors. These strong relationships may indicate that it is possible to tap into the traits measured and/or behaviors rated here, and that better matching of traits and behaviors or the consideration of situational factors may be the key to understanding how traits effect or lead to behaviors.

Implications and Contributions

There are a number of implications and contributions that can be taken from this work. The first implication of the findings here is to affirm the ability to measure trait and behavioral constructs. In all of the three models tested here, relatively strong convergence is found when identifying either traits or behaviors. While this finding is by no means new it offers additional encouragement for those who attempt to measure traits


with direct questionnaires, and behaviors with behaviorally anchored rating scales. A second implication is that it may in fact be possible to predict that sets of behaviors will be more likely to occur given that a person has a high level of a given trait. Although much more empirical work is needed to support this idea, the support for the achievement trait-behavior relationship in this thesis provides encouragement for further exploration of the trait-behavior relationship.

A contribution of this thesis was to provide evidence for the trait-behavior relationship that avoided at least one type of measurement bias. Because traits were measured by self-report, and behaviors were rated by others, the measurement bias that may be present if only one type of measure is used was avoided. Because significant results are more difficult to obtain when different types of measures are used, the significant finding here may be more encouraging to future trait-behavior research.

Probably the most important contribution of this thesis is making explicit the relationship between traits and behaviors that has been implied in the leadership literature (Vroom, 1997; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). It is not clear why this relationship has not been suggested more explicitly, but as suggested earlier the sequence in which the leadership approaches evolved may provide some of the explanation. Because the rise of the behavioral approach may have been in part a reaction to the inconclusiveness of the trait approach, it may have been difficult to see that the two approaches might be compatible or even complimentary. Whatever the reason, the trait-behavior relationship is surprisingly disregarded in the leadership literature, and deserves some exploration.


Review and Conclusions

In the organizational leadership literature the trait-behavior relationship has been implied but not explored (Vroom, 1997 ; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). This work has suggested an overall framework (figure 4) for predicting leadership effectiveness, and has tested a portion of it. The portion of the overall framework that was tested focused on the relationships between traits and behaviors. The traits that were examined here include power motive, affiliation motive, and achievement motive. Significant relationships were not found between power motive and affiliation motive and ratings on specific sets of behavior that were thought to follow from each of these traits. A significant positive relationship was found between achievement motive and ratings on specific sets of behaviors that were thought to follow from this trait. If the limitations mentioned above can be overcome, future research may find further support for the relationship between leadership relevant traits and behaviors.



Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Browne, M. W., & Mels, G. (1997). Chapter 18: Path Analysis: RAMONA, SYSTAT 7.0 for Windows: Statistics (pp. 607-665).

Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.

Fiedler, F. E. (1986). The contribution of cognitive resources to leadership performance.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 532-548.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description so supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1-6.

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

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (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: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). The managment of organized behavior (3rd ed. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business, 3((Fall)), 81-98.


Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1952). Some recent findings in human relations research. In E.

Swanson, T. Newcomb, & E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. (1951). Productivity, supervision and morale among railroad workers. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan.

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an office situation. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute For Socal Research.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, 1. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22,375-403.

Kieser, A. (1984). How does one become an effective manager? In 1. G. Hunt, D.

Hosking, C. A. Schrisheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers:

International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership (pp. 90-94). New York: Pergamon Press.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36-51.

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1996). For your improvement: A development and coaching guide. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited, Inc.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). N-achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389-392.

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.

McClelland, D. C. (Ed.). (1977). Entrepeneurship and management in the years ahead.

Altanta: Georgia State University, College of Business Administration.

McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human Motivation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 737-743.

Miner, 1. B. (1978). Twenty years of research on role motivation theory of managerial effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 31, 739-760.


Miner, 1. B. (1985). Sentence completion measures on personnel research: The development and validation of the Miner Sentence Completion Scales. In H. 1. Bernardin & D. A. Bownas (Eds.), Personality assessment in organizations (pp. 145-176). New York: Praeger.

Pfeffer, 1., & Salancik, G. R. (1975). Determinants of supervisory behavior: A role set analysis. Human Relations, 28, 139-153.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behavior: Fact of fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34,21-63.

Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1),140-154.

Steiger, 1. H., & Lind, 1. C. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometiric Society, Iowa City, Iowa.

Stewart, R. (1982). Chioces for the manager: A guide to understanding managerial work.

Englewood Cliffs, Nl: Prentice Hall.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Tsui, A. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34,64-96.

Vroom, V. (1997). Can leaders learn to lead? In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership:

Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (Vol. 8, pp. 278-291). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6,414-440.

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, Nl: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (1987). A new taxonomy for integrating diverse perspectives on managerial behavior. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association meeting, New York.

Yukl, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations (Second Edition ed.). Englewood Cliffs, Nl: Prentice Hall.


YukI, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and reserch on leadership in organizations.

In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbood of Industrial-Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 147-197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

YukI, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary reprot on validation of the managerial practices survey. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 223-238). West Orange, New Jersey: Leadership Libraries of America.

YukI, G. A. (1998). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.



Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales


~ §

o .-

o ....

....:l g

• •




• •


• •

• •


• •

• •

• •

• • •


• •

• •



• •

• •


Q) s:::




8 g

o ,.D









Trait Measurement Scales


Trait Scales from the Motivation Questionnaire


The power scale is concerned with the extent to which people are motivated by the opportunities for exercising authority, taking responsibility, negotiating and being in a position to influence others. A typical positive loading item is "Having to decide about another employee's future", while a typical negative loading item is "Not directing the work of others".


The affiliation scale concerns the extent to which individuals are motivated by opportunities for interaction with other people in their work. A typical positive loading item is "An emphasis on team work in the job", while a typical negative loading item is "Having little contact with colleagues".


