Leadership Style, Subordinate Personality and Task Type as Predictors of Performance and Satisfaction with Supervision

  • Stan E. Weed
  • Terence R. Mitchell
  • Weldon Moffitt


Interactions between leadership style, subordinate personality, and task type, and the effects of different combinations of these variables on group performance and satisfaction with supervision were investigated. Three different types of leaders were selected and trained: (a) high in human relations and high in task orientation, (b) low in human relations and high in task orientation, and (c) high in human relations and low in task orientation. Each leader worked with eight high- and eight low-dogmatism subjects on four tasks that differed in ambiguity and difficulty. As predicted, there were significant interaction effects for Leader × Subordinate × Task combinations (p < 0.05). These effects on group performance were strongest for difficult- ambiguous tasks. Subordinates, regardless of their personality were significantly more satisfied with leadership behaviour that was high in human relations orientation.


Leadership Style Human Relation Task Type Task Orientation Situational Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown A., ‘Reactions to Leadership’, Educational Administration Quarterly, 3 (1967) 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fiedler F. E., A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967)Google Scholar
  3. Fleishman E. A., ‘Performance Assessment Based on an Empirically Derived Task Taxonomy’, Human Factors, 9 (1967) 349–67.Google Scholar
  4. Fleishman E. A., ‘On the Relation between Abilities, Learning, and Human Performance’, American Psychologist, 27 (1972) 1017–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fleishman E. A. and Hunt J. G., ‘Twenty Years of Consideration and Structure’, in Fleishman E. A. and Hunt J. G. (eds), Current Developments in the Study of Leadership, (Carbon-dale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  6. Hackman J. R., ‘Effects of Task Characteristics on Group Products’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4 (1968) 162–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hall E. J. J., Jr. and Williams M. S., Leadership Grid Questionnaire, (Houston, Texas: Telemetrics International, 1967).Google Scholar
  8. House R. J. and Mitchell T. R., ‘Path Goal Theory of Leadership’, Contemporary Business, 16 (1974) 321–80.Google Scholar
  9. Kent R. N. and McGrath J. L., ‘Task and Group Characteristics as Factors Influencing Group Performance’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5 (1969) 429–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Korman A. K., ‘“Consideration,” “Initiating Structure,” and Organizational Criteria’, Personnel Psychology, 18 (1966) 349–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Likert R., The Human Organization, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).Google Scholar
  12. Morris C. G., ‘Task Effects on Group Interaction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (1966) 545–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rokeach M., The Open and Closed Mind, (New York: Basic Books, 1960).Google Scholar
  14. Sergiovanni T. J., Metzcus R. and Burden L., ‘Toward a Particularistic Approach to Leadership Style: Some Findings’, American Educational Research Journal, 6 (1969) 62–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shaw M. R., ‘Scaling Group Tasks: a Method of Dimensional Analysis’ (Tech. Rep. L, Office of Naval Research Contract Nonr 580(11)–NR170–266) (Gainesville: University of Florida, 1963).Google Scholar
  16. Stogdill R. M., Manual for the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire — Form XII, (Columbus, Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1963).Google Scholar
  17. Stogdill R. M., The Handbook of Leadership: a Survey of Theory and Research, (New York: Free Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  18. Tosi H., ‘A Reexamination of Personality as a Determinant of the Effects of Participation’, Personnel Psychology, 23 (1) (1970) 91–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Troldahl V. and Powell F., ‘A Short-Form Dogmatism Scale for Use in Field Studies’, Social Forces, 44 (1965) 211–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tukey J. W., Exploratory Data Analysis, (limited preliminary ed.) (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970).Google Scholar
  21. Vroom V. H., ‘Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59 (1959) 322–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Weick K. E., ‘Laboratory Experimentation with Organization’, in March J. G. (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965).Google Scholar
  23. Winer B.J., Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yukl G., ‘Toward a Behavioural Theory of Leadership’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 6 (1971) 414–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zagona S. V. and Zürcher E. A., ‘Participation, Interaction, and Role Behavior in Groups Selected from the Extreme of the Open-Closed Cognitive Continuum’, Journal of Psychology, 58 (1964) 255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stan E. Weed
  • Terence R. Mitchell
  • Weldon Moffitt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations