40603704

The Relationship Between Leadership And Management: An Empirical Assessment
Author(s): Avis L. Johnson and Fred Luthans

Source: Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 1990), pp. 13-25
Published by: Pittsburg State University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40603704
Accessed: 13-03-2018 06:56 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40603704?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Pittsburg State University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Managerial Issues
This content downloaded from 14.142.16.3 on Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:56:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES
Vol. II Number I Spring 1990 : 13-25
The Relationship Between

Leadership And Management:
An Empirical Assessment
Avis L. Johnson
Assistant Professor of Management
University of Akron
Fred Luthans
George Holmes Distinguished Professor of Management
University of Nebraska
There is much confusion and na- to see if a managerial activities ap-
ive assumptions are made about theproach can uniquely add to a
relationship between leadership widely recognized leadership expla-
and management. Practitioners nation of important outcome vari-
and, especially, academic research- ables such as performance,
satisfaction, and commitment.
ers generally treat the terms inter-
changeably or arbitrarily make oneMore precisely, the question inves-
the subset of the other. Like the tigated was the following: Do man-
agerial activities explain additional
weather, everyone talks about lead-
ership and management (leaders variance in outcome variables mea-
and managers), but very few op- suring performance, satisfaction,
erationally define the terms and and commitment beyond that ac-
counted for by widely recognized
can empirically verify what, if any,
leader behaviors?
relationship there is between them.
A critical question for the future
effectiveness of organizations inDEFINING LEADERSHIP
both the private and public sectors BEHAVIORS
is whether the traditional vague
Both leadership and manage
view of leadership is sufficient or
ment have lacked precise ope
should specific managerial activities
be included in the concept of tional definitions over the years
leadership? the area of leadership, Mintzb
The purpose of this article is to perhaps best summarized the c
report the results of an empirical rent situation when he declared,
assessment of the relationship be- "Indeed, the object of leadership
tween leadership and management research is to define leadership!"
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990
(13)
14 Avis L. Johnson and Fred Luthans
(Mintzberg, 1982: 256). Because

what the specific traits are or what
there has been no agreed uponthe op-
leader really does or does not
do. Rather, it is what subordinates
erational definition of leadership,
the definitions have varied with theperceive the leader does that
person using the term. counts. For example, the head of
The trait approach dominated the production department may
the discussion of leadership in the not really support his people for
1950's and 1960's. This classic ap- promotions and increased pay with
proach centered on the identifica- upper level management, but if his
tion of characteristics that would people think that he does, then that
differentiate leaders from non- is all that matters.
leaders and effective from ineffec- Just as there have been contro-
tive leaders. Although almost all versy and disagreement surround-
traits were proposed, only intelli-ing leadership viewed as a set of
gence and large size have held uptraits or properties, leadership
with any degree of consistencystudied as an influence process is
when empirically tested. Also, atalso characterized by diversity of
first, the trait approach only rec-definition. The findings of the pi-
ognized leadership as a property of oneering Ohio State leadership
the person, but later it emphasized studies have driven the widely rec-
that the importance of traits variedognized two-dimensional meaning
with situational factors (Bass, of leadership as initiating structure
1981). The best overall conclusionand consideration. Leaders who in-
seems to be that leaders are bigger itiate or provide structure set the
and brighter than those being led, direction of the work unit, organize
but not too much so. their employees and define their
The concept of leadership as roles,a often assigning them to par-
trait existing in others' perceptionsticular tasks, emphasizing dead-
rather than within the leader is the lines, and establishing commu-
more recent contribution of the at- nication channels. The leader's em-
tribution approach (Calder, 1977; phasis is on performance and on
McElroy and Shrader, 1986). Ac- getting the job done.
cording to attribution theory, lead- The same leaders also demon-
ership is inferred from direct strate consideration to employees
observation of behavior or indi-by showing concern for their wel-
rectly from second-hand informa-fare. The leader may do this by
praising them for meeting per-
tion. In Calder's words, "leadership
exists only as a perception. .formance
. . deadlines, strengthening
The problem for future research their
is self-esteem by treating them
not merely what variables affectwith
the respect, putting their sugges-
tions into operation, and consid-
perception of leadership. Research
must be directed at the underlying
ering their feelings and satisfaction.
Fleishman, reviewing the twenty-
nature of the leadership attribution
process" (Calder, 1977: 202). year history of research on these
Thus, under this approach, per- two dimensions of initiating struc-
ceptions of leader behaviors be- ture and consideration (Fleishman,
come important. It doesn't matter 1953, 1957; Halpin and Winer,
The Relationship Between Leadership And Management 15
1957; Hemphill and Coons,nitions