The activity scales concerns the extent to which people are motivated by having to work under pressure and accomplish a great deal within a rapid time frame. A typical positive loading is "Being required to do several things at once", while a typical negative one is "Being able to take my time over jobs".


The achievement scale concerns the extent to which people are motivated by being given challenging targets and feeling that their abilities are stretched. A typical positive loading 68

item is "Having a job that challenges my abilities", while a typical negative one is "Having no targets to meet".


The competition scale concerns the extent to which people are motivated by the knowledge that they are working in a competitive environment. A typical positive loading item is "Knowing if I work hard I can be the best in the Department", while a typical negative loading item is "The lack of any competition in the organization".

The Format of the Motivation Questionnaire

The items on the motivation questionnaire are written in present continuous tense with the answer option completing the sentence. As an example, the present tense of" I am closely supervised in the job" would be "Being closely supervised on the job ... ". This format encourages the respondent to identify with the situation or condition presented to them.

There are five standard answer options on the motivation questionnaire which complete the sentence of each item. They are:

A. Greatly reduces my motivation to work.

B. Tends to reduce my motivation to work.

C. Has no effect on my motivation to work. D. Greatly increases my motivation to work. E. Greatly increases my motivation to work.


Trait scales from the Occupational Personality Questionnaire


The persuasive scale concerns how much people enjoy selling, negotiating and winning others over to their point of view. A typical positive loading is "I enjoy selling ideas to clients", while a typical negative item is "I find influencing the outcome of decisions difficult" .


The controlling scale concerns how much people like taking charge of others, managing, directing and telling people what to d. A Typical positive loading item is "I like directing the work of others", while a typical negative item is "I prefer to let others take control of situations" .


The independent scale concerns both how strongly people hold their views and go on their own way and also how much they are prepared to voice those views, even if opposed. A typical positive Loading item is "I don't mind if my beliefs are at odds with other people's", while a typical negative item is "I would rather keep quiet than be seen to disagree".


The outgoing scale concerns how cheerful, sociable and inclined to talk people tend to be.


A Typical positive loading item is "I am lively and talkative at social events", while a typical negative one is "Others would describe me as a quiet person".


The affiliative scale concerns how much people need the company of others and how inclined they are to want close ties and friendships. A typical positive loading item is "I form strong attachments to people", while at typical negative loading item is "I prefer my own company to that of other people".


The socially confident scale concerns how comfortable people feel in the company of others, particularly strangers, including situations where larger numbers of people are involved, such as presentations. A typical positive loading item is "I usually feel at ease with people", while a typical negative loading item is "I tend to feel nervous around strangers" .


The caring scale concerns how prepared people are to listen to the personal problems of others as well as how concerned they are with people's feelings and with welfare issues. A typical positive loading item is "I deal sympathetically with people who have personal problems", while a typical negative loading item is "I expect people to sort out their own problems".



The innovative scale concerns how much people feel that they generate ideas and original solutions to problems. A typical positive loading item is "I find it easy to generate new ideas", while a typical negative loading item is "Creative ideas to not come easily to me".


The conscientious scale concerns a keenness to persevere with routine tasks, keep rigidly to deadlines and to make sure that jobs are completed. A typical positive loading item is "I will persevere until the job is done", while a typical negative loading item is "It is OK to leave a few loose ends on ajob if you have done most of it well".


The critical scale concerns both how much people enjoy probing the facts and critically evaluating plans and also how much they are prepared to voice those criticisms and challenge others. A typical positive loading item is "I often questioned other people's ideas", while a typical negative loading item is "If someone tells me something, I assume they are correct".


The competitive scale concerns how much people need to wi, hate to lose and like to beat others at all costs. A typical positive loading item is "I am determined to beat the opposition", while a typical negative loading item is "Enjoying an activity is more important than winning".



The achieving scale concerns how important career ambition is in people's lives, how high they set their sights and how much precedence work takes over other commitments, such as family and social life. A typical positive loading item is "I place my career above everything else", while a typical negative loading item is "I prefer to set targets which are fairly easy to achieve".

Format of the of Occupational Personality Questionnaire

The questions in the Occupational personality questionnaire are in present tense and have five response possibilities.

1. strongly disagree

2. disagree

3. unsure

4. agree

5. strongly agree



Correlations Among All Trait Measures and Behavior Rating Scales


lU:lp!JUO::> AIIIlpoS


P:llU:l!JO UO!PV


I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ I~ ~ I~ I~ I~ IS! ~ IC'

I~ I~ I~ I~ ~* I~ I~ 1:0 ~ Ig Ig ~ ; 1:o11J


1~1~1~1~1~lsl~ISI~I$ S! I~I~I~ _ ]

I~I~I~I~ISI~I~I::I~I~I~ ~ I~I~I~I~I ~ ~ ~

llU!ll:lS AlPO!Jd


SJ:ll(lO llU!lIlA!l°W



,-.._ ...t:::
'"0 Q)
.2 CO
.C; '"d
I §
Q) Vl
;> I-<
.2 ;:l
- ro
0 Q)
Q) ::s
..s:: ...
.... ·ca
ro I-<
.... f-<
s:: -
ro -
o ~
·a OJ:)
Of) 0
·Cii S
.~ ~
s:: Vl
.9 1=1
.... 0
ro .-§
t: -
0 t::
'" 0
Q) U
o 00
:.a Q)
.s ::c
* ro
* r- ~ ilu!A:I!lJ:lV ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~~~~



o '-'


Al!A!PV JO PA:l1

., ~ .,
> .e
... .~ ] 'OJ
., ::s >
~ ~ c:: 0
0 ., 0 c::
~~ u .5 00 Q)


* * ("<)


* * * * r-. ("<)



Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful