AA ne REAL ting sco amtah, eteny siya iH ‘ : Nae eT De ee a te taste 6 PA Ard ats . Pree iN A riagruueaibeas wantondan age mht at Becta | age eet SeATE EP NsUaay tune A em Ae . ge part ntti ei sre A Peau : oh ey ve PaO kc dadubateur@eutnes: ate ATS AO NASA Sas spabaeh haan Da Tiew i eniiert afshk Ha ty ih DIAPER SR EC Ne a0 r asda jas sys wai eedeacaehcaneancQmineReat vues uets seat eed i PMMA Aas Loan Ufhah ee Dr CEERI t) meer OCU TIO rave bused pray bps ee 6 a Sy. DCE ae eka es sttloy. hab inatapaiupeases hibaas aghearine kein Macey es sit etmech idaho eae L aN mr lal Sean oN BA AAA BRO Ae T Ma in ante DMA deh Whe shane bear Pron rtp bor tie tis Frotics i Ae, barns ea sdp era Vea Agnes Vscnrrknign a {Ud {rdwaktnah eMearWs Aman leg hua MAMA faere Rance on tiny tt ; etal Mara V Astedearue alae ldo nga iy Ww bthanitsbedesdet He Lng OMAN Wathen na semehan yl c Pf MLE AAA wt Rae nna i Tne nya tead h TonMe VACUA Aveta Aen hat : fs PEP Haas) oe Gaon RAL SOU YE AIR YIV TONE MMT SIVE/} hte ante ie Ce a . 4 are A A napa Vidim its ‘ ¢ : Wei babes nt nsetenty “thine ham rem mbites Ratton? fa Ke ans? Dyan Rca yos nis eons nt kden ibnbe 5 Pie afite o) Beaten pelt alias NMARiAe mug MiMi avaattata 4 1 ; a Cay VB eM Runea dit an a Seay Masten uacecatasdlt suena kava at " Ree leassy Ne A Maven eyes Matachiacie hk what Wagan: Bis iarleenah ora ar f SR aeta rh na Nr Satara reste? mas hae sae 5 Soon aa } caer eas takeheaeh tia nh asec k Tale gamit rye, seater ats pa ie tw aaweAysken eeuei ‘ bacane Tanst ‘ Shame Wray eeay Sr er mh 4 sata Ae at NS Vita dace fen ke cH a Y mason PA ; Dena Nai Snr oh thane id ancy seh Ane by: Wer te (Lsaoedy . sy ‘ Petite i haheaanc te Baa a Os r A tiswatite aaa xt ny tana tie pe int : af i Wand Nate RDiMaTiat MAUS AGM A= ATMs sE fs aaaES z h Aes Lie sei ai ahs naan ea geen Riera Pa laea! HANAN AS eo Made MEL Vetter’ ALLA Abra Aphontatmd la hetonddrisalayan ted Naat att PPE ere Prar hear irenes te retires DOR CR UIGPNGN ETE Pa MPR ERT) War scsi hoediayedadag Mind Tae iy ea UNS pa dudiahucee adie be Sayan dt kath is ist POUNCE O CTL KY vehi NPRL AR ar ERs game hy SVRTEACOL YY Ord Veh teatiaiyana ter abst a Ay ATANO Maden yen grat se i Ata) seven a\Reag atm ye Me yh Cronies ie Asta be hememshardsarn be DCR RT HT et Sal Nang ie shen is aaah aka, enecreesh sine Vow yeaah shes M PORTED sneha bak TLR Bede eye Wt Jay \oty aust Vite sy Bhatt mHTR MoT: Tt Chirana) atta SN bean ates en eal RN DN Ge m Pa Het a4 NE etait Heh Lynsay eae St Ceara ak Sas ditn hyd Berens San BH en eases NRA Anh noe Cac SV Maan ayaa vs sara pakoetes He tryst wheat duh thetcriey oh ea BUCR Te roe mnt) Sane ie Sayer SRE te Sey ar wry soy arb rardaira bye shia Mp Likibe te chat ach apna Ns fos Fees geen, eae kenen sara fran th Biel; Stagacke hehntios ane AW Aslenegl ghee ena a MA Patt hogtas nals Vite iy et eC NAS ATE erie rieeres beri} Sante rater orien) + pathy . Has BUT atD makes 14 eR SSeS RS Nature Nt St CESAR EA a} Bebo sates Rees at Beat ier ta EAeuteosirac cpictcey aeaghaagat te’ Marky EERE sfevereres gy sfetih oa Aastha ae Deh tre 8 PAGAL ATReA NAN CAP ah et HUANG Re ba iiy piagalat a Shaltiegese WNSRGH was ream vite poe Perera) Rial bike tte weiecewruge ne Fi ete AG dia 8 iter Visitas he iy at td rod OL a) Sevag shety Peniiatd Pere ee wagner eer na DAG, i A LPN Tater Ri Mihhe tar ey LENG: Pi Seteh ara er at rer Teaeheh ates FeCRTA cgay iA Ae ala eek ete SSSA eTO 2. Ae ke BETAS LANG ACL Rte eG a ser: Sut teh fats ae tb tere eeed ELE Aas Greed oc Zafira ya tw payers MG neh Erne SERS gio, hte Se ors: Si aNagas Wee iSeeeg et Ne e is alae tte Sue eyes yet grag wet ene ONG LL Sate Weeet cig ow PAN reel ERG nentaats He aiyeatees Sarat tga yee tacalase ceed t gf TR THs poy ae magiid se heturku pest seater i 4 rate nichatet HEE ate io ; fh x ; vee Trea Ry f ol Mectastsursoees WWeerareers Aoiaateraharyy 4 Hes prawn ae we syeataty Wlagriongee ghd dum ehisce PLA Leto CHS ea eed ri hes bee ae eee | nag #1 re iat ey vere SUE Ur re tp een Petrie aruner eet wal serena) Weerrongan Sere Horm sauy§ Wess tiesiae Sele ict ate dedi faltered Qtetarynalyty Geass eater tade argsyncsest en ’ eee are eay) 8S at bel s4ayi yuan vars any eveatytalycensege aimteavege for Ffiel rar oes ais SO UNE eramasese oy glaiele hel ben tex La resache a ae cyte TEE Gh (oe Sale tt it seed oh) HTT) OR Bay ty sateen He i his rhateta ads . : . Hdd ve srsngeeey a I hig at cate ee i : a irehnptann srabeerettead A : rode : Ba ty a rah, : F ‘ \ sage 4 , eho gira aon tel : abederwe nits ' ; ata Ho “thea Nabedsatazmrgterdaqen : : nies te pea ret Bare : g vaiaeeb ye : nn igual er parene see 5 SitostedG 5 S ate Frege he cs aan te K Porat wae 7 - shyis palate i c 3 ies ‘ ‘y Vert aetdpincy apy seeny, seul aigey gta tery oat A Fi 5 tea j : Welders ia? anny Cyt talatala te Gy rigneniaina acer aber iatet : ‘ goes oa ice th 1 BLAME pe . : or 2 3 Fracytycgasurat : Paras ; . fyte iy lta t AN : > a Ne tyiearryipectecdgapsieeys tp F edi iSen Se tomate . Paty orks i deh * yy Beit : Marais ian He ate ; ’ : ‘ na PONE Nd es wage a ag ne® Spo esesseestor : ievreeyee atta CAH PETE ta aR what peveyreisins ete at Vedeehae roby ea tonpr ote rataayd pPado Keele votytalyrvern : : ‘ ty tours © zanrvacyasad cyt sleriey enh : Peer : Saree tent a reaper dsthout lence ranaeysicn rere ; ae i au ve belay eh sate Wibsaueenyiesat a erge ny oe TROT aks CHT ‘ a el gy i Bet tstagdh tora tyt chalet tytataecberetata poly e . . . , 1 ates istorii venties ah Bia tterare ola ele ty ° : wea . we an . kaa Be iy Pr RA tS a lutein aurea team : ; : Eefe aru rane eae Monta che Cogintaterelyh rare ge eha oe ete ' ; Bae HT ta Ma taudey sty tats salina nevletulie det atater rae lysis ne naar ; LUatgislnniayeatytalenteye er rhce SHES BaF ery YY : ; athe te rlevoeea nesta iatefelal ate ine dugivldia remy ne gancyuen teresa ri stn ate ye eed : : Rare Rat testy atta sande Fatal peteeeey cof ‘ me whee sya crameaala he eraysd reg mrivity : 7 arse Ww See G8 pad iigieateascenawee lyrebe i ‘ Ja petite piactig rte Hasta ial ae : ‘ ves " CAS ae eAsatrritqiete personel s Re 7 , pees eavity tna gia ei pinea et Suey atta) oo triers Bia a vena ; Sac En ae Paar) 4 ite UNIVERSITY OF; ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN BOOKSTACKS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/leadershipstylec41 lars Faculty Working Papers College of Commerce and Business Administration University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign FACULTY WORKING PAPERS College of Commerce and Business Administration February 21, 1972 Leadership Style and Cognitive Complexity L. L. Larson Southern Illinois University K. M. Rowland University of Illinois #41 | ‘eatin ssPssieh SREY joksoadelababa esiontebit ide ne st 3 -—— cee at — = ‘eitblqas sibitingod Bia seid nutiasbe * . ave ted BF are | aS es . schema acenehit aypdgues oe iy ¢ pre bie ath yt aboot ig dateaselad Leadership Style and Cognitive Complexity In his contingency model of leadership effectiveness, Fiedler (1967) has identified two styles of leadership based on how the leader views his least preferred co-worker (LPC). Leadership style is defined as the underlying need structure of the individual which motivates his behavior in various leadership situations. The LPC instrument is usually composed of 17 bi-polar adjectives such as friendly-unfriendly, open-guarded, pleasant- unpleasant. The leader who views his LPC in favorable terms (e.g., friendly, open, pleasant) is considered a high LPC leader, while the leader who views his LPC in unfavorable terms (e.g., unfriendly, guarded, unpleasant) is considered a low LPC leader. The high LPC leader is charac- terized ". . . as a person who derives his major satisfaction from success- ful interpersonal relationships while the low LPC person . . . derives his major satisfaction from task performance. /Fiedler, 1967, p. asy LPC and Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity Although the measurement of high and low LPC leadership styles has been frequently used for predicting performance, it has resisted meaningful interpretation. A number of studies (Bass, Fiedler, and Krueger, 1964; Burke, 1965; Fishbein, Landy, and Hatch, 1965; Golb and Fiedler, 1955; Steiner, 1959) have attempted, with little success, to interpret the LPC score by relating it to a variety of standard personality and attitude measures. Recent studies have indicated that the LPC might be a measure of cognitive process. Six of the ten variables that correlated significantly with the LPC score in the Bass et al. (1964) study were cognitive process we ere bea bah vp atitazobnes {Vael} «sibs tt : Saarevitoe2ie siatebua cous % isl yvonegattnaa “ss afd exatv sobeel edt wod no hoved atdesebaat te sotesa ow? bottbae add an benbilsh ak ofyte qideseboad ORD sedtaow-09 hove ® 4okveded ahd eatavisom doivie Laubtvbbnt oid $o siyiouute beer ay 2 heaaqnos yifesey oh Smomrrsent QE! ad T oman far ou mead eens ie 4 Ln italy ae eee pe smetB G8 iain wriaioaie: » Keane faty asta Aawerts mato kpoion ‘Mara &: fase oils post | A -ognea apn. ob ~049 D0 oda ae ew rutey ssid Aper, ) sob ez i Ag od s9%3 ous at tsar rbae seoratrooee Sebyegense toe 389% ‘a hag Sees i ss ia ta re AD hea iP Pa | stony oz ~karioe bas epoontone Aah Ile wet oe ye. Ingonnen ew wf Meygetd Janmyoloveb J ie4ie pee gah=wo & at ead | Ss ase sane ® ‘soladond nen es ape wn 2) ses gee td ‘vies aid oo mitts rook secies bad ase igh thre ahmjess a | | semat = ad ae nae? we 83 oLem oe ba, of to. boeannoa ome Ce bee. AE ook 4 ‘ohava bos i > 4 stoniges aghgatzesnrabe crap tend ous a Seltoms esinghyte aa asonteus r pvonbirae o20ahera one, hes ie baneeen oar e es bh ri en i aor Iuagxe bas orpebeen shar 3p honeqror + acto Wegman ‘ic, ¥ ahowanpond nag spquda botray, rat emo anstango % ena sisi de pel 2 nk bo bLerapes edaainaye eens bon sdievtariteaby ar Ane sone dé fhe ig mine | vespion 9 ectaanaetatete Pa y i 7 y ‘ D 4 y 4 f ds a t ve F ) ee a é i on ee Pe Meas Ronit f ii v* 4 i 5 { iit our OA HA it Lo . t y ‘ ¥) (oe A r J ies ome aan akg lego. eetses oyeicier 392 > sn a aaa enw 26= LPC. The 17-item version of the Least Preferred Co-worker (Fiedler, 1967) measure was used to obtain an LPC score. Cognitive Complexity. In an attempt to replicate ‘fitchell's (1970) study, his revision of Scott's (1962) measure of cognitive complexity was used. Scott's original measure included a list of 20 nations and the subject was asked to arrange these nations into categories which he thought belonged together and to indicate what he thought the nations had in common. For example, Great Britain and New Zealand might be grouped together as island nations. ‘fitchell (1970) adapted this measure to the domain of interpersonal relations by substituting a list of 20 groups in place of the nations. For example, subjects were asked to make as many categories as possible from such items as University swim team, NAACP, CIA, University Debate Club, etc. The test can be scored using an H score, where H = logon - Seni: n is the total number of groups in the list, and nj the number of groups placed in the same number of categories. The test can also be scored by summing the number of categories generated by the subject (the correla- tion in our study between the H score and the sum of categories score was .99). The more categories generated by the subject the more complex he is assumed to be. Mitchell's revision of Scott's measure of cognitive complexity-simplicity was administered to Samples I, II, III, and IV. The second measure of cognitive complexity used in this study was Vannoy's adaptation of Bieri's Rep Test. annoy in his factor analysis of 22 measures of cognitive complexity found that Bieri's measure loaded on three of five main factors and suggested that it was the most adequate overall measure of complexity. Se) i on beeen vy t ‘ Y .) wee ») 7 te > PY indian Cay Mae oa , eg | ; ; it viv! } ,) -vothed) smsbrcarea al Pont ogg zo sotexew maateet aot 4 27098 ae a staal os Me aay * aauneen a (8 (ONELY 2 ‘todas aanafoot oa erases ie ut a baal amy yitwiqaes ays oR oe 40 aan eu atnvege i aakatyay sah: hava attottan as %o gat & spaillant © esuenom tentatye a ‘3688 | puiguod al doayhe esiromdog nad sia avokten oeoils. ‘snags of oder, oes rer bed cidvaaa oe laurels af fnelee adnotbat CS) baa iages03 beqiiow ‘ad dey hct sen! a8 ont bees peeatat $no¥) alan so 244.03 ‘saupeen aay bag qabe coer, Heda at sencttna Cid ae af equgeg Of 2 eet 5 pontavadiedie wd qnpkiatex lagorvaaroad | a Be = weg Bs ota G3 horton grav suae di val qnpien aor -anohaa ott o- pea FAAS scat mire atesvtal “ a3 2 ton mast gittapen bed * 70 | 3t@, vols gdaded edie oven! & ae eagle - neat ma ut exec 53098 cy mie nko ‘beyoos Of MRD ee’ oe ie ferot tts | betops ‘od els cna bck ant seabrogntan fo nedeneig gates ade pquorg to veces gt yn Dap deh wae ag equong to 194 walaeye9 Poe AaeTeue ans a ere e aglxagoaes to totnwe ot 2 ofan po2toRgoIn2 Io my oe bos s1088 B | ot soorniad ybute ae manages #%0m vii ‘soatdoe aiid ss banana etronaiag Soret oct | ovbitnasa to" Sasha a" ‘a4po8 to nokekvas “3 "Tedzai a of hs 2 9 Gas etl Ah Ve petamad aa tose jalminbs een wianigat | - geu ‘ened aktia Az ane aioe axtatenos 20 wwenom bane: 20 atoeiane roraah- ait ai xeon er gait bag i ‘poteaxqem { pe babnod exynanm + ‘prot sony heat: eaxeigena, avtyingea te ot sseuoahn aan oer ‘eat A aoa peerage § ee A sian ia ale = Be igh i‘. us —7= The measure used in this study was similar to Bieri's (Tripodi and Bieri, 1963) modification of Kelly's (1955) Rep test where constructs as well as persons were specified on a grid. Subjects were required to rate the persons specified (e.g., Father, “other, Supervisor, etc.) in terms of the constructs (e.g., outgoing-shy: decisive-indecisive, etc.). Vannoy (1964) made two additional modifications in an attempt to reduce response sets. The constructs specified in the original Bieri measure were in the form of bipolar adjectives with the favorable adjective always appearing on the same side of the bipolar pair. In addition, the subject was required to rate each person on all constructs by using a plus or minus sign. Vannoy counterbalanced the desirable adjectives and substituted the letters 'L" and "'R" for the plus and minus marks to avoid any response set due to the use of a positive and negative sign. The Bieri measure, as modified by Vannoy, was given to Samples IV and V. Procedure The procedure in administrating the LPC and cognitive complexity measures was straightforward. All tests were administered in a classroom situation and the subjects were informed that the tests were part of a leadership study. The LPC test was administered first, followed by the two measures of cognitive complexity. The only exception to this procedure occurred with group IV. The Bieri-Vannoy measure of copnitive complexity was administered to this sample approximately three weeks after the LPC and Scott-!fitchell measures. This resulted in a reduced sample size. ee be ae 8 Bail a tat A r ; Lith 4 it : hoe a a Grek , if aU hy ate ryayy Aik, Ay i Ouro : ” " 4 , ren on be | b bne thagtet) a ka8m ro) a tate aney whuse wha ok hese yuan oft vs wi, Mi ny) a ‘ eh edowatemes nar Sepa aot (eer) * ‘yfitos io fiesot tthow eae o2Re | as bevakirpers ata aro duet shay * bhi borizaay bree eaves 5 “emi os (, a toe twaeque rats, c7o0d958 , aa) berhtosan eno ¢ a ae sautatoshat-oubatagt wle~antonsec, +8 a iad ne aaubox of qmaats ee nk sohgend Rabo Kano xhba ows ase Oe nl ie =“ ornensm tieda faotatro ns nk aan ised syaugteno3 ait e998 é evewle ovETTRbe-atdusovat od’ sake evi tothe satogts to sexo 96 ei 1 ead aoe ot hed seLaged pas is # abte ame ons 19 ole A wate ied etou ‘anos itp a) conte dao ota, nen basannes Bey: ry baie aave beau hs sidaziash rey beonbiadyveayivos yonual ngks rea ag astra anaes i hive ute ws +o2) ng eet nar! baisnsiene: age & ; ait gia avitecaey peda ens tere. 56 ani ity oF oh 193 WV Bein: VE moins ot conta eae hi ine e beriaber: hind ru * Gia ' . aqghasort Rent | lth gadwetenas avnhaimgos here 38 ads pebsentaantabe ae subonarg | : moommaato a nt eile adal e798" wines L ch “promo Maupien ane & to a32q aa “a9ae9 a aeds usniiet a 8 bee oe ban é | a? if haw ot seit hommdotatabs ‘eis Jee pur Pa wo sauan Seigaage itedaaea zone bn, vat ds one eer y ao 2o= Results Correlations between the LPC score and the Scott-‘Mitchell and Bieri- Vannoy measures of cognitive complexity for all five samples are presented in Table 1. Correlations between the LPC score and the Scott-Mitchell measure ranged from -.013 to .198 and were not statistically significant. Correlations between the LPC score and the Bieri-Vannoy measure ranged from .09 to .365; the latter correlation was significant at the .01 level. The contingency model involves high and low LPC individuals, but has said nothing about those with a middle-range LPC score. In early studies, the high and low LPC designation depended on whether the score was above or below the median score. Later, the top and bottom thirds were designated high and low, excluding the middle third. Bass et al. (1964) have suggested that the middle LPC individual may in fact be more cognitively complex than either the high or low LPC individual because he tended to be more critical and discriminating in his perceptions of others. Following this notion, correlations were computed with each sample divided into high, middle, and low LPC categories (Table 2). Correlations between the LPC score and the Scott-iitchell measure of cognitive complexity ranged from -.452 (significant at the .05 level) to .337 (nonsignificant) when divided into thirds. ‘hen the samples were “Re lala ~jaakh hae Sarladsyaas2 ae hive, Synae tue odd aasuted mine . hejngacrg atk aeloene ay the 508 boa Mite : oon ! me nm Fant ra | i iu rol ite t ta Aeowst ei 7 ia an 7 wid2eaoy 793) fipsnag sie; skqunn, #768 4 a orotontene> gpa oan, RRR aeapkthayee: blaty tom Ane ead a Bh cnqtdanolantes onde: og off sont Gepimiogyd A mit troamure tor ah, satuaor orks, ix os wis Heese Giabiante-ex saben 8 ovhahngon, ao soquessa of 2 boaler ik ~sle tid? demakengte vias itt ohare # ' todsdint atostiqas ed ohde bas yraxeiqunos sviainaes Fa are som pons V= bate be andy souvisd a va nbiisnon iu gor bee notgnne oft Yo xao eis aa nk banked Ray bi th 984 3) sbeanoklqas 19 hea hele, ad doaans anata euohadliess maha. 2 en i SSCA OSG? baw hee? 9 Vsti acoate Brew 79 daw pavad@rironnn bandas and Pasiee wie aft am aes aa hi al moje OT aid tails cota ane sand di Eg ateartqoqe ead. eddie 1% ay2ttag09. 9 Eoubayias te. Jy See: > é wheuta tang, ai eaaee i ae 'keub hudba a anda tow ytute os a “aaah, © oud ga ada sit waixatqnos out sbage ad, ad exkunaon | Pays 63 balta® atedtonn | ner sahoasoy Re pahienoa eat uae : wey ony wowed qislaiw ye tlectioabs: ‘ott rae ore ave Le ' otgvan PC gatsrosate eR “aia ies aviazinoe So a 20% Hse fhobvero0ds e Fniveein sama tiene & anne swe sent a! sat ale such a relationship; support provided by those who had studied the LPC score, as well as those who had conducted research in the area of cognitive complexity. Second, a previous empirical study (Mitchell, 1970) had reported finding a modest linear relationship between the LPC score and a measure of cognitive complexity--a finding that this study, using the same instruments, failed to replicate. Also, following the work of Vannoy (1965), who reported that different measures of cognitive complexity appeared to measure different aspects of the concepts, two separate measures of cognitive complexity were used to test for the relationship. Neither measure consistently produced significant correlations. Furthermore, Eta tests for curvilinear relationships failed to yield significant results. The subjects in the five sample populations used in this study were of varied backgrounds which ranged from executives in their fifties with 18 years or more of supervisory experience to undergraduate students in their twenties with limited supervisory experience. Age and experience, therefore, apparently had no effects on the LPC-cognitive complexity relationship. And finally, following the definition of cognitive complexity, which had indicated that individuals who showed greater variance in scoring the LPC items were more complex than those with less variance, the samples were separated into high and low variance categories. Again the findings were inconsistent, with significant correlations being found for both high and low variance individuals. In view of these findings, as shown in Tables 1,2, and 3, we must conclude that there is no simple linear relationship between the LPC score and the Scott-Mitchell or Bieri-Vannoy measures of cognitive complexity. ta | oo iG: ts et snskude asubergseiaw of aonniiogne eae. ekviaque to atom J evisiiana te. ate ont. ae soxsoens heaoubeien en pase seo: en Liiw & Bape, (0 Vel shiestasts9 se Auonatgre voted 8 n Aaa Rinnte agar (Saoekenoont otey im eahawbs eicberd oonistway wot Baa’ tighd i Sau aw .€) ap gin epider ak anode on sagpiien ones, vio a oat on ssamigd sianotsto an == Because of time limitations only two measures of cognitive complexity were used. The Scott-litchell measure was used in an attempt to replicate Mitchell's (1970) study and the Bieri-Vannoy measure was used because it appeared to be the best overall measure of cognitive complexity. Future research might explore the relationship between the LPC score and additional measures of cognitive complexity suggested by Vannoy's (1965) factor analysis of some 20 measures of cognitive complexity. pwr Ce Re) ee oe eee UF - : Oi 2 hi 7 ie ra = ie iY y r ayere Age, Aoi? te aed a. A FC Le Wr A ; 7 i J ae ik: { earth a oy rh : ' as : phos ieis feo ke oe ie ee ai) Se Pee Af (a lta AG ; : , ae oe : f ; We : eA ee 2 4 va 7 “oe io " im eta Hae et foe f : ‘ ’ eon 5 i hye Pa) , ne I by ‘ r i ‘ ; ; 1 - His . yaks qa aatingeo Io eammensr ‘one 3 wa a ans aunt oat we e | aswaitqos os semis on o hone 9 pow pweste ade Basen ote ce sagas beev. ane ora sont coniaVet nee nits kivw iwze ren wi ous axa Ley evistogey be onan Liner send ota ad 03 bi i tania bbs: fn e7098, Oa ais arto" gifeaokyatox ois arelan, aigter d i aot, . va ‘ “fetys} eae y "Yoruna Ww horsoague esixotqnes aviadmyes & : Setmtgies srasingo> te sownes oN on | a = } : ey, ra i ; ; ia : } a ae an - fot mel wie } fist Aa ie! Do St! LJ qT 1 fi iy } A i f ‘ man a i” 6 . oy , — { - =n ey > a i i ob s * Sa. - é . } t a = ) c j aL | < j ; yee l, ay ie ) ’ { 1 9 t 1 j 7 17 batt 5 : } i ‘ i o } i] / a ; < i n oN) ' ; i , ay ly } kh mY nent ¢ Hl vy -) : a 5 ! if) f i a \ a \" i A | ; Nie war f - wi A 1 4 y | yew i 4) i { f i 4 : it i a aoe . A} i i yh i iv; y is ‘ vay) ue h ‘ - Hala) : i i — i } 7 F : iy 17 i Neue, 1 =19= References Bass, A. R., Riedler, F. E., & Krueger, S. Personality correlates of Assumed Similarity (ASo) and related scores. Urbana: University of Illinois Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, 1964. (Mimeographed) Bieri, J. Complexity-simplicity as a personality variable in cognitive and preferential behavior. In). W. Fiske & S. R. Maddi (Eds.), Functions of varied experience. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1961. Burke, W. Leadership behavior as a function of the leader, the follower, and the situation. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 60-81. Crockett, W. H. Cognitive complexity and impression formation. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Fiedler, F. E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1967. Fishbein, li., Landy, E., & Hatch, G. Seme determinants of an individuals esteem for his least preferred co-worker: An attitudinal analysis, Urbana: University of Illinois Group Effectiveness Research Labora- tory, 1965. (timeographed) Gardner, R., & Schoen, R. A. Differentiation and abstraction in concept formation. Psychological lionographs, 1962, 66, No. 560. Golb, E. F., & Fiedler, F. E. A note on psychological attributes related to the score Assumed Similarity between opposites (ASo), Urbana: University of Illinois Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, 1955. (lfimeographed) ‘suiIDOM, TatOT wall. ve iY Pines i ee Vk sa NE ae ae ; ‘ N ' i eet Pi Al ar ie Gr) oe ee y ; i Hh 7 - Wig rciptes 1h Ak dance hatte il Treks + i ; i aman a A it ok eel to nstatiese, eonenonral * eospurh 3:8) at Sorbet we ‘i eilesoesnl Sunedath sii Santor rin oak)” obiedinge ; ® seaer’ erodes tooo sitio to0%4 wen hontit i Vie) ae Abordqad swEstnigoo nk oldaitew eshianwietaa si id itoktgitesernxaiened me abit) ae Fy ole itt ae at soivedad Lakai setae) ARUE tontatl -whoint itt (bec mts “atiebtegee totes Mas | panini’ ce a tobaol ily 40 wabaone’’ #88 soivellad quaoheot :1iB8 ce .2A0E jit lative’. iio lati cA sh ak fbi etd | pales saul bots eabialigs bieiiniad Hf a eae Loananiis alavbivibas fie 30 etdiningsab apoe iy saat 3 28 “abet, “t ,etovisia Ianthuats3e oA t saltowso3: betta 2598 Sees! ats to, re) *Stbdal fdteoans pdbfawis5e9%a Nac atonnttt We ‘eristeviail | ; {eatigpstiontd Gel saiiion ai Hoi don'vdedn Brie oksal sited ia’ ii sine é at £ sae, a esta ae, ‘ wronsroded att ret dis io sno beien be sna 4 a te =/4— Hill, W. The LPC leader a cognitive twist. Academy of Management Pro- ceedings, 1969, 125-130. Kelly, G. The psychology of personal constructs. Vol. 2. New York: Norton, 1955. Mitchell, T. R. Leader complexity, leadership style and group performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1969. Mitchell, T. R., Biglan, A., Oncken, G. R., & Fiedler, F. E. The contingency model: Criticism and suggestions. Academy of Management Journal, 1970, 13, 253-267. Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967. Scott, W. A. Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 405-414. Scott, W. A. Conceptualizing and measuring structural properties of cognition. InO. S. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction: cognitive determinants. New York: Ronald Press, 1963. Steiner, I. D. Interpersonal orientation and Assumed Similarity between opposites. Urbana: University of Illinois Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, 1959. (?‘imeographed) Tripodi, T., & Bieri, J. Cognitive complexity as a function of own and provided constructs. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 26. Vannoy, J. S. A study of the generality of cognitive complexity as a personality construct. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1964. 7 oA t = 5 Vannoy, J. S. Generality of cognitive complexity-simplicity as a personality construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 385-396. Weissenberg, P., and Gruenfeld, L. W. Relationships among leadership dimensions and cognitive style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 392-395. | absepsnida gato sedants for ike we 4 P| BD ans yeh eM momen! und # aa ‘ t } | iy? may ey bp - , im ‘ We hee . ‘ 4 t f i» a e, ; , 1, ’ : i i “| aa i oe id t a. 4 Blotenao ben ne | f ote arabes ee os St ” ~2eCsSeE cc -~16- TABLE 1 Correlations between LPC Score and the Scott-Mitchell and Bieri-Vannoy Measures of Cognitive Complexity Sample N X LPC X Scott X Bieri r LPC/Scott r LPC/Bieri I 24 67.7 14.2 —_ -.013 = II 30 64.0 10.0 = 029 _ III 30 62.4 i a ue 092 = Iv 49 71.2 10.5 22.41 198 091 Vv 44 59.3 a 33 = 365% ly = 31 Sagat i Apieee : Ces Es waa 2 : — beniy . : : part et re ey RY — 2! = A < sli says . : Rie /s Sou = aie xt Well ns ‘ atneh ats S “ it ; 5 4 wa 4 Fe a a ee aE ee er == Table 2 Correlations between LPC Score and the Scott-Mitchell and Bieri-Vannoy Measures of Cognitive Complexity Samples Divided into Thirds Based on LPC Score Upper 1/3 LPC Middle 1/3 LPC Lower 1/3 LPC Sample N LPC r LPC/Scott N X LPC xr LPC/Seott N X LPC r LPC/Scott I 8 86 —.375 8 68 -.077 8 48 «256 II 10 87 -.064 10 62 -.192 10 42 467 EEE 10 78 Sod all 10 61 -291 10 47 244 i oar 2 -.452* 16 69 205 16 = 48 BST ip ke -- == — fs a as met. =e Upper 1/3 LPC Middle 1/3 LPC Lower 1/3 LPC Sample N X LPC r LPC/Bieri N X LPC r LPC/Bieri NX LPC r LPC/Bieri I a AL = ae, 2 bai nc) eS aks II SS —— —=— ad -— =o == oe IIl SSeS =S SS == is mS IV O92 . 136 9 69 -.300 10 SI! -.064 Vv 413 80 367 1 60 574k% 1S ss o33L *p < .05 "ee < 1025 Be 4 Liye yelh ; oy = “ Ba it: . = i ; ij 5 F Teak : ‘< ae i ; Sales < OL | : ean ew u ares ers a U Correlations between LPC Score and the Scott-Mitchell and Bieri-Vannoy Measures of Cognitive Complexity Sample N z LPC r LPC/Scott N I 8 10 Upper 1/3 LPC r LPC/Bieri N Sample N I EE *p < .05 "ep < 025 er /3elPeG 86 -.375 87 -.064 78 = 21 94 -.452% X LPC 92 80 8 10 10 16 Sys Table 2 Middle 1/3 SeLeG wor 68 62 61 69 Middle 1/3 SHLPCGRir 69 60 LPC LPC/Scott -.077 -.192 LPC LPC/Bieri N 8 10 10 16 N Samples Divided into Thirds Based on LPC Score Lower 1/3 LPC 48 42 47 48 X LPC r LPC/Scott -256 .467 244 Lower 1/3 LPC X LPC r LPC/Bieri aL 38 “iin $ widet ; Y PEAS oP Tat dai 9 WABI EYE a ADs J? ab eR a ashe ea At Eluytatlieatoad att eae, use Ryd npousad fenadaatoo®- i, .bat eu eels oe 8 Soe sRiet eo att ; i. ayes x bono) orl sion a) Be, “sesneanat ‘comet kno Bit: fen Paes a s1052 IGT so ‘hieak ‘esi ‘ona! honsse ‘aaligeat ati a re aed | Rela one. EA Vi aif a ee ie ef flO = ed ‘ae me -18- Table 3 Correlations between LPC Score and the Scott-Mitchell and Bieri-Vannoy leasures of Cognitive Complexity. Combined Samples Divided into Thirds Based on LPC and Divided at the Median Based on Variance on LPC upper 1/3 LPC LPC/Scott middle 1/3 LPC LPC/Scott lower 1/3 LPC LPC/Scott upper 1/3 LPC LPC/Bieri middle 1/3 LPC LPC/Bieri lower 1/3 LPC LPC/Bieri Low Variance 90.5 88.1 = .356 -.036 51 15) 62.9 65.9 094 .037 21 U7 / 44.5 46.5 -.087 - 580% 15 19 84.7 87.8 - 284 ~ 551* 14 ti 62.1 62.5 389 -082 9 alal 42.3 46.9 - 596* O20 16 Hal High Variance | Tsoi aes ‘ hag ct ey A ; i hie My | | Bye € essen | Ai Jada ee old ae ox092 oa oi: ; snobs nborsee. a | ae sen ysiiiiah sisi % cane, ver ae oon hebtels 5 | etal eam hebhyk epaatet fot heh 2h di ; Hea tanealiaiia aunts Tne Rr BUH Siar dale enor tes rear teeter ares iSeries RSL SATE RO gon wean f a ; DAG Greet it Buity } UNIVERS! Y OF ILLINOIS-UR CRE ste - - _ 7 ee NNN tT re Me mee eeicucede iaayenaatidate SS earner : } has Bateout tats ‘ Y Seager hch tae asset i ne pit : : i farsbaatrinwteactae ersteste tire tore tat “4 ; ; ' 2 060: f ; ern patent ye eee teu Auntarela ae. ie he Rhea a hs BER re OLE halebedaasene shat Tales do keeve heathy Car Tine edie evercewn reek dae Ha (ite asta tieae Abn ¢ 8 atop , an Wibod nein fo webunesad nd We aitey tht Pa Mephecat Wb Cok hse Watt cen neg Le sieletace }disayy 1 Tees hate at 3 Usted tandhicale nuit i Perea set Te dent dat STAD dal necoiebomtn da nbe UH Codec timp bers ( oy itet pec eer oe any i PST ninesihsiy puiskibyne (A be ante a Feta dee As Os nite bast Satpal aoroeell feb , decytnaa we Eres SEN wd ariree rants i bnds aghast iit a ian Bese ks sens Shore vO Pe ehend aibhe ne eae presen ar URE a deat AAVENYAY Ey PRETO Nace eo 4 PRONE Eee pn ta EERE N DiI ie hank wean ped aes OE bY domibvoder fs omipt agua an AAA PANEER SP eta reyes Serer eens Un cREL RSE SPTYSOAUIU Pe yites Sake eternity hay iy inst De eats Pe yong ooupat siurnssaeryt gests Cr Ea Tea eet whcdavey ul yt u sibetetl ek Vella Hyde evita ees ately Biante Pye lati rleleseceaererevern(y Tet 3 , etat waco) rept me pe Y Be LV Marv dotted te ANTI e) Sergei ny FABIA wUH atte te Eats shales Seti ntaegute ey i Vitehetahh Tela wet Tres yee cine 5 Wee eaente on) citi Hien “eter es qerir TRAM taW LF ae Foryiveas myers t : Nevdabe wy Pefatyseren ery’ + PN ytarr yr ait Pela vay & bere niyty