1957), of management coming
defined leadership as "attempts at
from pioneering theorists such as
interpersonal influence, directed
Fayol who identified the functions
through the communication of plan,
pro- organize, command, co-
ordinate,
cess, toward the attainment of someand control, or Koontz
andissue
goal or goals, with the key O'Donnell who used the func-
being that of affecting others' be-
tions of plan, organize, staff, direct,
havior" (Fleishman, 1973: 3). and control to structure their clas-
Although there are manysic text were largely "folklore"
other
approaches to leadership (Mintzberg, (e.g., 1975). Based on obser-
Fiedler's contingency model, vations
1967;of five CEO's, Mintzberg
path-goal theory, Evans, 1970, put managers
and into a typology of
House, 1971; and the most recent three major roles: interpersonal
transformational model, Tichy and (figurehead, leader, liaison), infor-
Devanna, 1986) that give a differ- mational (monitor, disseminator,
ent slant to the definition of lead- spokesperson) and decisional (en-
ership, the original Ohio Statetrepreneur, disturbance handler,
dimensions of initiating structure resource allocator, negotiator). Fol-
and consideration are still probablylowing Mintzberg, Kotter (1982),
the most widely recognized. These based on his study of 15 general
two dimensions were used to define managers, concluded that they
and operationalize leadership in"network" to accomplish their
the present analysis. "agendas." Most recently, on the
basis of a four year study involving
the direct observation of 248 man-
DEFINING MANAGERIAL
ACTIVITIES agers at all levels and all types of
organizations, Luthans and his col-
Analogous to leadership, leagues
there concluded that "real man-
have been controversy and agers"
lack of carry out traditional
agreement on the definitions of
management activities (planning
and controlling), human resources
management. Although research
on specific managerial activities
activities (staffing, training/devel-
(Carlson, 1951; Guest, 1956; Jas-
oping, reinforcing/motivating, dis-
inski, 1956) goes back as far as the
ciplining/punishing, and managing
Ohio State leadership studies, for and networking (socializ-
conflict),
ing/politicking
years normative definitions of man- and interacting with
agement have been used (e.g., outsiders) (Luthans, Hodgetts, and
Fayol, 1949; Koontz and O'Don- Rosenkrantz, 1988).
nell, 1976). Only recently, spurred These types of studies, that
on by the original work of Mintz- mostly observe managers in their
berg (1973), has there been con- natural settings, have become
cern with what managers really do known as a managerial activities ap-
(Kotter, 1982; Luthans, Hodgetts, proach. This managerial activities
and Rosenkrantz, 1988; Luthans, approach parallels in many ways
Rosenkrantz, and Hennessey, what has occurred in the study of
1985). leadership. The managerial activi-
Mintzberg found that the defi- ties identified by Luthans et al.
16 Avis L. Johnson and Fred Luth ans
(1988) are used in the present Samples and Unit of Analysis

analysis.
The first sample consisted of 7
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDIES
managers and 187 of their subor
dinates and the second had 87
The time seems right to bring managers and 335 of their subor-
the leadership behavior and dinates. man- They represented a wide
agerial activities approaches variety
to- of organizations including
gether. A dozen years ago, financial, manufacturing, retail,
Schriesheim and Kerr (1977) sug- and service industries and the pub-
gested that the heavy emphasis onlic sector. The majority of the man-
the study of leader behavior may agers were well educated, had
have resulted in underemphasis onposition tenure of one to five years,
managerial activities. They antici-and organizational tenure of six or
pated that a larger proportion ofmore years. As would be expected,
variance could be explained and the subordinates in the sample had
predicted by a definition of leader less formal schooling, were
behavior that was broader than the younger than their supervisors,
two dimensional construct of initi- and had position tenure of one or
ating structure and consideration. more years.
Five years later, Hunt, Sekaran, The unit of analysis for the stud-
and Schriesheim (1982) made the ies was the manager's leader be-
call again for the integration of haviors and managerial activities as
managerial activities and leaderperceived by subordinates within
behavior. the work unit. That is, the subor-
For selection and development, dinates filled out questionnaires de-
the relationship between leadership scribing their managers. The
and management also has impor- questionnaire responses of subor-
tant practical implications. This dinates for each target manager,
defined as one who held the formal
analysis answers the call by com-
bining leadership behavior and role of a manager in a work or-
managerial activities into one ganization, were pooled for data
model that attempts to explain cri- analysis. Pooling is often done be-
terion variance. In particular, the cause of the difficulty of holding
studies examined whether a man- leader behaviors constant. The ac-
agerial activities approach can add curacy of leader behavior descrip-

to the variance of important out- tions when used as independent
come variables such as effectiveness variables, as in this study, is thus
and satisfaction beyond what is al- aided when the study involves mul-
ready accounted for by the widelytiple leaders and multiple subor-
recognized leadership behaviors of dinates (Butterfield and Bartol,
initiating structure and consid-1977).
eration.
Two field studies were con-
Measures of the Independent
ducted. The following describes the
Variables
samples, unit of analysis, measures,
and statistical procedures used.
The independent variables in the
studies were leader behaviors and be "Could be expected to set g

managerial activities. The consid-and then hold face-to-face meet-
eration and initiating structure ings with workers, giving specific
scales of the Leader Behavior De- instructions, reviewing dates, and
scription Questionnaire - Form determining
XII deadlines" for a high
(LBDQ-XII) developed by Stogdill, amount of this activity, and "Could
Goode, and Day (1962) were used be expected seldom to budget time
to assess leader behaviors. For between departments or work
these LBDQ scales, reliabilityareas" for a low amount of this ac-
re-
sults generally are quite high tivity.
(Bass, Controlling items included
1981) and in these two studies personal
the tours, inspections, tele-
reliability alpha coefficientsphone
were,inquiries, and the review of
respectively, .87 and .88 forreports
initi- to check products, services,
and
ating structure and .55 and .87 equipment. The human re-
for
consideration. source management items repre-
An instrument was developed to sented personnel activities such as
assess managerial activities. The screening applications, coaching,
questionnaire was based on nine and teaching work procedures as
managerial activity dimensions well as more human relations ac-
which originated from an earlier tivities such as interpersonal ne-
study (Luthans and Lockwood, gotiations between subordinates
1984) that made direct unstruc- and giving positive feedback and
tured observations of leaders. The praise. Networking items dealt with
instrument, called Leader Obser- organizational politics and interact-
vation System Questionnaire or ing with people outside the
LOSQ, is conceptually similar to organization.
those used in previous managerial These behaviorally specific items
activities studies. Although 12 di- on the LOSQ were developed from
mensions were identified in the behavioral incidents collected from
structured interviews with 165
original, three scales were formed
managers (not from the present
for use in the present studies: tra-
samples) and subjected to a re-
ditional management activities
translation procedure (Smith and
(planning and controlling); human
resource management activities Kendall, 1963). For the two studies,
reliability alpha coefficients for the
(staffing, training/developing, rein-
three scales of the LOSQ were as
forcing/motivating, disciplining/
follows: traditional management
punishing, and managing conflict);
activities, .77 and .57; human re-
and networking activities (socializ-
source management activities, .85
ing/politicking and interacting with
outsiders). and .80; and networking activities,
The planning items included .68 and .67.
goal setting, figuring work sched- In the first study conducted, the
ules and making assignments of LOSQ was formatted as a mixed
employees and materials. An ex- standard scale (MSS) (Blanz and
ample of an item asking the sub- Ghizelli, 1972). This MSS format
ordinates to describe their was used because several studies
(Dickinson
manager's planning activity wouldand Zellinger, 1980;
18 Avis L. Johnson and Fred Luth ans
used to measure subordinate com-

Finley, Osborn, Dublin, and Jean-
mitment (reliability alpha: .91 for
neret, 1977; Saal and Landy, 1977)
have suggested that it reduces both
halo studies).
and leniency rating errors. The
MSS is a derived scale, i.e., neither
Statistical Analysis Techniques
the dimension nor the level which
the scale items represent are ov- A four stage hierarchical multi-
ple regression procedure was per-
ertly identified for the raters. In
the second study, the LOSQ was formed for each dependent
reformatted as a behaviorally an- variable to determine if managerial
activities variables would contribute
chored rating scale (BARS) (Smith
and Kendall, 1963) instead of theto explaining any change in them.
mixed standard scale (MSS) to ob- At each stage of the regression pro-
tain subordinate responses to itemscedure, a statistic is obtained that
presented in a format with undis- shows how much the independent
variables that have been entered so
guised dimensions.
far contribute to the explanation of
the variance in the dependent var-
Measures of the Dependent Variables '
iable. In the first of the four stages,
Five dependent variables were independent variables which aren't
used in the studies. Overall effec- of primary interest but which
tiveness of the work unit, inclusive
might influence the dependent var-
of productivity, was assessed byiablea are entered. We, therefore,
standardized questionnaire (Mott, know how much of the total vari-
1972). The psychometric proper- ance they explain. At each subse-
ties of this effectiveness scale were quent stage, the increment in
quite good when Mott developed variance explained is due to the ad-
the scale which has since been used ditional variables entered at that
by leadership researchers such asstage. Cohen and Cohen (1975)
Schriesheim and Fulk (1981) withrecommend such a hierarchical
further psychometric support. Themodel for variance partitioning
reliability alphas for the presentwhen correlated independent var-
studies were .79 and .74 respec-iables, such as in the reported stud-
tively. In addition, supervisor influ-ies, are present.
ence on overall effectiveness was For these studies, to partial the
variance attributable to them, both
assessed by a 7-item scale presented
along with the Mott scale (al- supervisor and subordinate demo-
pha: .87 for both studies). graphic variables were entered in
The Job Description Index (JDI) stage one. All these demographics
(Smith, Kendall, and Hulin, 1969) had the potential to affect a sub-
was used to measure subordinate ordinate's ratings of the manager.
Specifically, the variables entered
satisfaction with supervision (relia-
were the supervisor's educational
bility alpha: .75 and .75) and with
pay (reliability alpha: .57 and
level and tenure in the present su-
pervisory position, as well as sub-
.67). The Organizational Commit-
ment Questionnaire (OCQ) (Mow- ordinate position tenure,
organizational tenure, status as a
day, Steers, and Porter, 1979) was
explanation of the criterion

supervisor, and social desirability.
Past research has shown that social variables.
desirability can affect the ratings At each stage of the hierarchical
(Crowne and Marlow, 1964; Gans-regression, the increment in Y var-
ter, Hennessey, and Luthans, iance was tested by means of an F
1983), so this potential was con- test using Model I error. On the
trolled in the studies. basis of a power analysis, this F test
In the second and third stages of was found to be appropriate for
the hierarchical regression the testing at the .01 significance level
leader behavior and managerial ac-with the number of subjects avail-
tivities variables were entered, re- able. The R-square (variance) in-
spectively, in order to assess their crement results for the two studies
unique contribution in explaining appear in Tables 1 and 2. For the
variance in the dependent variable. first study, the managerial activities
In stage four, interactions among variables uniquely provided expla-
the leader behavior and managerial nation for two dependent variables:
activities variables were entered to supervisor influence on work unit
overall effectiveness; and subordi-
be certain that the relationships be-
tween managerial activities and thenate commitment. For two other
dependent variables did not de-dependent variables - the overall
effectiveness of the work unit and
pend on the relationship between
managerial activities and leader
subordinate satisfaction with super-
behaviors. vision - the best explanation was
provided by the leader behaviors of
RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS consideration and initiating
structure.
Results of the second study,

