238 BRIEF ARTICLES

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology.
New York: Academic Press, 1964. Pp. 191-229.
McGuiRE, W. J., & PAPAGF.ORGIS, D. The relative
efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in
producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 327-
337.
OSGOOD, C. E. Cognitive dynamics in the conduct of
human affairs. Piiblic Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24,
341-361
OSGOOD, C. E., Suci, G. J., & TANNENBAUM, P. H. The
measurement of meaning. Urbana: Univer. Illinois
Press, 1957.
OSGOOD, C. E., & TANNKNBAUM, P. H. The principle
of congruity in the prediction of altitude change.
Psychological Review, 19;5, 62, 42-55.
PAVAGEORGIS, D., & McGuiRE, W. J. The generality
of immunity to persuasion produced by pre-ex-
posure to weakened counterarguments. Journal oj
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 475-
481.
ROSENBERG, M. J., & ABELSON, R. P. An analysis of
cognitive balancing. In M. J. Rosenberg et al.,
Altitude organization and change. New Haven:
Yale Univer. Press, 1960. Pp. 112-163.
TANNHNBAUM, P. H. Initial attitude toward source
and concept as factors in attitude change through
communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1956,
20, 413-425.
(Received August 4, 1964)

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1966, Vol. 3, No. 2, 238-242

EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP STYLE UPON GROUP PERFORMANCE

AS A FUNCTION OF TASK STRUCTURE 1
2
MARVIN E. SHAW AND J. MICHAEL BLUM
University oj Florida

Fiedler's contingency model holds that directive leadership is more effective

when the group-task situation is either highly favorable or highly unfavorable
for the leader, whereas nondireclive leadership is more effective in the inter-
mediate ranges of favorabilily. An experiment was conducted to test the
generality of this hypothesis. 5-person groups attempted 3 tasks under either
directive or nondirective leadership. Leadership behavior was manipulated by
instructions. The 3 tasks were selected to vary along the solution multiplicity
dimension, hence presumed to reflect different levels of favorability for the
leader. The results indicated that the directive leader was more effective than the
nondirective leader only when the group-task situation was highly favorable
for the leader, thus only partially supporting the hypothesis.

Studies of the effects of leadership style
(autocratic versus democratic, directive versus
nondirective, etc.) upon group effectiveness have
yielded ambiguous and often contradictory re-
sults (Anderson & Fiedler, 1964; Fiedler, 1958;
Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; Preston & Heintz,
1949; Shaw, 1955). A theory proposed recently
by Fiedler (1964) suggests a possible explanation
of these inconsistent findings. His basic thesis
is that the type of leadership behavior required
for effective group performance is contingent
upon the favorableness of the group-task situa-
1 dimensions: the affective relation between the
This research was supported by the Office of
Naval Research, Contract NR 170-266, Nonr-
580(11). Reproduction in whole or in part is per-
mitted for any purpose of the United Slates
Government.
2 plicated, Fiedler suggests that the leaders rela-
Now with the American Institute for Research,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
tion for the leader, where favorableness refers
to the degree to which the group environment
makes it easy or difficult for the leader to in-
fluence group members. When the group-task
situation is either highly favorable or highly
unfavorable for the leader, controlling, managing,
directive leadership behavior is most effective,
whereas permissive, considerate, nondirective
leadership is needed for moderately unfavorable
group-task situations.
According to this theory, the favorableness
of the group-task situation is determined by three
leader and his members, the power inherent in
the leadership position, and the degree to which
the task is structured. Although it is recognized
that the interaction of these dimensions is com-
tions with his members is the most important,
 BRIEF ARTICLES
the structure of the task is next most important,
and inherent power of the leadership position is
least important for the favorableness continuum.
Once measures of the three dimensions are avail-
able, it is possible to order group-task situations
along the favorableness continuum, by first order-
ing the group-task situation on the basis of the
leader's relation with his group, then on the basis
of task structure, and lastly on the basis of
position power. This ordering may be considered
to be an operational definition of the favorability
continuum. The most favorable group-task situa-
tion is one in which leader-member relations
are good, the task is highly unstructured and the
position power is strong; the most unfavorable
group-task situation is one in which leader-
member relations are very poor, the task is
unstructured, and the position power is weak.
In support of his theory, Fiedler reexamined
the findings of several studies of leadership, in-
volving 21 different kinds of groups. In these
studies leader-member relations had been mea-
sured by a variety of self-report procedures
(sociometric choice, leader ratings of group
atmosphere, etc.). In Fiedler's reexamination,
task structure was operationally denned in terms
of four task dimensions (decision verifiability,
goal clarity, goal path multiplicity, and solution
specificity) suggested by Shaw (1963), and in-
herent power of the leadership position was
tentatively defined by a check-list rating of the
leader's position. Using these measures, a favor-
ability continuum was determined by the order-
ing procedure described above. Median correla-
tions between least preferred co-worker (LPC)
scores and group effectiveness scores were then
related to this favorableness continuum. This
yielded a U shaped curve showing that leaders
with low LPC scores (directive leaders) were
more effective at both extremes of the con-
tinuum, whereas leaders with high LPC scores
(nondirective leaders) were more effective in the
middle range of the favorableness continuum.
This support for the theory is impressive, but
is open to the objection that since the interpre-
tation is ex post facto it may not stand up under
cross-validation. Furthermore, leadership behav-
ior was inferred from personality scores, a
hazardous procedure at best. The purpose of the
present study is to test the generality of Fiedler's
theory by experimentally manipulating both the
group-task favorability dimension and the be-
havior of the leader.
METHOD
The experimental design was a mixed factorial,
involving two styles of leadership (directive and
239
nondirective) i and three degrees of group-task
favorability (high, moderate, and low).
Subjects
The subjects for this experiment were 90 male
undergraduates at the University of Florida. They
were randomly assigned to 18 five-member groups.
Nine groups worked under directive leadership and
9 under nondirective leadership.
Tasks
Each group attempted the same three tasks, which
were chosen to vary the favorability dimension, as
described below. Task A was a discussion task
adapted from Cleveland and Fisher (1957). It re-
quired the group to list the five most important
traits that a person needs for success in our culture.
Task B was a discusison task taken from a report
by Bass (1960) involving the case of a young
politician who is burdened with an alcoholic wife.
The group was asked to decide which of five pos-
sible courses of action would be the best one. Task C
called for the group to identify five objects
("wrench," "ruby," etc.) by asking questions (Smith,
1957). The subjects were given a clue that the object
was either vegetable, animal, or mineral, and then
permitted 40 questions to identify it. These tasks
have been described fully in an earlier report (Shaw,
1963).3
Experimental Manipulations
Leadership style. Type of leadership behavior was
manipulated by instructions to the assigned leader.
One member of each group was briefed in private by
the experimenter's assistant. He was then directed to
report to the experimental room in the same manner
as the other subjects. Half of the leaders were
instructed to behave in a controlling, directive man-
ner and the other half were instructed to be permis-
sive and nondirective in their behavior toward other
group members.
Group-task favorability. As Fiedler (1964) noted,
it is difficult to obtain a laboratory situation in
which affective leader-member relations are poor,
and when a leader is assigned to the group his power
position is strong. Hence, the group-task favorabil-
ity variable was manipulated by means of task
structure only. The three tasks were selected to vary
on the solution multiplicity dimension, based upon
the scale values determined by Shaw (1963) ; scale
values on other task dimensions were essentially
the same.
3
Copies of tasks, general instructions, and special
instructions to leaders have been deposited with the
American Documentation Institute. Order Document
No. 860S from ADI Auxiliary Publications Project,
Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress,
Washington, D. C. 20540. Remit in advance $1.25
for microfilm or $1,25 for photocopies and make
checks payable to: Chief, Photoduplication Service,
Library of Congress.
240 BRTKF ARTICLES

From this manipulation, it is clear that Ilic group-

task situation was most favorable lor Task C M KAN T l M K SCORES ( M l N U T U S ) I''"R LEAPEKS1J
(leadcr-mcmber relations good, position power AND TASK CONDITIONS
strong, task structured), most unfavorable for Task
A (leader-member relations good, position power Task
strong, task unstructured), and intermediate for
Task B (leader-member relations good, position
power strong, task moderately structured). Thus, A B c
directive leadership should be more effective for Directive 23.42 13.36 24.67
Tasks A and C, and nondirective leadership for (4.80) (3.71) (4.97)
Task B. Nondirective 16.76 5.29 34.73
(4.03) (2.36) (5.85)
Procedure
The five subjects in each group were seated around Note.—Mean transformed scores are given in parentheses.
an oval work table. Each person was given a copy
of the instructions so he could follow the experi- were transformed by the square-root transforma-
menter's verbal presentation. The instructions indi- tion prior to analysis. Table 1 gives the means
cated that the group would be asked to solve a of raw scores and of transformed scores for
number of tasks working together as a group, and
leadership and task conditions.
that Person A (the instructed subject) was appointed
leader to facilitate interaction. The instructions fur-
Analysis of variance yielded significant F
ther stated that the group must follow the leader's values for tasks (F = 31.96, df = 2/32, p < .01)
directions. and for the Leadership Style X Tasks interaction
The order in which the three tasks were presented (F=7.54, df-2/32, p < .01). For purposes
to the groups varied according to a systematic Latin of this study, the significant interaction term
square, such that each task was attempted first, is of greatest interest. Inspection of the data in
second, and third an equal number of limes. After Table 1 reveals that directive leadership was
each task was explained to the group, 5 minutes were more effective than nondirective leadership only
given for planning the method of attack. Records on Task C; on both Tasks A and B nondirective
were kept of time required for completion and of
final solutions for each of the tasks. After all three
leadership was more effective. Separate t tests
tasks had been completed, each subject responded revealed significant differences between leader-
to a questionnaire which called for ratings of satis- ship styles on Tasks B and C (p < .01 in each
faction with the group, group cooperation, group case), but the difference on Task A was not sig-
performance, leadership performance, and directive- nificant (p < .20). This finding only partially
ness of the leader's behavior. supports the prediction that directive leadership
should be more effective on both Task A and
RESULTS Task C.
Questionnaire data are given in Table 2,
Before examining the results, it is necessary broken down for leaders and followers taken
to inquire whether the leader's behavior was ma- separately. Although ratings of satisfaction, co-
nipulated in the intended direction. Evidence on operation, group performance, and leader per-
(his was obtained from the ratings of the leader. formance were all higher for nondirective than
Ratings on a S-point scale ranging from "very for directive leadership, differences were signifi-
directive" to "very nondirective" were asked for cant only for ratings of cooperation (p < .05).
in response to the question, "How would you None of the differences between leaders and
classify your leader?" Rating scores could range
from 1 for a "very nondirective" response to
5 for a "very directive" response. The mean TABLE 2
rating given by followers of leaders instructed MEAN RATINGS OF LEADERSHIP DIRECHVENESS,
SATISFACTION, COOPERATION, GROUP PERFOR-
to behave in a directive manner was 4.12 as MANCE, AND LEADER PERFORMANCE
compared with 3.52 for followers of nondirective
leaders (p < .02). The manipulation thus appears Diicclivc leader Nomlireetivt' leader
to have produced the intended differences, al-
though both types of leaders apparently were Leader Follower Leader Follower
seen as more directive than nondirective.
The time scores are the only measures of group Leader directiveness 3.78 4.12 2.94 3.52
performance that are comparable across tasks. Satisfaction 4.28 4.01 4.34 4.29
Cooperation 3.83 3.87 4.50 4.41
These scores were approximately normal in dis- Group performance 4.17 3.84 4.33 4.22
tribution, but the means and standard deviations Leader performance 2.84 3.20 3.67 3.74
tended to be correlated. Therefore, raw scores
 BRIEF ARTICLES
followers was significant, except for ratings of
leader directiveness. Leaders rated themselves
less directive than did their followers (p < .02).
DISCUSSION
The most useful results for evaluating Fied-
ler's contingency model are those obtained from
the time scores. Under the conditions established
in this experiment, it is clear that directive
leadership was more effective than nondirective
leadership only when the group-task situation was
highly favorable for the leader. Fiedler's model
predicts that the directive leader should also have
been more effective when the group-task situa-
tion was highly unfavorable, and to this extent
the present findings appear to be at variance with
the model. Obviously, this discrepancy may be
due either to a failure to manipulate the group-
task dimension effectively or to inadequacies of
the model.
The most likely explanation is that the highly
unfavorable situation (Task A) is, at most, only
moderately unfavorable. Favorability was manip-
ulated only by task structure as reflected by the
solution multiplicity task dimension. The task is
thus unstructured in the sense that there are
many possible solutions; however, the other
variables postulated as determinants of favor-
ability supposedly contributed to high favorabil-
ity. If this reasoning is correct, the conditions in
this experiment actually varied only from highly
favorable to moderately unfavorable, and the
findings agree with theoretical expectations.
Despite the apparent correctness of this in-
terpretation, there is some reason to believe that
the theory can be improved. Fiedler noted that
the model is an oversimplification, and pointed
to the difficulties in weighting the dimensions re-
flected by the favorability continuum. It is the
view of the writers that the oversimplification is
most evident with respect to the task structure
dimension. Differences among tasks that are rele-
vant to leadership requirements are almost cer-
tainly not limited to differences in task struc-
ture. For example, variations in difficulty and
cooperation requirements probably call for dif-
ferent leader behaviors. Furthermore, it seems
unlikely that the task structure dimension is un-
ambiguously related to the favorability contin-
uum. An unstructured task may in some instances
be favorable for the leader in the sense that it
encourages the members to accept his leadership.
On the other hand, a highly structured task may
be unfavorable to the leader in the sense that his
leadership is superfluous. In this case, directive
leadership might be superior to nondirective lead-
241
ership simply because his attempted directions are
ignored, whereas the attempted permissiveness
(encouraging contributions for all, etc.) of the
nondirective leader would only distract the group
from its goal. This difference in leadership ef-
fectiveness would be unrelated to favorability of
the group-task situation for the leader, as opera-
tionally defined.
In short, it is suggested that task structure is
an important variable in the determination of
leadership effectiveness, but that this variable is
ambiguously related to the favorability continuum
postulated by Fiedler. A more complete analysis
requires a consideration of the particular task
requirements in relation to leadership type. Fied-
ler's (1964) discussion of coacting versus inter-
acting groups is a step in this direction, but
greater consideration of task dimensions is called
for.
Regardless of their implications for the con-
tingency model, the results of this experiment
show clearly that directive leadership is more
effective than nondirective when the task is
highly structured; that is, when there is only
one solution and one way (or only a few ways) of
obtaining this solution. The requirements for
leadership are quite limited, and nondirective
leader behaviors may only interfere with the
problem-solving process. However, on tasks that
require varied information and approaches, non-
directive leadership is clearly more effective. On
such tasks the requirements for leadership are
great. Contributions from all members must be
encouraged, and this requires motivating, advis-
ing, rewarding, giving support—in short, nondi-
rective leadership.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, L. R., & FIEDLER, F. E. The effect of
participatory and supervisory leadership on group
creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964,
48, 227-236.
BASS, B. M. An evaluation of the use of objective
social data for training problem-solving discus-
sants. Technical Report No. 22, 1960, Louisiana
State University, Contract N7 ONR 35609, Office
of Naval Research.
CLEVELAND, S. E., & FISHER, S. Prediction of small
group behavior from a body image schema. Human
Relations, 1957, 10, 223-233.
FIEDLER, F. E. Leader attitudes and group effective-
ness. Urbana: Univer. Illinois Press, 1958.
FIEDLER, F. E. A contingency model of leadership
effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology. Vol. 1. New York:
Academic Press, 1964. Pp. 149-190.
LEWIN, K., LIPPITT, R., & WHITE, R. K. Patterns of
aggressive behavior in experimentally created "so-
242 BRIEF ARTICLES

cial climates." Journal oj Social Psychology, 1939,
10, 271-2')').
PRESTON, M. G., & HEINT/, R. K. Effects of partici-
patory vs. supervisory leadership on group judg-
ment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1949, 44, 345-355.
SHAW, M. E. A comparison of two types of leader-
ship in various communication nets. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology, 1955, 50, 127-134.
SHAW, M. E. Scaling group tasks: A method for
dimensional analysis. Technical Report No. 1,
1963, University of Florida, ONK Contract NR
170-266, Nonr-580(ll), Office of Naval Research.
SMITH, E. E. The effect of clear and unclear role ex-
pectations on group productivity and defensive-
ness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1957, 55, 213-217.
(Received August 27, 1964)

Journal of Personalty and Social Psychology

1966, Vol. 3, No. 2, 242 244

CONFORMITY AS A FUNCTION OF BIRTH ORDER AND TYPE

OF GROUP PRESSURE:
A VERIFICATION

SELWYN W. BECKER MELVIN J. LERNER

Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago Department of Behavioral Science, University oj
Kentucky
AND JEAN CARROLL
Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago

1st born and later-born adolescents were tested in conditions resembling some
of those used by Deutsch and Gerard. In the condition most closely resembling
the Asch situation the Ist-born Ss yielded more than the later born. In a group-
reward condition the ] si-born Ss showed a significant increase in conforming
errors while the laler-born Ss were relatively unaffected. In a memory condition
the later-born Ss yielded more than in either of the other 2 conditions while
the Ist-born Ss were relatively unaffected. These findings were interpreted as
confirming the hypotheses that Ist-born persons arc more responsive to
normative influences while later-born persons will be more affected by in-
formational influences.

In a recent experiment (Becker, Lerner, &
Carroll, 1964) first-born and later-born adoles-
cents were tested in an Asch (1956) situation.
By introducing the anticipation of a small or
large "payoff" for each correct judgment the
amount of yielding was significantly affected. A
small payoff greatly decreased conforming errors
in the first-born group, and somewhat decreased
conforming errors in later-born subjects. A large
payoff, however, led to increased yielding only
for the later-born subjects. These findings were
interpreted as confirming the hypothesis that
first-born persons are more dependent on others
for social support while later-born persons rely
more on others for validation of their beliefs.
Confidence in the validity and generality of
this interpretation is somewhat limited because
of two aspects in the experimental situation. The
first is based on the characteristics of the sub-
jects, all of whom were golf caddies from the
same country club. It is probably safe to sug-
gest that they were from the lower middle class
and were somewhat special within that class in
terms of the kind of employment they sought
and achieved.
The second, more serious problem derives from
the line of reasoning concerning the effect of a
small versus a large payoff as a technique for
manipulating the normative and informational in-
fluence (Deutsch & Gerard, 19SS) operating in
the Asch situation. A small payoff was assumed
to provide motivation to resist the normative in-
fluence in the situation and a large payoff was
supposed to enhance the informational value of
the unanimous majority's judgments. Though
perhaps it was a logical manipulation, there was
very little historical precedent for using payoffs
in this manner.
The study reported here was designed to vali-
date the original hypotheses by testing them