A comparative analysis of black and white leadership in a naturalistic setting

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A comparative analysis of black and white leadership in a naturalistic setting
Physical Description:
xii, 174 leaves. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Allen, William Robert, 1938-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Leadership   ( lcsh )
Race   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 113-132.
Statement of Responsibility:
by William Robert Allen.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000580875
notis - ADA8980
oclc - 14092693
System ID:
AA00003520:00001

Full Text










A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BLACK AND
WHITE LEADERSHIP IN A NATURALISTIC SETTING










By

WILLIAM ROBERT ALLEN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1975




























To Marlies, my wife,
with love and appreciation
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The author wishes to express his appreciation to his Supervisory

Committee for their support and help in completing this dissertation.

The efforts of Jack M. Feldman, H. Joseph Reitz and James F. Burns

have proven invaluable in many ways, particularly in light of the

untimely passing of Walter A. Hill, the original committee chairman.

Walter A. Hill was both mentor and friend, and his support and

influence on this work and others was appreciated and will long be

remembered. Jack M. Feldman, first a committee member, assumed the

chairmanship and helped greatly toward placing this in completed

form. H. Joseph Reitz agreed to serve during the latter stages of

completion and has been very helpful. James F. Burns has been

steadfast in his support and helpful in his comments. The contribu-

tions and friendship of these gentlemen are gratefully acknowledged.

Several others have also been helpful in many different ways.

Marvin E. Shaw and Robert C. Ziller offered many thoughtful comments

during the formative stages of the present work. Ira Horowitz,

William F. Fox, John H. James and William V. Wilmot have provided

considerable support and encouragement during the doctoral program.

Robert R. Bell and Fred J. Nutt have helped in their comments and

friendship.










A special word of appreciation is in order for John A. Ruhe and

Jerome F. Dederick. John A. Ruhe's generous suggestions, support

and friendship proved extremely helpful and was greatly appreciated.

SMCS Jerome F. Dederick USN, acting in his capacity as liaison with

the Navy during data collection, did much more than required and

contributed considerably with his enthusiasm and friendship. In

addition, the fidelity and friendship of Frankie Hammond, who pre-

pared the final copy, is sincerely appreciated.

Finally, the author must recognize the many sacrifices made by

his wife, Marlies, and children, William, Robert and Elizabeth.

Their support, love and understanding made the doctoral program

and this study possible.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . .

LIST OF TABLES . .

LIST OF FIGURES. .... ..

ABSTRACT . ....

CHAPTER


* .


I INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF THE STUDY, LITERATURE
REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES .

Introduction ..... .....
Purpose of the Study .
Literature Review. . .
Hypotheses . .

II METHODOLOGY .. .

Subjects . .
Physical Environment . .
Design . .. .. .
Tasks. .............
Observer Training and Reliability .
Procedure. . .
Questionnaire. ...

II ANALYSIS AND RESULTS. ...

Methods of Analysis .... .. ..
Results .. .

IV SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH. . .. ....

Summary. . .....
Discussion .. .......
Implications for Future Research ...


Page

lii

vii

ix

x


91

91
94
108












TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)


REFERENCES . . .

APPENDICES

A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SQUAD LEADERS ...

B PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE. .

C IEC . .. .

D SOCIAL ORIENTATION TASKS. .

E RSE . ..

F LOQ . .

G SBD .

H JDI-GT. . .

I JDI-SL. .. . ...

J JDI-S QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT SUBORDINATES.

K JDI-FS QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT FELLOW SUBORDI

L LAST PAGE . ..

M INSTRUCTIONS. . .

N INSTRUCTIONS. . .

0 INSTRUCTIONS . .

P SHIP-ROUTING INFORMATION. ..

Q AVAILABLE ROUTE COMBINATIONS. .


. .


* .

* .

* .









* ATES
* *

* .










NATES.

* .

* .

. .E .
* *

*

*

*


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. . .. .


Page

113



134

135

138

141

145

148

152

156

157

158

161

164

165

166

170

171

172

173


. .


S .
















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE Page

1 PERSONAL PROFILE OF SQUAD LEADERS AND SQUAD MEMBERS. 27

2 RELIABILITY BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE OBSERVERS. 48

3 MEAN IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES . . 64

4 MEAN IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS GROUP I HYPOTHESES. . 66

5 MEAN IPA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES . . 68

6 MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X
GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL RACIAL
COMPOSITION GROUP II HYPOTHESES. . 71

7 MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP
TYPE INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL SIZE -
GROUP II HYPOTHESES. . . 73

8 MEAN GROUP IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS 80

9 MEAN GROUP IPA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS. 81

10 MEAN GROUP IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS .. . 82

11 MEAN LEADER IPA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS IN
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR. ... . 86

12 MEAN LEADER IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTION IN LEADERSHIP STYLE. . 87

13 MEAN LEADER SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS FOR
THE GENERAL SATISFACTION SURVEY. . 89

14 RESULTS OF TESTING HYPOTHESES.. . 93










LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)

TABLE Page

15 SUMMARY OF OBSERVED IPA DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
LEADERS. . 98

16 FREQUENCY COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED IPA
BEHAVIOR BETWEEN LEADERS, SUBORDINATES AND GROUPS
BY TASK TYPE AND BY GROUP TYPE. . 99


viii
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I Recruit Company Organization . ... 29

2 Physical Plan of Experiment Rooms and Observation
Stations . .. .. 32

3 Schema of the Basic Research Design. .. 35

4 Notation and Designs for Data Testing. . 62









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BLACK AND
WHITE LEADERSHIP IN A NATURALISTIC SETTING

By

William Robert Allen

March, 1975
Chairman: Jack M. Feldman
Major Department: Management

The objective of this study was to investigate differences in

attitudes and behavior between black and white leaders supervising

biracial groups of varying size and composition. In addition, differ-

ences between subordinates and groups were investigated.

A total of 288 male naval recruits participated, evenly balanced

between blacks and whites. Eight different black and white squad

leaders, 64 in all, supervised groups composed of members from their

own squads in performing a knot-tying task and a ship-routing task,

while a pair of racially mixed observers watched through a one-way

window and recorded group interaction using Bales' Interaction Process

Analysis (IPA). Each leader supervised one of four types of groups:

racially balanced dyads, 25 percent black tetrads, 50 percent black

tetrads and 75 percent black tetrads. The result was fundamentally

a two-by-four factorial design. An assistant in the experimental room

recorded the time to perform each task and each individual's speech

duration.

After performing the tasks each subject completed a series of

questionnaires. Leaders completed the Leadership Opinion Question-

naire, providing a self-rated measure of the leadership dimensions










initiating structure and consideration; subordinates completed the

Supervisory Behavior Description, providing a subordinate-rated

measure of the same dimensions. Individual satisfaction with

subordinates, tasks, leaders and/or subordinates was measured using

selected scales of the Job Descriptive Index. Individuals completed

Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale, Ziller's Self-Esteem

Instrument, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale.and answered certain

personal questions.

As hypothesized, white supervised groups performed both tasks

faster than black supervised groups, and black leaders were less

expressive in their behavior and scored lower in internal control

than white leaders. Performance deficiency was explained in terms

of status incongruence, group heterogeneity and experimental stress;

the less expressive behavior, in terms of status characteristic

theory, interracial interaction disability and social stress.

Contrary to the hypotheses, white leaders were not higher in

self-esteem, and black leaders did not have a greater speech duration,

more satisfaction with subordinates, or more satisfaction with the

tasks. Also not supported were hypotheses stating that, for each

task, the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial

composition would be faster when supervised by leaders high in

self- and subordinate-rated initiating structure and consideration,

self-esteem, internal control and intelligence (measured by the Navy

Basic Test Battery), compared to leaders of the same race low in

these attributes.










Comparing black and white leaders' use of the IPA categories

indicated race, group and interaction effects. White leaders were

clearly more active in interpersonal behavior. In every instance

of a significant difference between leader types for both tasks,

black leaders displayed less of the behavior in question than did

white leaders. Although white leaders gave and asked for more opinions

during the ship-routing task, the results were more pronounced

during the knot-tying task where white leaders exhibited more activity

in five of the twelve categories: showing solidarity, giving sugges-

tions, asking for information and opinions and disagreeing. These

results suggest inhibition on the part of the black leaders. Patterns

of behavior displayed through IPA differences suggest similar results

for black subordinates. During the knot-tying problem, black super-

vised groups displayed, on the average, less agreeing, less asking

for information, less asking for opinion.and more antagonism, suggest-

ing behavior that hindered performance. During the ship-routing

problem, black supervised groups displayed, on the average, less

asking for opinion but more asking for information, and were greater

in speech duration, which may have hindered performance by detracting

from task demands.

The data suggest that the leaders, regardless of race, experi-

enced supervision difficulties due to increasing the size of sub-

ordinate groups and due to increasing the relative number of blacks

in subordinate tetrads.


xil
















CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF THE STUDY, LITERATURE
REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES



Introduction

The emergence of the "new Negro" or "black" is one of the most

striking. phenomena of the latter half of the 1960's (Miller and Dreger,

1973).1 As these minority-group Americans become assimilated into

social institutions In a manner, and at levels, never before achieved,

the appropriateness of current organizational practices may have to be

questioned. As Miller and Dreger (1973) have pointed out, the

behavioral setting can make a major difference In comparative behaviors.

One important modification in the behavioral setting will be the

emergence of more blacks into positions of leadership and influence.

Not only is this an expectation of society in general, it is, as King

and Bass (1970) point out, natural for blacks to desire managerial

positions when they have already achieved entry into the organization

and access to skilled jobs.2


When making racial designations, the terms black and white will be
favored over the terms Negro and Caucasian in the belief that they are
the currently preferred social terms.
2King and Bass (1970) have proposed a hierarchy of concerns about
integration in organizations that is analogous to Maslow's (1954) postu-
lation of a hierarchy of needs. Their hierarchy was conceptualized as
a three-tiered, truncated pyramid consisting of: entry into the organization,
access to skilled jobs, and access to managerial positions.

1









The research literature is presently equivocal as to how blacks

might compare to whites in leadership or supervisory roles. We know

very little about racial differences in these areas. The basic problem

is to determine what differences there are and to see If these

differences can be explained. Because blacks do form a significant

ethnic subgroup in our society and because our social institutions are

now dominated by whites, this problem should be considered as openly

and objectively as possible so that as organizational integration

proceeds difficulties can be properly anticipated and effectively

minimized. The need for social psychological research concerning

actual differences between blacks and whites and the nature of the

supervisor-subordinate interaction in job settings has been expressed

by many authors (see, e.g., Dreger and Miller, 1968; King and Bass, 1970;

Moskos, 1967; Triandis and Malpass, 1971).

Racial differences and the psychology of blacks have been discussed

in numerous works (e.g., Allen, 1970; Anastasi and Foley, 1949; Bendix

and Lipset, 1953; Benedict and Weltfish, 1943; Boyd, 1950; Deutsch,

Katz and Jensen, 1968; Dreger and Miller, 1960, 1968; Dunn and Dobzhansky,

1946; Frazier, 1939, 1957; Garth, 1925, 1931; Ginzberg, 1956; Harding

et al., 1969; Kardiner and Ovesey, 1951, 1962; Katz, 1970; Klineberg,

1935, 1944; Knox, 1945, 1949, 1952; Lindzey, 1954; Miller and Dreger,

1973; Montagu, 1952; North, 1957; Pettigrew, 1964; Sarason and Gladwin,

1958; Shuey, 1958; Tyler, 1956; Woodworth, 1916).3 Early comparative


3While the term race will be used for convenience, no meaning is
intended other than that of distinctiveness of appearance and commonality
of experience; the issue of whether there are consequential differences
in the genetic endowment of blacks and whites will not be considered
(cf., Katz, 1964).







3

research was concerned primarily with attempts to measure and describe

interracial differences within a normative framework where the behavior

of whites served as a norm against which black behavior was evaluated.

Social psychological research was concerned primarily with the response

of whites to blacks; thus, attempts to do such things as modify attitudes,

measure social distance, etc., were directed to whites rather than

blacks (cf., Miller and Dreger, 1973).

The relatively recent advances being made by minority-group Americans

into positions of leadership and supervision is a trend deserving further

study, particularly in field and naturalistic settings where blacks and

whites coexist in comparable organizational positions. The experimental

study of black-white relationships is a relatively unexplored field

offering unique research opportunities (Katz, 1970).


Purpose of the Study


The main concern of this study is the development of knowledJe and

information concerning differences In leadership qualities between

black and white leaders. This study from its Inception was conceived

to follow Ruhe (1972). It is not an exact replication, but several of

the same methodological techniques were employed in an effort to

generalize earlier results to natural work groups outside the laboratory,

to enhance the external validity of both studies. The focus is on

differential leadership qualities, though certain comparisons oP black

and white subordinate behavior were made.

At this point It is appropriate to briefly describe the Ru!ii study.

Using 96 male undergraduate students as subjects (48 black and 48 white),







4

Ruhe randomly assigned each of 12 black and 12 white older students (who

had volunteered to be supervisors) to supervise three different types of

subordinate dyads (one all-black, one all-white, and one racially-mixed).

The remaining 72 students, 36 black and 36 white, were randomly assigned

to one of the three subordinate dyads that participated once with a black

supervisor and once with a white supervisor. Each group performed

three tasks: knot-tying, ship-routing and letter writing. During the

performance of the tasks two trained observers (one black and one white)

coded the group interaction using Bales' (1950) Interaction Process

Analysis (IPA). Other output measures recorded were: duration of speech

for each group member, amount of time needed to complete each task and

cohesiveness. After performing the last of the tasks, both supervisor

and subordinates completed satisfaction rating forms (from Smith, Kendall

and Hulin, 1969) for each other and for the work in the tasks. At the

end of their participation each subject completed a self-esteem form

(from Ziller, 1971).

In designing the present study the desire was to draw from the

Ruhe study and extend the scope of research in this area, using a different

subject population in a more naturalistic setting. In keeping with this

desire, several methodological changes were made: (1) group size and

racial composition were varied; (2) instruments for measuring leader

behavior (the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and Supervisory Behavior

Description, which provide leader dimensions known as initiating structure

and consideration, from Stogdill and Coons, 1957) were included to tie

in with recognized leadership literature; (3) the Internal-External

Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) assessing locus of control was included,

since this quality has been shown to be related to effectiveness in







5

attempts to influence others (Lao, 1970); (4) a second self-esteem

instrument (the Self-Esteem Scale, from Rosenberg, 1965) was included

because it is based on verbal self-report; (5) cohesiveness (defined

to be the proportionate usage of "we" or "1") was eliminated as an

output variable due to the apparent lack of a conceptual base in the

biracial situation (Ruhe, personal communication); and (6) the letter

writing task was eliminated because it was felt that the manner In which

this was handled by Ruhe was not appropriate in the field setting, since.

in the university setting each group was asked to develop a recruiting

letter urging college students to join an all-volunteer Navy.

From the above, therefore, the principal purpose of the present

study can be stated as an investigation of some of the possible differences

between black and white leaders supervising racially heterogeneous

groups, of varying size and racial composition, in the performance of

two tasks.


Literature Review


Synthesizing the literature addressed by this study Is a difficult

task due to its scope and diversity. Further, because of the relatively

recent dramatic changes in black-white relations, there is a very real

possibility that much of the research in existence may be partially,

if not totally, irrelevant to the present day black, assuming that

enduring changes in attitudes and behavior have occurred. This should

be borne in mind when the literature is examined. Notwithstanding the

difficulty of synthesis and the relevancy Issue, several highly plausible

general conclusions do emerge. Upon these hypotheses can be advanced arid

tested within the limits established by this study.









The review of the literature that follows focuses mostly on those

attributes which have been found to differentiate between blacks and

whites and which were addressed by this study, with the exception of the

research involving the leader dimensions initiating structure and

consideration. The review is grouped under the following sub-headings:

Biracial Work Groups, Leadership Studies, Leader Behavior and Task

Performance, Self-Concept, Locus of Control, Intell ience and Aptitude,

Job Satisfaction, Miscellaneous Related Research and Conclusion.

Biracial Work Groups

The behavior displayed in biracial work groups and problem-solving

situations may suggest how blacks and whites compare in leadership

positions. Blacks have displayed marked social inhibition and subordination

to white partners In cooperative problem-solving situations, even when

both races were matched on intelligence and made to display equal

ability at the task; blacks mostly ignored one another, made fewer

proposals, were less willing to argue for their point of view, were

more susceptible to group influence, ranked whites higher on mental

ability, favored whites when talking, favored one another as future

work companions, and expressed less satisfaction with group experiences

than did whites (Cohen, 1972; Katz and Benjamin, 1960; Katz, Goldston

and Benjamin, 1958).

Although some studies suggest that blacks alter their behavior in

an unfavorable direction or decrease in performance efficiency when

faced with a white rather than a black frame of reference (Hatton, 1967;

Katz and Cohen, 1962; Katz, Epps and Axelson, 1964; Katz, Roberts and

Robinson, 1965; Preston and Bayton, 1941), others suggest improved

performance in the white norm condition (Epps, Katz and Runyon, 1970;

Katz, Epps and Perry, 1970; Katz et al., 1972).








7

Some of the work done by Katz and his colleagues uses the race of

the experimenter as one of the major variables. These provide results

relevant to this study. Under a low stress conditions blacks worked

better in an all-white environment; however, under a high stress

condition black efficiency improved in the all-black environment and

went down in an all-white environment (Katz and Greenbaum, 1963).

These results were interpreted in terms of the hypothesis of an Inverted

U-shaped relationship between arousal and performance (cf., Malmo, 1957;

Duffy, 1957), with the low stress, all-black environment considered

insufficiently arousing for optimal performance and the high stress,

all-white environment too arousing, since the blacks worked best in a

low stress, all-white environment. In another study (Katz, Roberts and

Robinson, 1965), relating the most difficult task level to intelligence

reduced black performance under a white experimenter, but when the same

task level was described as a test of eye-hand coordination (i.e., an

ability which blacks are not stereotyped as lacking), black performance

was better with a white experimenter than with a black experimenter.

These results were related to the concept of task motivation as a

joint function of the subjective probability and incentive value of

success (cf., Atkinson, 1964); thus, when the likelihood of winning

approval was equally high, blacks would work harder for a white person

(i.e., a higher status individual) than a black person.

Actual white behavior in the biracial situation has not been studied

to the same degree as black behavior. Burnstein and McRae (1962)

investigated the attitudinal effect of participation in biracial

problem-solving groups and found that under conditions of shared threat







8

a reduction in the expression of prejudice occurred, although communication

to the black participants was significantly less by the high prejudiced

white subjects regardless of the presence or absence of shared threat.

Another study (Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958) found that group

reward produced a greater amount of cooperative behavior in both black

and white subjects. Although no more likely to have correct solutions

than blacks in group problem-solving, whites still exercised more social

influence (Katz and Benjamin, 1960; Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958).

When talking, whites have favored whites as the target of their inter-

action (Cohen, 1972; Katz and Benjamin, 1960; Katz, Goldston and Benjamin,

1958). While in one study (Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958) whites

chose blacks as often as they chose one another as future working

companions and ranked blacks as high as themselves on task competence,

in another experiment (Katz and Cohen, 1962), whites downgraded the

problem-solving ability of black partners and expressed less willingness

to continue working with the blacks as compared to a control group of

whites.

From these studies we can reach several plausible conclusions.

Black performance probably depends upon the racial-environmental

conditions under which they must work and anticipation of a cross-racial

comparison may have a favorable motivational effect. Members of both

races may favor white recipients when talking, ostensibly because whites

are perceived as having higher social status. Whites are probably more

influential in biracial group decisions and blacks are probably more

susceptible to group Influence. The reaction of whites to blacks in the

biracial problem-solving situation remains equivocal.








9
If leadership is viewed as a social exchange process a satisfactory

conceptual base can be provided for predicting group performance on the

basis of the research concerning biracial work groups. The essence of

social exchange is the development of relationships with other persons

such that benefits of mutual value can be "traded" between participants

of both equal and unequal status (Jacobs, 1970). Thus, participants

accrue "assets" which determine their status within the group. Leaders

are afforded or possess the greater assets, allowing them to function

more effectively in their leadership role. Implicit in this exchange or

transactional approach is the understanding that Individual, situational

and cultural differences have the potential of impinging upon the

leadership process and influencing or moderating relevant variables.

Therefore, the research concern racial work groups suggests that

groups supervised by white leaders will outperform groups supervised by

black leaders because white leaders will have more transactional assets

than will black leaders.

Leadership Studies

An important consideration is the functioning of blacks in leadership

positions and their acceptance by whites as leaders. Support for a

proposal that whites in the job setting would be willing to have blacks

over them in a position of leadership and supervision can be found in

Campbell (1971) where 86 percent of the white respondents to a 15-city

survey said they would not mind at all having a qualified black as a

supervisor on their job and Cavanagh (1971), who found that whites

accepted a black supervisor more readily than did many of the blacks.

Using the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (Fleishman,

1953), Glasgow (1970) found no significant differences between the









initiating structure and consideration leader behavior scores of a

sample of black public school principals and those of a sample of white

principals taken from a previous study. Glasgow points out that black

principals see themselves as being competent to assume the leadership

role in professionally staffed organizations.

Leadership assumption in a simulated clerical task was investigated

by Fenelon and Megaree (1971). The rate of leadership assumption by

high-dominance white women paired with low-dominance black women was

significantly lower than the rate of leadership assumption by both black

and white high-dominance women in the other groups. Analysis of the

process for deciding who should assume leadership suggested that the

above finding stemmed from the reluctance of the high-dominance white

women to assume leadership over the low-dominance black women, coupled

with the increased assertiveness of low-dominance black women when

paired with a white partner.

Using a business game to investigate interaction difficulties of

black and white coworkers with blacks in a supervisory position, Richards

and Jaffee (1972) found that the performance ratings by white observers

of black supervisors were significantly poorer than those of white

supervisors; that subordinates supervised by blacks gave more suggestions

and opinions and disagreed more than subordinates supervised by whites

whereas subordinates supervised by whites showed more solidarity and were

more accepting than subordinates supervised by blacks and some of these

behaviors (e.g., being less accepting) appeared to hinder the

effectiveness of black supervisors; and that subordinates with negative

racial bias gave poorer ratings to black supervisors than subordinates

with more positive racial attitudes.







11
Investigating the effects of varying racial compositions upon the

attitudes and behavior of black and white supervisors and subordinates,

Ruhe (1972) found no significant differences between black and white

supervisors in style of leadership (defined to be directive or nondirective),

duration of speech, self-esteem and satisfaction with subordinates and

work in three tasks.

Studies relating behavior scored by the IPA to leadership or

interracial leadership behavior (Richards and Cuffee, 1971; Richards and

Jaffee, 1972; Ruhe, 1972; Zdep, 1969) are generally Inconsistent. The

only notable commonality is the lack of an indicated relation for

categories 2 (showing tension release), 3 (agreeing), 7 (asking for

information), 10 (disagreeing) and 12 (showing antagonism). Richards

and Cuffee (1971) found that leaders (race unspecified) of Interacting

groups emitted more behavior in catagorles 4 (gives suggestion), 6

(gives information) and 9 (asks for information), and, in general,
emitted more behaviors; in addition, they found in interacting groups

that the effectiveness of leaders correlated with categories 1 (shows

solidarity), 4 (gives suggestion), 5 (gives opinion) and II (shows

tension). Richards and Jaffee (1972) found white leaders emitting more

behavior than black leaders in categories 1 (shows solidarity), 4 (gives

suggestion)and 6 (gives information). Ruhe (1972) found that white

leaders emitted more behavior than black leaders in categories 8 (asks
for opinion) and 9 (asks for suggestion). Zdep (1969) relates

leadership to categories 1 (shows solidarity), 4 (gives suggestion), 5

(gives opinion), 6 (gives information), 8 (asks for opinion) and 9 (asks

for suggestion).







12
Overall, perhaps the best conclusion that can be reached Is that

the evidence fails to demonstrate great deficiencies for blacks in

positions of leadership. More specifically, based on the results of the

two studies relating IPA-scored behavior to leadership (Richards and

Jaffee, 1972; Ruhe, 1972) the most plausible general conclusion for

differences in IPA-scored behavior between black and white leaders

appears to be that when differences occur white leaders will emit more

behavior than black leaders.

Leader Behavior and Task Performance

Initiating structure and consideration as dimensions of leader

behavior emerged from studies initiated by the Personnel Research Board

of the Ohio State University (cf., Stogdill and Coons, 1957). These

dimensions resulted from a factor analysis of hypothesized dimensions

of leader behavior (Halpin and Winer, 1957) and were identified as the

smallest number of dimensions which would adequately describe leader

behavior as perceived by the leader's subordinates and as the leader

himself reported his own attitudes toward his role (Korman, 1966). They

are frequently used to account for a leader's behavior and its effects.

They may be defined as follows (cf., Harris and Fleishman, 1955;

Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Fleishman and Peters, 1962):

Initiating Structure: Includes behavior indicative
of the extent to which an individual is likely to
organize and structure his role and those of his
subordinates toward goal attainment. A high score
characterizes individuals who assume a more active
role in defining and facilitating group activity
through planning, scheduling, task assignment,
establishing ways of getting thigs done, and
establishing desired subordinate roles.

Consideration: Includes behavior indicative of the
extent to which an individual is likely to emphasize
mutual trust, respect for subordinate's ideas,










consideration for their feelings, and maintenance
of a certain warmth between himself and his group.
A high score characterizes individuals who emphasize
a deeper concern for subordinate needs and indicates
a climate of good rapport and two-way communication.
A low score is indicative of a more authoritarian and
impersonal relationship between the leader and his
subordinates.

From the literature there is little doubt that the leadership

dimensions initiating structure and consideration and similar behavior

categories describe important leader behaviors, but the lack of

consistent empirical evidence as to how these behaviors predict group

performance poses a major theoretical problem (Anderson, 1966; Campbell

et al., 1970; Korman, 1966; House, Filley and Kerr, 1971; Lowin,

Hrapchak and Kavanagh, 1969). With regard to structured leadership

behavior, the typical case seems to be that leaders high in Initiating

structure or similar measures of instrumental or structuring behavior

have higher performing subordinate groups (Bales, 1953; Bass and Dunteman,

1963; Bass et al., 1963; Dunteman and Bass, 1963; Halpin and Winer,

1957; Katz and Kahn, 1953; Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950; Moore, 1953;

Moore and Smith, 1952; Stouffer et al., 1949); however, Korman (1966)

revealed several studies showing no relationship between initiating

structure and performance. Two studies (House, Filley, Gujarati, 1971;

House, Filley and Kerr, 1971) have found a positive relationship between

initiating structure and satisfaction. With regard to supportive

leadership behavior, the typical case seems to be that leaders high in

consideration or expressive behavior have subordinate groups who are high

in measures of satisfaction (Argyle, Gardner and Cioffi, 1958; Baumgartel,

1956, 1957; Comrey, Pfiffner and Wallace, 1954; Danielson and Maler, 1957;

Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Halpin, 1954; Halpin and Winer, 1957;









Hemphill, 1957; Indik, Seashore and Georgopoulos, 1960; Moore, 1953;

Moore and Smith, 1952; Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964; Patchen, 1960;

Seeman, 1960; Spector, Clark and Glickman, 1960); however, this type

of leadership behavior has also been found to relate positively to

departmental and individual performance (Argyle, Gardner and Cioffi, 1958;

Blbu and Scott, 1962; Indik, Seashore and Georgopoulos, 1960; Katz and

Kahn, 1953; Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950; Llkert, 1961). Leaders rated

high on both initiating structure and consideration are more likely to

be judged effective by their superiors and to have desirable effects

on productivity and group morale (Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Fleishman

and Simmons, 1970; Halpin, 1954; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Misumi and

Tosaki, 1965; Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964; Shartle, 1956); one study

(Halpin, 1955) has shown that while the effective leaders of air crews

were both structuring and considerate, the same condition was not true

of leaders of educational institutions. Korman (1966) concludes that,

despite the fact that initiating structure and consideration have

become almost bywords in American industrial psychology, it seems

apparent that very little is now known as to how these variables

predict work group performance and the conditions which affect such

predictions. Indeed, Lowin, Hrapchak and Kavanagh (1969), after a

thorough reading of the relevant literature, suggest that there appears

to be much evidence that initiating structure and consideration can each

correlate positively, negatively, both positively and negatively (depending

on other variables) and only weakly if at all with effectiveness and

morale indices. Korman's (1966) review shows a predominance of low to

moderate correlations, almost all of a concurrent nature. There is as

yet almost no evidence on the predictive validity of initiating structure







15
and consideration nor on the kinds of situational moderators which might

affect such validity (Korman, 1966).

Given the above results, one cannot reliably predict the relationship

between initiating structure or consideration and task performance.

However, if one must predict the relationship the safer prediction appears

to be that task performance will be better for those leaders who are high

in these dimensions rather than low.

Self-Concept

As Jacobs (1970) has noted, it is important to the individual that

his self-concept be as favorable as possible; the more favorable it is,

the greater will be his assets in social exchange relationships. Although

Coleman et al. (1966) found no difference in the self-concept of blacks

and whites in the educational setting, many studies of blacks suggest

the presence of an unfavorable self-image (Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969).

Society has fostered a negative self-concept among blacks by nurturing

and rewarding feelings of inferiority and unworthiness (Poussaint and

Atkinson, 1968), and this sort of self-image may account for such behavior

as black parents favoring a light-skinned child (Coles, 1967; Grambs,

1964), dark-skinned men trying to marry wives of a lighter skin color

(Kardiner and Ovesey, 1962), and the tendency of the black child to

identify with the white majority (Clark and Clark, 1947; Goodman, 1952;

Landreth and Johnson, 1953; Morland, 1962; Radke and Trager, 1950;

Stevenson and Stewart, 1958). Considerable research supports the

contention that blacks almost inevitably develop feelings of low self-

esteem (Ausubel and Ausubel, 1963; Bernard, 1958; Bridgette, 1970; Clark,

1967; Guggenheim, 1969; Jefferson, 1957).

However the "black is beautiful" theme that emerged during the 1960's

raises serious doubts as to the enduring validity of many of these earlier









studies. Indeed, recent research does indicate an improved self-image

among blacks, often equalling or exceeding that of whites (Back and

Parmesh, 1969; Carpenter and Busse, 1969; Dennis, 1968; Douglas, 1970;

Greenwald and Oppenheim, 1968; Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969; Hraba and

Grant, 1970; McElroy, 1971; Ogletree, 1969; Ruhe, 1972; White, 1971).

A careful examination of the literature leads one to the conclusion

that variables such as social setting (Ausubel, 1958; Coleman et al.,

1966; Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969; Ruhe, 1972), sex (Carpenter and

Busse, 1969) and age (Clark and Clark, 1947; Morland, 1962; Proshansky

and Newton, 1968; Radke and Trager, 1950) are moderating variables In

the determination of self-concepts. Therefore, it is an oversimplication

to generalize and say that black self-concepts are necessarily less

favorable than white self-concepts.

In a recent review concerning self-concept and attitudes, covering

generally the late 1960's, Christmas (1973) found that the research

surveyed fell into three major categories which corroborate the

importance of moderating variables on self-concept:

The first was concerned with the influence of antecedent
factors upon current aspects of self-concept. In these
studies, self-concept was the inferred consequent of familial,
parent-child, or other social interaction; of counseling, guid-
ance or role modeling; or of variations in learning
experience or educational practice (Allen, 1969; Crovetto,
1968; Crovetto, Fischer and Boudreaux, 1967; Henderson,
1967; Talley, 1968). A number of Investigations explored
the possible effects of Integrated, desegregated and
segregated schooling on self-attitudes (Bass, 1969;
Blenvenu, 1968; McWhirt, 1967; Strauss, 1967; Taylor, 1968).
The findings were generally inconclusive.

The second major group included studies in which antecedent
self-concept was presumably related to behavior. They
included investigations of self-evaluation and self-esteem
(Guggenheim, 1969; Soares and Soares, 1969; Williams and
Byars, 1969, T970); differences between blacks and whites
in regard to ethnocentrism and self-acceptance (Freeman et al.,









1966; Getter and Satow, 1969; Greenwald and Oppenheim,
1968; Hraba and Grant, 1970); and studies of level-of-
aspiration performance in learning tasks and academic
achievement (Blair, 1972; Caplin, 1966, 1969; Curtis,. 1967;
Freyberg and Shapiro, 1966; Gay, 1966; Greenberg et a.,
1965; Lourenso, Greenberg and Davidson, 1965). Here, too,
results were inconclusive and failed to show a definite
relationship between self-concept, broadly defined, and
behavior.

Finally, a number of research efforts were directed
toward determining possible correlations between self-
esteem and variables such as occupational level, socio-
economic status, residence, age, and sex, in blacks and
whites (McDonald and Gynther, 1965; Wendland, 1969; Wylie
and Hutchins, 1967; Yeatts, 1968). Here, at least,
recognition was given to the possibility, for example,
that socioeconomic status might outweigh the factor of
race. Yet, several investigators still compared blacks
of lower socioeconomic status with middle class whites,
while acknowledging this to be a limitation of the study
(Long and Henderson, 1968). The weakness of the design and
the methods of data analysis in these studies contributed
to the resultant lack of solidity In the findings.

Considering these findings on self-concept as a whole and even though

it is evident that black self-concepts are not necessarily less favorable

than white self-concepts, the evidence seems to favor the prediction

that whites will have greater self-esteem than will blacks. Since

leaders high in self-esteem possess a greater transactional asset than

leaders low in self-esteem it is reasonable to expect better task

performance from groups they supervise.

Locus of Control

It is often stated that locus of control Is an important determinant

of individual behavior. For example, two review articles (Lefcourt,

1966; Rotter, 1966) have shown that when a person believes that

reinforcements are controlled by internal rather than external forces,

he is likely to make greater attempts at mastering the environment; to

be more resistant to influence attempts by others, yet more effective in









attempts to influence others; to prefer high-probability choices in

risk-taking behavior; to be lower in anxiety and higher in achievement

orientation; to act more responsively to probability changes in the

situation; to place higher value on skill determined rewards; and to be

involved in social action (Lao, 1970). Internal-external control is

consistently related to a variety of scales, with internal scorers

describing themselves as more active, striving, achievingpowerful,

independent and effective (Hersch and Scheibe, 1967). Also, Internals

are more active in intellectual pursuits and show greater interest in

intellectual activities (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall, 1965;

Crandall, Katkovsky and Preston, 1962).

The research relating to this dimension in groups of blacks and

whites has consistently demonstrated class and racial differences (see,

e.g., Lao, 1970; Lefcourt, 1965; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965b), with a

sense of internal control being stronger in the middle class than in

the working class and stronger in whites than in blacks (Battle and

Rotter, 1963; Coleman et al., 1966; Crandall, Katovsky and Crandall,

1965; Gurin, 1970; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965a). The interaction of
class and race is such that lower class blacks stand out as having

a particularly external orientation (Battle and Rotter, 1963; Coleman

et al., 1966; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965a).

While one study found no racial differences between blacks and

whites in locus of control (Hall, 1969), and even though blacks in one

situation behaved in a more cautious, Internal fashion than did

whites (Lefcourt, 1965), blacks as a group seem to feel and behave as

if they have limited control of reinforcement. However, as Dreger and

Miller (1968) suggest, this reaction may be a function of the type of







19

situation being studied. Higher achievement scores and grades, greater

academic confidence and higher expectations and aspirations have been

reported on the part of black students with a strong feeling of personal

control (Gurinet al., 1969; Lao, 1970). In contrast to studies using

general locus of control measures, those using the Intellectual Achieve-

ment Responsibility scale (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall, 1965)

report no race effects (Katz, 1967; Solomon, Houlihan and Parelius, 1969)

and only very slight social class effects (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall,

1965; Solomon, Houlihan and Parelius, 1969).

Based on the above, it is reasonable to expect that white leaders

will be higher in internal control than black leaders. Further,

regardless of leader race, the performance of groups supervised by

leaders high in internal control should be better than that of groups

supervised by leaders low in this dimension because they have a

greater transactional asset and because they should be more effective

in influencing others.

Intell ience and Aptltude

The contribution of intelligence to leadership appears to be small

(cf., Shaw, 1971), but the review by Stogdill (1948) overwhelmingly

indicated that leaders are, on the average, more intelligent than

nonleaders. A low positive correlation between tested intelligence and

leadership behavior is indicated (Bass and Wurster, 1953a, 1953b;

Hollander, 1954). If we can view aptitude for learning as being a

subcategory of intelligence, similar results can be expected.

That blacks, as a group, show up as deficient in abstract abilities

and score below whites on most measures of academic achievement and

aptitude is well documented (APA, 1969; Baughman and Dahlstrom, 1968;







20
Coleman et al., 1966; Dreger and Miller, 1968; Epps, 1969; McFann, 1970;

Pettigrew, 1964);4 however, the significance of this to their performance

as leaders has not been investigated.

With the notable exception above, the ability of tests in general

to distinguish between blacks and whites appears to be subject to

numerous moderating variables; further, their ability to predict per-

formances for either race appears to be somewhat unreliable. These

conclusions are suggested by evidence such as the following:

(1) On personality-type tests, differences tend to disappear
when black and white subjects are matched on such variables
as intelligence (Thumin and Goldman, 1968) or socioeconomic
status (Flanagan and Lewis, 1969).

(2) Aptitude differences between blacks and whites have remained
even when the subjects were matched on socioeconomic status
(Flanagan and Lewis, 1969).

(3) While some studies strongly confirm that verbal and mathematics
tests predict scholastic performance equally well for blacks and
whites (Boney, 1966; Cleary, 1966; Cleary and Hilton, 1966;
Sunday, 1965; Stanley and Porter, 1967), other studies have
yielded no clear trends in predicting job performance (Gordon,
1955; Kirkpatrick et al., 1967; Tenopyr, 1967), and thus no
firm conclusions are possible (APA, 1969).
(4) Blacks have scored lower than whites on qualification tests
and then have performed equally well on job sample and job
knowledge tests (McFann, 1970).

(5) Blacks have been hired for certain positions for which their
measured intelligence disqualified them and then have gone
ahead and performed satisfactorily ("Merit for Hire," 1958).

(6) The contention that blacks are handicapped on tests of spatial
ability because of an environmental disadvantage has not
always been supported (Osborne and Gregor, 1968).


4The APA report (1969) offers five possible factors as to why blacks
typically score below whites: cultural deprivation, anxiety induced by
the testing situation, unfairness of test content, improper interpretation
of test scores, and lack of content relevance.







21

The positive correlation between tested intelligence and leader

behavior combined with the consideration that a more intelligent person

will have a greater transactional asset than will a less intelligent

person suggests that it is reasonable to expect groups supervised by

leaders high in intelligence to outperform groups supervised by leaders

low in intelligence. This is also suggested by the consideration that

leaders with more intelligence will be able to comprehend and execute

task demands with greater facility.

Job Satisfaction

Depending on the demographic stratum to which they belong, blacks

may have higher, the same or lower job satisfaction that whites

(Feldman, 1972; Kahl and Goering, 1971; Katzell, Ewen and Korman, 1970;

Milutinovlch, 1971). Although black job attitudes less favorable than

those of whites have been found (Katzell, Ewen and Korman, 1970), the

evidence heavily favors the conclusion that black workers have job

attitudes as favorable or even more favorable than those of whites

(Feldman, 1972; Katzell, Ewen and Korman, 1970; Nelson, Achabel and

George, 1971).

Investigating the relationship of race and job satisfaction and

the influence of participative and authoritative supervisory styles on

the job satisfaction of blacks and whites, Milutinovich (1971) found

that race has only limited influence on job satisfaction and that both

blacks and whites had higher job satisfaction under participative than

under authoritative supervision. Black blue- and white-collar workers

had similar job satisfaction, while white blue-collar workers were lower

than white-collar workers. Blacks, regardless of job type, had higher

job satisfaction than white blue-collar workers, but had lower satisfaction

than white white-collar workers.









In an extensive exploratory study of hardcore unemployed and

working-class blacks and whites, Feldman (1972) found that black subjects

evaluated several material and social job outcomes more highly than

whites and black working-class subjects rated a variety of outcomes,

including some higher order ones (Maslow, 1954), more highly than any

other group. He summarized his general pattern of results as suggesting

that the black subjects, particularly the working-class, perceive work

as a source of valued rewards, while the white working-class does not.

If differences in satisfaction between black and white leaders are

predicted the more plausible prediction seems to be that black leaders

will indicate greater satisfaction with work and subordinates than

will white leaders. This is suggested by the fact that in this study

the subjects (i.e., Navy enlisted personnel) should typically have

their origins in predominately working-class/blue-collar environments.

The data suggests that blacks from these origins probably have greater

work-related satisfaction than whites with similar backgrounds.

Miscellaneous Related Research

Much of the available research, while not falling into any of

the previous categories, suggests important differences between blacks

and whites. Although In one study (Veroff et al., 1960) blacks and

whites were shown to be similar, it appears that blacks are less

achievement oriented than whites (Lott and Lott, 1963; Merbaum, 1962;

Mingione, 1965; Rosen, 1959). Consistent with recent studies of black

consciousness and black politics where power is the central theme

(Dizard, 1970; Kelman, 1970; Tomlinson, 1970), blacks have been shown to

have a higher need for power (Greene and Winter, 1971; Veroff at al., 1960).







23

Further, blacks, relative to whites, (a) generally score lower on need

for dominance and autonomy (Brazziel, 1964) and self-liking (Clark,

1967), (b) are similar on need for affiliation (Veroff et al., 1960) or

high in affiliation (Ferman, Kornbuk, and Miller, 1968), (c) have a

higher degree of self-doubt (Deutsch, 1960) and social conformity

(Sistrunk, 1971), (d) exhibit essentially the same creative talent

(Doyle, 1970) and (e) place a greater emphasis on verbal interaction

(Kochman, 1969).

Results presented by two studies (Broom and Glenn, 1966; Cameron,

1971) weaken the notion of a separate subculture insofar as such a

culture is indicated by opinion and personality differences. Indeed,

based on these studies, blacks and whites appear far more similar

psychologically than different. Analyzing responses to questions asked

on national public opinion surveys, Broom and Glenn (1966) found, in

general, that black and white differences in attitudes were smaller

than the differences between Southern and non-Southern whites and

between low- and high-education whites. In the other study, Cameron

(1971), using various instruments, found that blacks tested the same as
whites on masculinity-femininity, extraversion, ego-strength and liking

of the generalized other; higher than whites on religiosity and "claimed

judged liking of the generalized other"; lower than whites on neuroticism

and hostility; and, on a lie scale, there was a slight tendency for

blacks to be more candid. Parallel sex and developmental differences

suggested to Cameron that the differential social influences are much

the same and are handled psychologically fhe same for either race.

From these results we can conclude that blacks have stronger power

orientations, are less achievement oriented, emphasize verbal interaction

more and are probably psychologically similar to whites.







24

Relating the above now to the present study, black leaders can be

predicted to have a longer speech duration than white leaders when

directing groups in task accomplishment because of the greater emphasis

blacks place on verbal interaction.

Conclus on

The studies reviewed, particularly those concerning black-white

differences, represent many research designs, populations, situations

and methodologies. Although their results can be considered as suggestive

of enduring differences and thus helpful in understanding black-white

interaction In the work environment, additional research is necessary

to better establish these relationships, particularly in view of the

apparent change in the attitudes and behaviors of blacks since the

mid-1960's. The relative scarcity of blacks in positions of leadership

and supervision has seriously limited the knowledge in this area.


Hypotheses


Based on the literature review, hypotheses relevant to this study

can now be formally advanced. For ease of reference, they have been

categorized into two groups: group I deals with differences between

black and white leaders; group II with differences in task performance

depending upon specific leader attributes.

Group I: BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE LEADERS

A. Groups supervised by white leaders will outperform groups
supervised by black leaders in accomplishing assigned tasks
(where the shortest time for task accomplishment is the
performance criterion).

B. White leaders, as compared to black leaders, will: (a) exhibit
more interpersonal behavior, (b) score higher in self-esteem,
and (c) score higher in internal control.









C. Black leaders, as compared to white leaders, will: (a) have
a greater duration of speech, (b) indicate more satisfaction
with subordinates, and (c) indicate more satisfaction with work
in the tasks.

Group II: BETWEEN LEADERS OF THE SAME RACE

For each task, the performance of groups of equal size and of
equal racial composition will be faster when supervised by leaders
who: (a) perceive themselves high in consideration, (b) perceive
themselves high in initiating structure, (c) are rated by their
subordinates as high in consideration, (d) are rated by their subordinates
as high in initiating structure, (e) are high in self-esteem, (f) are
high in internal control, (g) are high in intelligence, compared to
other leaders of the same race who, respectively, are low In these
leader attributes.

Considering the findings and evidence presented in Chapter I as a

whole, it is evident that research and intuition are not clear as to

just what enduring differences exist between blacks and whites in

instances of leadership. This problem has been exacerbated by the

paucity of systematic, empirical information on the subject of black-

white leadership differences. Thus, this area is rather fertile for

study and an investigation focused here is most timely and relevant.

In Chapter II the methodology is presented in detail. Chapter III

presents the analysis and results. Chapter IV contains a summary,

discussion and implications for future research.















CHAPTER II


METHODOLOGY


The methodology used in this study is presented in this chapter

in the following order: (a) subjects, (b) physical environment, (c)

design, (d) tasks, (e) observer training and reliability, (f) procedure

and (g) questionnaire. The study was carried out on the following

dates: August 28-31; September I, 4-8, 11, 14, 1972. Training for

investigator assistants was conducted on August 28 and 29; data

collection was accomplished during the other days.



Subjects

The cooperation of the Commanding Officer of a large U. S. Naval

Training Center located in the Southeastern United States was obtained

so that recruits attached to the Recruit Training Command could serve

as subjects. A total of 288 male recruits, 144 black and 144 white,

participated in the study. Sixty-four of these were squad leaders, 32

black and 32 white. A profile of the black and white squad leaders

and members obtained from a biographical questionnaire is shown in

Table 1.

All of the subjects were engaged in the seven week basic training

program prescribed by the Curriculum for Recruit Training (NAVPERS 92353B,









TABLE 1
PERSONAL PROFILE OF SQUAD LEADERS AND SQUAD MEMB.ERS.


Squad Leaders .. Squad Members
Black White Black White
(N=3) (N ) Nr2) (NT


Average
Marital Status (Percent)
Married
Single
Divorced
Separated
Average number of Dependents
Region of Birth (Percent)
Southern
Non-Southern
Region where Raised (Percent)
Southern
Non-Southern
Type of Community where Raised Percer
Farm Community
Small Town
Medium/Large City
Moved often
Perception of Family Income (Percent)
Higher than Average
About Average
Less than Average
Very Much Below Average
Mostly on Welfare
Raised by (Percent)
Mother and Father
Mother Only
Father Only
Others
Average Number of Siblings
Perception of Social Class (Percent)
Upper Class
Middle Class
Working Class
Poverty Class
Father's Occupation (Percent)
Unskilled
Semi-skilled
Skilled
Clerical/White Collar
Professional
..Unknown .....


19.21

3
91
6
0


19.00 19.17


.37


94
6
it)
9
22
69
0


0
59
28
9
3

56
31
0
13
4.50

6
38
53
3

13
44
38
0
3
3


13
84
3
0
0

91
6
0
3
2.78

0
66
34
0

6
16
44
25
9
0,


.48


88
13

87
13

13
26
55
6

1
46
40
8
5
48
36
2
14
4.87

6
35
57
1

20
34
31
4
5
6


18.23


11
26
48
15

10
73
13
3
2

78
13
4
6
3.41

2
61
37
1

8
18
48
13
11
...... .2 .


aAll percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.
In some classifications the percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.







28
1968). Recruit training companies were organized as shown in Figure 1.

Squad leaders and occupants of other company positions are selected by

the company commander (who is usually a chief or first-class petty

officer) during the first few days of recruit training, usually on the

basis of the recruits' vita and initial interviews. The position of

squad leader was selected as the level of leadership comparison in order

to obtain a large enough sample for statistical reliability. According

to the Company Commander's Guide (CRUITRACOMORLINST 5400.1C, 1972),

squad leaders during recruit training have the following as their formal

duties and responsibilities:

(a) Be in charge of and responsible for the men in their squads.

(b) Assist and supervise the men in their squads in attaining high
standards of personal cleanliness, military appearance, conduct
and academic achievement.

(c) Assume responsibility, under the duty platoon leader, for the
performance of their squad on cleaning details.

(d) Insure that the yeoman is kept informed of personnel changes
within their squads.

Random sampling for the selection of participants was not possible

due to the rigor of their training schedule and the uneven distribution

of blacks in some companies. Altogether, thirty companies representing

approximately 2,150 men were canvassed to arrive at the final set of

subjects. To reduce variability in the length of time the squad leaders

and members had been in training as much as possible, selection of the

sample was further restricted to those companies engaged in the fifth day,

fourth week and In the first, second and fourth days, fifth week of

training. These days corresponded to the latest availability possible

for the recruits before entering the latter portion of their training,

during which no periods of availability could be scheduled.








Figure 1
Recruit Company Organization



Company Commander

I
Recruit Chief Petty Officer


Company Yeoman

Master-at-A ms

Guidon Bearer


First Platoon Leader


Religious Petty
Officer
Athletic Petty
Officer
Educational Pet1
Officer


I
Second Platoon Leader


LRight Guide


I I
Squad Squad Squad
Leader Leader Leader



*Squad *Squad '*Squad
Members. Members Members


Right
Guide


I -\I
Squad Squad Squad
Leader Leader Leader


I I
"Squad *Squad .'Squad
Members Members Members


*Note: Approximately 8 squad members made up the typical squad.


ty









The Navy provided a coordinator as liaison between the company

commanders and the researchers. The coordinator, SMCS Jerome F.

Dederick USN, scheduled groups from the appropriate companies on a

day-by-day and as-available basis. He had recently been a company

commander himself and was held in high esteem by his colleagues. Because

of this, all 30 company commanders providing squads for the study were

cooperative and harmonious relations prevailed throughout the duration

of the study.

In selecting groups for study on a particular day, the coordinator

would, during the previous afternoon or evening, ascertain (by

consulting the daily master training schedule) which companies would be

available for possible participation (i.e., to find out those engaged

In the fifth day, fourth week and in the first, second and fourth days,

fifth week of their training and not scheduled for any special activity).

The coordinator, after checking with the investigator to find out what

additional types of groups were needed at that point, would then

contact the commanders of the available companies to solicit their

cooperation. Then the company commander was asked for the racial

distribution of squad leaders and members, and if or when those squads

meeting racial composition needs were available. The company commanders

were told only that the squads were needed for a study concerning the

problem-solving effectiveness of small groups; no mention was made of

leadership or race (although the interracial aspects were undoubtedly

guessed). The company commanders in turn decided which squad leaders

and squad members were to participate. Selection depended upon the

personal availability of the individual subject, not in the sense of

their volunteering to participate but more in the sense of whether or







31

not they were Individually scheduled for some other activity. No known

consistent biasing occurred because the company commanders were not

told how to select the participants.

This particular setting for the experimental study offered several

advantages:

(1) the population from which the subjects were drawn represented

a fairly wide cross-section of young males, both black and

white (although nearly all of the blacks turned out to be born

and raised in the South; see Table ).

(2) the leaders of the groups studied were, in fact, squad leaders,

who would have been appointed to their position in the same

manner whether or not a study was being conducted;

(3) similarly, the subordinates were, in fact, members of the
squad led by the squad leader who was the leader during the

study;

(4) the phenomena under investigation were studied as they existed,

providing a "natural experiment" as described by Shaw (1971).


Physical Environment


The study was conducted in the Conference Facility at the U.S.

Naval Training Center. Two rooms, each with a one-way window, were

utilized (see Figure 2). Trained observers were able to observe the

participants without disturbing or distracting them. Each room was

equipped with:

(a) a rectangular table and five chairs for the participants,

(b) a desk and chair for the investigator's inside assistant,






















4J


te @


o m -

0 .U) 4J
IC

0o 0 -
V0 L L. t .


41 I !
0 0- = 0)
to V 0U -X 0I


T .e
S. > O Cl O 0
4. 0.
C- 0.- 0.IDC
0 0
N O L







4)
0




0 0


m
Lu
"-
0
W
m \ VI M

-1 E



L.Iin in L -L
I I I EE


a 1U0 10 "
*0000


m l a m o v mQ


\ a f o U U U


_o__________ o -*c-J pf









(c) lengths of rope for knot-tying,

(d) a microphone, on the rectangular table, connected to a
speaker/amplifier operated by the observers on the other
side of the one-way mirror,

(e) stop watches mounted In a specially fabricated rack for
manipulation by the investigator assistant,

(f) a suitable supply of necessary forms and instruction cards.

The observation station outside for each room was provided with:

(a) suitable seating for the observers near the one-way window,

(b) a speaker/amplifier located at the observation station,

(c) recording forms and two large clipboards for the observers.


Design


There were 64 subordinate groups in the study:

(1) 16 two member subordinate groups, one black and one
white (designated a Type 0 group);

(2) 16 four member subordinate groups, one black and three
white (designated a Type 1 group);

(3) 16 four member subordinate groups, two black and two
white (designated a Type 2 group);

(4) 16 four member subordinate groups, three black and one
white (designated a Type 3 group).

Eight different black and eight different white squad leaders supervised

one of the four types of subordinate groups shown above, allowing 64

leaders In all to participate. In way of clarification, the term

group denotes a group that includes the leader plus the subordinates;

the term subordinate group denotes a group consisting of subordinates

only.

The study addressed itself to the effects of three factors: (1)

leader race, (2) group size and (3) group racial composition. Leader








34

race was varied by having equal numbers of black and white squad leaders

in charge of groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition.

Group size was varied by holding racial composition constant at 50

percent and varying the number in the subordinate group from two to four.

Group racial composition was varied by holding subordinate group size

constant at four and varying the number of members of each race from

one to three (and thus racial composition was 25 percent, 50 percent and

75 percent black or white). The four-member size and 50 percent racial

composition subordinate group is common to both the analysis of data

with subordinate group size varying and the analysis of data with

subordinate group racial composition varying. Otherwise, size and racial

composition would be confounding variables. Data analysis between

subordinate groups of varying size but equal racial composition was

accomplished by utilizing Type 0 and Type 2 groups, and between

subordinate groups of varying racial composition but equal size,

Types 1, 2 and 3. Basically, the result was a 2-X-4 factorial design

as shown in Figure 3.

Within the framework of the 2-X-4 design, the following were

studied:

(1) interpersonal behavior (defined to be the group interaction
processes),

(2) leader's style of leadership (directive versus non-directive),

(3) leader's social-emotional behavior (positive versus negative),

(4) group performance for two tasks (i.e., the time for completing
each task),

(5) leader's and subordinate's duration of speech during each of the
tasks,

(6) leader's and subordinate's self-esteem,

(7) leader's satisfaction with the subordinates and the tasks,











Figure 3

Schema of the Basic Research Design


Leader

Subordinates

Number of Groups


Leader

Subordinates

Number of Groups


Group Type

1 2

B B

BWWW BBWW

8 8


W.

BWWW

8


W

BBWW

8


B = black subject

W = white subject


3

B

BBBW

8


W

BBBW

8









(8) subordinate's satisfaction with the leader, the tasks and
fellow subordinates,

(9) leader's perception of his initiating structure and consideration,

(10) subordinate's perception of the leader's initiating structure
and consideration,

(11) leader's and subordinate's generalized expectancies for
internal versus external control,

(12) leader's general intelligence.

The Bales (1950) Interaction Process Analysis was used to measure

the group interaction processes (cf., Zdep, 1969; Richards and Jaffee,

1972; Katzell et al., 1970; Ruhe, 1972). Initiations of interaction
in each of the 12 IPA categories by all leaders and subordinates were

recorded by trained observers while the tasks were being performed.

Two observers were used in scoring the IPA to establish reliability for

the observation process. In this situation one black and one white male

observer were used to observe each group session In an effort to

compensate for possible perceptual differences. No female observers were

used.

Certain categories of the IPA have been interpreted as reflecting

directive and non-directive leadership (Katzell et al., 1970). IPA

categories 4 (giving suggestions), 5 (giving opinion) and 6 (giving

information) were interpreted as directive, while categories 7 (asking

for information), 8 (asking for opinion) and 9 (asking for suggestions)

were interpreted as non-directive. Style of leadership was assumed to

be measured by these categories.

In a similar way IPA categories 1 (shows solidarity), 2 (shows

tension release) and 3 (agrees) were interpreted as positive social-

emotional behavior in the same sense as presented by Bales (1950), while

categories 10 (disagrees), 11 (shows tension) and 12 (shows antagonism)
were interpreted as negative social-emotional behavior.







37
The time required to complete each of the two tasks was used as a

measure of the group performance under the direction of the squad leader.

The time required was recorded, with the assumption that the less the

time needed for task accomplishment, the better the performance. No

quality considerations were given to group performance.

Speech duration for each group member during both tasks was

recorded on time-accumulating stop watches activated by the investigator's

inside assistant. This method has been shown to be a reliable technique

for recording absolute duration of speech (Bass, 1960; Jaffee, Cohen

and Cherry, 1972). This measure was assumed to reflect the degree of

participation by the individual group members.

Self-esteem of each group member was measured by two instruments:

(1) the self-esteem portion (adult and student form) of the Self-Other

Orientation Tasks of Ziller (1971) (see Appendix D) and (2) the Self-

Esteem Scale of Rosenberg (1965) (see Appendix E).

Self-esteem, according to Ziller (1968), is the component of the self

system concerning the Individual's perception of his worth with:in.a

social context. The stem presents a horizontal array of six circles and

a list of significant other people such as a friend, a selfish person,

grandmother, someone you hope to be like, a principal and yourself.

The task requires the subject to assign each person to a circle. The

score is the weighted position of the self. In accordance with the

cultural norm, positions to the left are associated with higher self-

esteem (Ziller, 1971). This assumption has been examined and validated

in a series of separate studies (cf., Ziller, Megas and DeCencio, 1964;

Henderson, Long and Ziller, 1965; Mossman and Ziller, 1968; Ziller et al.,

1969).










In contrast to Ziller's instrument, Rosenberg's Onmitem

Guttman scale is designed to measure attitude toward the self along

a favorable-to-unfavorable dimension. Rosenberg designed the scale

with several criteria in mind, one being his conception of self-

esteem (Rosenberg, 1965):

When we speak of high self-esteem, then, we
shall simply mean that the individual respects himself,
considers himself worthy; he does.not necessarily con-
sider himself better than others, but he definitely does
not consider himself worse; he does not feel that he is
the ultimate in perfection but, on the contrary, recog-
nizes his limitations and expects to grow and improve.
Low self-esteem, on the other hand, implies self-
rejection, self-dissatisfaction, self-contempt. The
individual lacks respect for the self he observes. The
self-picture is disagreeable, and he wishes it were
otherwise.

The 10 Items, all of the Likert type, are scored through the use of

contrived items (Stouffer et al]., 1952) to yield a seven point scale.

Rosenberg (1965), before the larger study reported therein, pretested

the instrument and found a significant association between the

individual's self-esteem and the likelihood that he would appear

depressed to others. Not only were people with low self-esteem

scores more likely to appear depressed to others but they were also

more likely to express feelings of unhappiness and discouragement .

A pilot sociometric investigation of 272 high school seniors (also

reported In Rosenberg, 1965) found that individuals rated low in

self-esteem by the instrument: (1) were less likely to be selected

as a leader by two or more classmates; (2) were judged as less

likely to be chosen by others if an election were held; (3) were

less likely to be described as active participants in classroom








39
discussions; and (4) were more likely to be described as relatively

subdued and inactive in classroom discussions. In the larger study

of slightly over 5,000 high school juniors and seniors (Rosenberg,

1965), he found that students with low self-esteem were less likely

than those with high self-esteem to be active participants in

formal groups, to be active and frequent participants in informal

discussions, to be informal opinion leaders, and to be formal group

leaders. He also mentions in a footnote (p. 30) that a study by

E. Silber and J. S. Tippett showed a test-retest reliability of .85

for a group of college students retested after two weeks. The Rosen-

berg instrument was included in addition to the Ziller instrument

because it is based upon verbal self-report rather than spatial

abstraction.

Individual satisfaction with subordinates, tasks, leader,

and/or fellow subordinates was measured using selected scales of

the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) described by Smith (1967) and

Smith, Kendall. and Hulin (1969). The JDI in its complete form

measures satisfaction in five areas: type of work, pay, oppor-

tunities for promotion, supervision. and co-workers. For each area

there is a list of adjectives or short phrases, and the respondent

is instructedd to indicate whether or not each word or phrase applies

to the facet in question (e.g., the supervision) by circling Y

for yes or N for no. If he cannot decide if a word or phrase

applies, he is asked to circle a question mark. All group members

completed the work scale (see Appendix H) as a measure of satisfaction

with the tasks. Only the squad members completed the supervision










scale (see Appendix I) as a measure of satisfaction with the squad

leader. Both the squad leaders and the squad members completed

the co-workers scale; the leaders rated their subordinates indi-

vidually (see Appendix J), while the squad members rated their

fellow subordinates (see Appendix K). Smith, Kendall and Hulin feel

that the JDI has several advantages as a measure of satisfaction:

it is directed toward specific areas of satisfaction rather than

global or general satisfaction, the verbal level required to answer

the JDI is quite low, and the responses are not self-referent.

There is a deliberate attempt to avoid the use of a self-referent,

since the basic needs or drives of the organism or their relevance

to satisfaction are not clearly established.

Assessment of the squad leader's perception of his own initi-

ating structure and consideration was accomplished through the use

of the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (see Appendix F), described

by Fleishman (1957b). This 40-item instrument was designed to

provide independent measures of initiating structure and considera-

tion in leadership-group situations where primary concern is in the

assessment of leadership attitudes. Internal consistency as well

as test-retest reliability has been assessed (DiVesta, 1954; Fleish-

man, Harris. and Burtt, 1955; Harris and Fleishman, 1955); reliability

for initiating structure was .67-.74, and for consideration, .77-

.80. Validity has been evaluated through correlations with inde-

pendent leadership measures, such as merit rating by supervisors,

peer ratings, forced-choice performance reports by management and

leaderless group situation tests (Fleishman, 1957b).








41

Assessment of the leader's initiating structure and consideration

by subordinates was accomplished through the use of the Supervisory

Behavior Description (see Appendix G), described by Fleishman

(1957a). This 48-item instrument is meant to parallel the Leadership
Opinion Questionnaire in scope and purpose. Reliability has been

assessed in terms of internal consistency, inter-rater agreement,

and stability of repeated measures over time (Fleishman, Harris, and

Burtt, 1955; Harris and Fleishman, 1955); reliability for initiating

structure was .46-.53, and for consideration, .55-.58. Its validity

has also been assessed through correlations with independent leadership

measures, such as objective group indices (absenteeism, turnover),

productivity ratings, peer ratings. and leadership group situation.

tests (Fleishman, 1957a).

Both the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and Supervisory

Behavior Description are considered independent of the general

intelligence of respondents (Fleishman, 1957a, 1957b). While both

initiating structure and consideration were found to be orthogonal

in factor analyses by Fleishman (1953) and Halpin and Winer (1957),

which has been interpreted as suggesting that the two are Independent

(Fleishman, 1953, 1957a; Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Stanton, 1960),

recent evidence (Lowin, Hrapchak. and Kavanagh, 1969) suggests a

relationship between them.

Expectancy for internal versus external control was measured

by Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Control Scale (see Appendix C).

The instrument and its developmental history is documented in

Rotter's (1966) monograph. In Rotter's theory, the control construct










is considered a generalized expectancy, operating across a large

number of situations, which relates to whether or not the indi-

vidual possesses or lacks power over what happens to him.

Individuals are conceived to vary along a "locus of control"

dimension, with the end points labeled internal and external. The

29-item, forced-choice scale has a test-retest reliability that is

consistent and acceptable. Little relationship has been found

between intelligence and control measures (Hersch and Scheibe,

1967; Lefcourt, 1966; Rotter, 1966). There is, however, some evi-

dence that intelligence is positively related to perceived internal

control (Bialer, 1961; Crandall, Katkovsky, and Preston, 1962).

The general Intelligence of leaders was measured by the U.S.

Navy Basic Test Battery (BTB). given to all recruits upon entering

the recruit training program. This battery consists of four

pencil-and-paper examinations: (1) the general classification test

(GCT), (2) an arithmetic test (ARI), (3) a mechanical ability test

(MECH), (4) a clerical ability test (CLER). The classification

tests are primarily designed to measure an individual's aptitude

or capability for learning, rather than his achievement. For the

BTB, the raw score Is converted to a Navy Standard Score (NSS).

According to the Manual of Enlisted Classification Procedures

(NAVPERS 15812B, 1970), the NSS is designed to provide standardiza-

tion in test score recording and Is meant to ease the function of

score comprehension, comparison, and interpretation; it is distributed

normally, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The

BTB is designed primarily to determine minimum eligibility for

service schools.










These scores were extracted from recruit records. The sum of

the four individual scores on the GCT, ARI, MECH. and CLER tests

was considered a measure of general intellectual ability.



Tasks

Two structured, verbal tasks were employed In this study: a

knot-tying and a ship-routing task. Both were selected because of

their applicability to a situation involving Navy recruits, and to

assure interaction between the leaders and subordinates in accom-

plishing the tasks. They differ largely in the degree to which

verbal skill is required. The knot-tying task was instructional and

emphasized a certain degree of spatial orientation and physical

dexterity. The ship-routing task required the coordination of

information provided only to the subordinates and emphasized a certain

degree of mental agility. Both types of tasks were used by Ruhe

(1972); the ship-routing task is similar to that used by Fiedler

(1967).

The knot-tying task required that group members each perform

satisfactorily the physical task of tying a Double Carrick Bend.

This unusual knot, used in the maritime world for joining two hawsers

together (a hawser is a large rope by which a ship is towed), was

selected in an effort to eliminate the possibility of prior knowledge

by any of the subjects, due perhaps to membership in various youth

groups or an early nautical interest.










Prior to commencement of the task, the leader was given an

instruction sheet (see Appendix M), face down, displaying how to tie

the knot, and each group member was given two lengths of rope. After

receiving directions for task accomplishment (see Appendix N) from

the investigator's assistant, the signal to begin was given. The

leader instructed the subordinates how to tie the knot and they were

asked to duplicate it. Group members were permitted to give verbal

but not physical help so that group effort and verbal interaction

would be enhanced. After all subordinates had tied the knot, and

upon a signal from the leader, the assistant determined whether or

not the knot had been tied correctly by each subordinate. The per-

formance of the group was measured by the total elapsed time for the

instruction by the leader and the duplication of the knot by the

subordinates. If the task was not completed within 25 minutes,

the assistant was instructed to take the leader outside the room

and show him how to properly tie the knot. The leader then would

return and continue instructions.

The ship-routing task has been rated high on cooperation re-

quirements, decision verifiability, and intellectual-manipulative

requirements (Shaw, 1963). In this problem each group was asked to

find, in the least amount of time, the shortest route for a ship to

leave one port and touch at each of four other ports.