The analysis attempted to answer
which utilized the BARS format for
the question of whether managerial
activities add to the explanation
the LOSQ, were stronger for man-
agerial activities, which uniquely
provided by the widely recognized
leadership behaviors of initiating provided explanation for four of
structure and consideration for the the dependent variables. For nei-
five dependent or criterion varia- ther study did leader behavior or
bles (subordinate assessment of sat- managerial activities variables pro-
isfaction with supervision, vide explanation for the dependent
satisfaction with pay, commitment, variable of subordinate satisfaction
the unit's overall effectiveness, and with pay.
the supervisor's influence on the
work unit's overall effectiveness). DISCUSSION AND
Results of the analysis of the four CONCLUSIONS
stage hierarchical multiple regres-
sion/correlation (MRC) model in- Everyone wonders about the re
dicated a positive answer to the lationship between leadership an
question. The addition of mana- management. It is very popular t
gerial activities variables to the question the usefulness of leader
leadership model does increase the ship, and there is a constant call fo
TABLE 1
R-SQUARE INCREMENT FOR HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
STUDY 1
Supervis.
Organ. Influence Satisfact. Satisfact.
Effect. Effect. Supervis. Pay Commitment
Stage 1:
Demographics .03 .04 .05* .05* .08***
Stage 2:
Leader Behav. .14*** .33*** .14*** q' 12***
Stage 3:
Managerial
Activities .00 .06*** .00 .00 .03*
Stage 4:
Interactions .04 .03 .03 .06* .03
*** = < .001; ** = < .01; * = < .05
TABLE 2
R-SQUARE INCREMENT FOR HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
STUDY 2
Supervis.
Organ. Influence Satisfact. Satisfact.
Effect. Effect. Supervis. Pay Commitment
Stage 1:
Demographics .02 .05** .02 .07*** .10***
Stage 2:
Leader Behav. .06*** .28*** .27*** .00 .13***
Stage 3:
Managerial
Activities .03* .06*** .03*** .02 .02*
Stage 4:
Interactions .05 .02 .03 .04 .02
*** = < .001; ** = < .01; * = < .05
leaders, do, i.e., their activities in

clarification of the concept (Bow-
ditch and Buono, 1985; Hunt andwork organizations? Thus, there is
Larson, 1979; Hunt, Sekaran and a call for managerial activities to be
Schriesheim, 1982; Stewart, 1982). included in any conceptual frame-
In particular, it is questioned work for leadership.
whether leadership as traditionally To take but one piece, but an
viewed is sufficient, or should it important empirical piece of the
also represent what managers, as leadership-management question,
the purpose of this analysis wasever,tofurther study may show that

explore whether managerial activ-
some activities might be core activ-
ities,
ities uniquely contributed to the ex-or generic activities, whereas
others may vary by managerial
planation of criterion variables
level and by type of industry. For
representing performance, satisfac-
example, most managers can be
tion, and commitment. The signif-
icant increment in outcome held responsible for motivating
variables variance beyond their
thatemployees,
al- regardless of
whether
ready accounted for by widely they're a first line super-
rec-
ognized leader behavior variables
visor or a vice president or whether
the industry is service or produc-
suggested that managerial activities
do have explanatory power and
tion. However, a real estate man-
should be included in an additive ager will be required to interact
model of leadership. with more people outside the com-
The practical implications of pany than will a production line su-
these results for managers are that pervisor whose primary activities
they must do more than clarify are planning and controlling pro-
tasks and show concern for em- duction, or even managing conflict.
ployees. In order for employees This to generalizability limitation,
believe that their managers influ- of course, should be taken into con-
ence the work unit effectiveness, sideration in planning future re-
they must believe managers also search. However, this is not a
are doing a lot of activities that go limitation uncommon to leadership
with the job. The results of the research. McCall and Lombardo
present studies indicate that the (1978) pointed out that a major
definition or definitions of leader- problem of leadership research is
ship should include both leader be- that the results have typically been
havior used with employees and generalized prematurely, especially
managerial activities performed asconsidering the correlational na-
part of the job. Today's organiza-ture of most analysis, the sampl
characteristics, measurement in-
tions would be wise to develop and
transform managers to take a struments, and other problems.
broader view of their role. These are also limitations of the
As with previous studies of thispresent research.
nature there were certain limita- Another obvious limitation
comes from the questionnaire gat
tions and they should be noted. For
example, the results are limitedered
in data. It must be remembered
the knowledge they can provide onthat the present research only pur-
ports to explore subordinate per-
the relationship between leadership
behavior and managerial activities ceptions of leader behavior and
that are both level and industry managerial activities and their re-
lationship to subordinate perceived
specific. It was not the intent of this
outcomes such as satisfaction with
analysis to provide this specific in-
formation. Instead, the aim was to supervision, subordinate commit-
look at general findings across ment, and overall effectiveness of
managers at various levels in dif- the work unit. It was beyond the
ferent types of organizations. How- scope of this research to relate the
independem variables to depend-

will result in answers to the validity
ent variables such as turnover and
of the managerial activities ques-
tionnaire instrument. Second, and
hard measures of performance.
This is also an area for future more important, there is a need to
research. move beyond dependent variables
Although this research had pro- which, as in this study, are percep-
vided beginning knowledge of the tual. The call to return to obser-
relationship between leader behav- vations of what managers do in
iors (operationally defined and, order to provide a better ground-
measured as consideration and in- ing for independent variables
should be extended to dependent
itiating structure) and managerial
variables as well.
activities (operationally defined and
measured as traditional manage- Although there is a need to rec-
ment functions, human resource ognize the limitations and need for
techniques, and networking), it has future research, the studies did em-
also served to open several ques- pirically demonstrate what many
tions for the future. First of all, al- leadership researchers and practic-
though perceptions definitely are ing managers have suspected over
of consequence, it must be remem- the years. There does seem to be
bered that this analysis dealt with a relationship between leadership
subordinate perceptions of differ- and management. Importantly, it
ent levels of managerial activities was found that managerial activities
and not actual amounts of behavior
add to the explanation that lead-
ership behaviors provide for per-
by managers. The relationship be-
tween perceived and actual mana-formance, satisfaction, and
gerial behavior needs to be commitment. Obviously, these
addressed in future research. We
studies are only the beginning, but
need answers to the questionthey
of do take an important, empir-
ically-based first step in clarifying
how the performance of different
amounts of managerial activities
the important relationship between
managers and leaders.
translates into perceived amounts.
This line of research hopefully also
References
Bass, B.M. 1981. StogdiWs Handbook of Leadership. A Survey of Theory

and Research. New York: The Free Press.
Blanz, F., and E.E. Ghizelli. 1972. "The Mixed Standard Scale: A New
Rating System." Personnel Psychology 25 (Summer): 185-199.
Bowditch, J.L., and A.F. Buono. 1985. A Primer on Organizational Be-
havior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Butterfield. D.A., and K.M. Bartol. 1977. "Evaluators of Leader Behavior:
A Missing Element in Leadership Theory." In Leadership: The Cutting
Edge. Eds. J.G. Hunt and L. L. Larson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Calder, B.J. 1977. "An Attribution Theory of Leadership." In

tions in Organizational Behavior. Eds. B.M. Staw and G.R
Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Carlson, S. 1951. Executive Behavior. A Study of the Work L
Working Methods of Managing Directors. New York: Arno Pres
Cohen, J., and P. Cohen. 1975. Applied Multiple Regression/C
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawren
Associates, Publishers.
Crowne, D.P., and D. Marlowe. 1964. The Approval Motive
Evaluative Dependence. New York: Wiley.
Dickinson, T.L., and P. M. Zellinger. 1980. "A Comparison of
iorally Anchored Rating and Mixed Standard Scale Formats."
Applied Psychology 65 (April): 147-154.
Evans, M.G. 1970. "The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on th
Relationship." Organizational Behavior and Human Perf
(May): 277-298.
Fayol, H. 1949. General and Industrial Management. Translated
ance Storrs. London: Pitman.
Fiedler, F.E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New Yo
McGraw-Hill.
Finley, D.M., H. G. Osborn, J.A. Dublin, and P.R. Jeanneret. 1977. "Be-
haviorally Based Rating Scales: Effects of Specific Anchors and Disguised
Scale Continua." Personnel Psychology 30 (Winter): 659-669.
Fleishman, E.A. 1953. "The Measurement of Leadership Attitudes in In-
dustry." Journal of Applied Psychology 37 (February): 153-158.
Behavior: Its Description and Measure

Coons. Columbus, OH: Ohio State Un
Research.
Ganster, D.C., H.W. Hennessey, and F. Luthans. 1983. "Social Desirability
Response Effects: Three Alternative Models." Academy of Management
Journal 26 (June): 321-331.
Guest, R.H. 1956. "Of Time and the Foreman." Personnel 32 (May): 478-
486.
Halpin, A.W., and B.J. Winer. 1957. "A Factorial Study of the Leader
Behavior Descriptions." In Leader Behavior: Its Description and Mea-
surement. Eds. R.M. Stogdill and A.E. Coons. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University, Bureau of Business Research.
Hemphill, J.K., and A.E. Coons. 1957. "Development of the Leader Be-
havior Description Questionnaire." In Leader Behavior: Its Description
and Measurement. Eds. R.M. Stogdill and A.E. Coons. Columbus, OH:
Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
House, R.J. 1971. "A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness." Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly 16 (September): 321-338.
Hunt, J.G., and L.L. Larson. 1979. Crosscurrents in Leadership. Carbon-
dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Views of Leadership: An Introduction."

lishment Views. Eds. J.G. Hunt, U. Seka
bondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Jasinski, FJ. 1956. "Foreman Relationship
sonnel 33 (September): 130-136.
Koontz, H., and C O'Donnell. 1976. Man
Hill.
Kotter, J.P. 1982. The General Managers.
Luthans, F., R.M. Hodgetts, and S.A. Ros
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Measuring Leader Behavior in Natural

and Leadersip. Eds. J. Hunt, D. Hoskin
New York: Permagon Press.
cessful Managers Really Do? An Obse

tivities." Journal of Applied Behaviora
McCall, M.W., and M.M. Lombardo. 1978. "Where Else Can We Go?" In
Leadership: Where Else Can We Go? Eds. M.W. McCall and M.M. Lom-
bardo. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McElroy, J.C, and C.B. Shrader. 1986. "Attribution Theory of Leadership
and Network Analysis." Journal of Management 12 (Fall): 351-362.
Mintzberg, H. 1975. "The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact." Harvard
Business Review 53 (Jan.-Feb.): 49-61.
Row.
Serving Leadership." In Leadership: Bey

J.G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, and C.A. Schries
Illinois University Press.
Mott, P.E. 1972. The Characteristics of Ef
Harper & Row.
Mowday, R.T., R.M. Steers, and L.W. Porter. 1979. "The Measurement of
Organizational Commitment." Journal of Vocational Behavior 14 (Oc-
tober): 224-247.
Saal, F.E., and FJ. Landy. 1977. "The Mixed Standard Scale: An Evalu-
ation." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 18 (February):
19-35.
Schriesheim, CA., and J.L. Fulk. 1981. "Subordinate Self-Perceptions of
Performance as a Moderator of the Effects of Directive Leadership: A
Path-Goal Theory Extension." Proceedings of the Academy of
Management.
Critical Appraisal of Current and

Cutting Edge. Eds. J.G. Hunt an
Illinois University Press.
Smith, P.C., and L.M. Kendall. 1963. "Retranslation of Expecta

Approach to the Construction of Unambiguous Anchors for
Scales." Journal of Applied Psychology 47 (April): 149-155.
in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Stewart, R. 1982. "The Relevance of Some Studies of Managerial Work
Behavior to Leadership Research." In Leadership: Beyond Establishment
Views. Eds. J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, and C.A. Schriesheim. Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Stogdill, R.M., O.S. Goode, and D.R. Day. 1962. "New Leader Behavior
Description Subscales." J ournal of Psychology 54 (October): 259-269.
Tichy, N.M., and M.A. Devanna. 1986. The Transformational Leader. New
York: Wiley.

40603704

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

40603704

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Relationship Between Leadership And Management: An Empirical Assessment

Author(s): Avis L. Johnson and Fred Luthans

The Relationship Between

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

(Mintzberg, 1982: 256). Because

1957; Hemphill and Coons,nitions

(1988) are used in the present Samples and Unit of Analysis

agerial activities approach can add curacy of leader behavior descrip-

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

studies were leader behaviors and be "Could be expected to set g

used to measure subordinate com-

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

explanation of the criterion

Results of the second study,

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

*** = < .001; ** = < .01; * = < .05

*** = < .001; ** = < .01; * = < .05

leaders, do, i.e., their activities in

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

the purpose of this analysis wasever,tofurther study may show that

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

independem variables to depend-

Bass, B.M. 1981. StogdiWs Handbook of Leadership. A Survey of Theory

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

Calder, B.J. 1977. "An Attribution Theory of Leadership." In

Behavior: Its Description and Measure

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

Views of Leadership: An Introduction."

Measuring Leader Behavior in Natural

cessful Managers Really Do? An Obse

Serving Leadership." In Leadership: Bey

Critical Appraisal of Current and

Smith, P.C., and L.M. Kendall. 1963. "Retranslation of Expecta

in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. II No. 1 Spring 1990

You might also like

* = < .001; = < .01; * = < .05

* = < .001; = < .01; * = < .05