Each member was given a copy of the instruction sheet (see

Appendix 0) showing a diagram designed to assist in arriving at the

shortest route combination. Pencils were also provided. With the










same intent as Fiedler (1967), i.e., assuring that group members

will have to interact to solve the problem, each subordinate received

only partial information concerning the distances and availability

of the routes between ports. For a five-port problem, there are 10

elements of information (e.g., the distance from A to B is 150 miles

by direct route). Each element was listed on a small index card

(see Appendix P). In addition, two cards with no information were

included where the total number of cards would be divisible by two

and by four. For a three-man group, each squad member was given six

information cards, randomly chosen; for a five-man group, three

cards, also randomly chosen. Cards could not be exchanged; all

information had to be transmitted verbally. A second ship-routing

problem, having information and a solution exactly double that shown

in Appendix P, was used whenever a second group or groups from the

same company performed the task subsequent to a first group or groups

without an .intervening time period. This was done in case the

solution to the first problem was compromised when the first group

or groups returned to the barracks. Between company communication

was virtually zero under regular circumstances. However, within

company communication was greater because each company occupied one

large room in the barracks.

After receiving directions for task accomplishment (see

Appendix N) from the assistant, the signal to begin was given.

When the group members were satisfied they had reached a correct

solution, the leader signaled the assistant. The assistant then










determined if the solution was correct. If the correct solution was

not reached in three attempts, the task instructions were repeated

and the group was allowed to continue. If the correct solution was

not reached after two more attempts, the squad leader was given a

copy of the available route combinations (see Appendix Q) and the

group was allowed to continue. The performance of the group was

measured by the total elapsed time required to solve the problem.


Observer Training and Reliability


Eight men, four black and four white, were hired to assist the

investigator. All were trained as IPA observers and investigator

assistants. Of the four blacks, two (both 24 years old) held

Bachelor's degrees and were seeking admission to :graduate school,

while the other two (both 21 years old) were upper division under-

graduate students. All of the four whites were graduate students;

they were 22, 23, 23, and 26 years of age. One of the white ob-

servers was familiar with the IPA and provided valuable assistance

during the training period and during the subsequent data collection.

An additional graduate student was hired only to assist in the

training of observers. Chapter 3 and the Appendix of Bales (1950)

were used as the fundamental training materials. Each observer was

provided a personal copy of this material for study and consultation.

After being familiarized with the 12 IPA categories and the

applicable definitions, the observers practiced observing and

recording the types of interactions that could be expected in each








47

category. Mock knot-tying and ship-routing task sessions and motion

pictures were used. Observer teams of one white and one black were

established and maintained throughout the study. Approximately

17-1/2 hours were devoted to establishing initial observer relia-

bility; after training, agreement within each observer team was 80

percent or better. After establishing initial observer reliability,

three pilot sessions using recruits as subjects served to familiarize

all concerned with the tasks, desired procedures, techniques, and

methods, and to seek out and solve operational problems. Originally,

the ship-routing task was planned as a six-port problem. During the

first three sessions it became obvious that this problem was too

difficult and time consuming to be suitable. Thus, the ship-routing

problem was changed to a five-port problem similar to that used by

Ruhe (1972).

When both study rooms were in use, one black/white observer

team observed the tasks in each study room; one black served as an

assistant inside one room, while one white performed the same duties

in the other room; one black and one white served as assistants

outside the study rooms in such things as administering question-

naires, coding data for subsequent analysis, and transporting

recruits. The inside assistant conducted the task sessions by means

of a prepared script. He recorded the task performance times and

the individual duration of speech by means of stop watches.

Interrater reliability between black and white observers

(Table 2) was calculated for each team, over both tasks and each










TABLE 2

RELIABILITY BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE OBSERVERS


IPA Category

1. Shows solidarity

2. Shows tension release

3. Agrees

4. Gives suggestion

5. Gives opinion

6. Gives information

7. Asks for information

8. Asks for opinion

9. Asks for suggestion

10. Disagrees

11. Shows tension

12. Shows antagonism

Team Average

No.. of subjects
observed


Knot-Tying Task
Observer Team


Ship-Routing Task
Observer Team


1 2 4 1 2 12 4


86 72

86 55

87 49

96 94

87 64

89 53

84 45

53 18

87 29

85 76

60 78

81 59
81 59


89

75

92

88

78

90

93

83

85

92

87


86


95 74 84 35 95 74 84 35


Weighted observer reliability for knot-tying task 65
Weighted observer reliability for ship-routing task 76
Overall observer reliability 71

NOTE: All numbers are rounded to nearest whole percentage point.










IPA category, to obtain the agreement between the observers. For

each task, the average reliability over all IPA categories was

calculated for each team. Then, because the number of subjects

observed was not equal for each team, a weighted observer reliability

was calculated for each task. The overall interrater reliability of

.71 was obtained by averaging the weighted figure reliability for

each task. (All figures are based on the intraclass correlation;

[Snedecor and Cochran, 1967].)



Procedure


Nearly all of the groups participating in the study had to be

transported by private automobile from the Recruit Training Command

section of the Naval Training Center to the Conference Facility, a

distance of approximately one mile. The number, size: and composi-

tion of the groups varied depending upon the availability of the

subjects. Two groups could be studied at one time; individual

sessions were conducted during the day and at night. If other groups

were waiting, arriving groups were escorted to an unused area of the

building and not permitted to come within earshot of the proceedings.

The study rooms had closed doors whenever groups were under study

and the observers were stationed at the one-way windows (which could

not be seen by waiting groups). Thus, none of the groups had any

prior knowledge of the study methods.

At the onset of the study, an effort was made to schedule the

same number of black and white leaders with black and white inside










investigator assistants and balance them between the two rooms to

minimize racial experimenter effects (Sattler, 1970). This proved

impossible when it became necessary to schedule groups at night,

since there were too many conflicts between the schedules of the

subjects and the observers. The presence of a visible black at

some time during each of the sessions was designed to mitigate any

racial experimenter effects.

Upon arrival at the Conference Facility, the participants were

escorted either to a study room or to a waiting area. As a group

entered the study room they were greeted by the assistant; the

squad leader was asked to sit at the middle position on one side of

a rectangular table, and the squad members were asked to sit alpha-

betically at positions 1 and 2 or 1, 2, 3, and 4, depending on group

size (see Figure 2). Alphabetical seating was done to randomize

the racial seating arrangement.

The purpose of the study was explained as an analysis of the

problem-solving effectiveness of groups (Katzell et al., 1970).

They were told that they would perform two tasks. The participants

were informed that two additional observers besides the assistant

giving the instructions were necessary for the analysis but had to

sit outside and listen by means of a microphone on the table because

of the physical arrangement of the room. The importance of com-

pleting the tasks as rapidly as possible was stressed by telling the

group they were in "friendly competition" with other squads. This

phrase has special meaning for the recruits. It means that they

are In competition and should perform as best they can, but no











special reward will be forthcoming. To further enhance their desire

to perform effectively, they were told that their company commander

would be informed as to how well they compared with all the squads

participating in the study. The group was told that the squad

leader was in charge due to the way they are organized during recruit

training. This was mentioned in an effort to enhance the leadership

position of the squad leader and stress the idea that the squad

leader was the one to be in charge of the group during the task

performance. The same introduction was made to each group from a

prepared script (see Appendix N).

The group then received instructions for the knot-tying task.

Individual duration of speech for the task for each group member

was recorded on time-accumulating stop watches. When a member of

the group began to talk the assistant started the watch and allowed

it to run until the member stopped talking. Thus, total verbal

participation time was measured for each member of the group.

Another stop watch recorded the total time for task completion.

After completing the first task, instructions were given for

accomplishing the ship-routing task. Again, individual duration of

speech and total task completion time were measured.

Upon completion of the second task, the group was ushered from

the study room to an unused area of the building. No conversing

with a waiting group was allowed. Each subject was given a ques-

tionnaire booklet, one type for squad leaders and another type for

squad members. After receiving brief instructions emphasizing

the need to complete every item in the booklet, the participants










were encouraged to relax and complete the questionnaire at their own

pace. Each subject was asked to complete his booklet without dis-

cussing his responses with fellow recruits. Coffee and donuts (when

available) were offered and smoking was permitted (this was a

privilege for the recruits).

After the questionnaire was completed by the group member,

it was checked by one of the assistants and then double-checked by

the investigator to assure that the individual responded to every

question and to look for response sets. When found (and this

occurred only about four or five times), the investigator would

first attempt to determine if the responses were genuine and then,

if the individual agreed that he had not been careful in responding,

he was asked to reconsider his answers. They were thanked for

participating in the study and cautioned not to discuss any details

of the study with other recruits back in the barracks. The idea of

the friendly competition was again raised in an effort to solicit

their cooperation.



Questionnaire


Two different questionnaire booklets were prepared: one for

squad leaders and one for squad members. Each booklet consisted

of several separate items arranged In the order Indicated by the

following list:













Item

Cover Sheet

Personal Questionnaire

Internal versus External
Control Scale (IEC)

Ziller Self-Esteem Instru-
ment (ZSE)

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSE)

Leadership Opinion Ques-
tionnaire (LOQ)

Supervisory Behavior
Description (SBD)

Job Descriptive Index for
Satisfaction

with tasks (JDI-GT)

with squad leader (JDI-SL)

with subordinates (JDI-S)

with fellow subordinates
(JDI-FS)

Final Sheet


Applicable to

Leader Member

X X

X X


53

For example of
questionnaire,
see Appendix

A

B


C


D


E


F


G




H

I

J


K

L


The various instruments were headed by the above indicated

letter designations to keep from disclosing what the particular

instrument measured, especially in the case of the two self-esteem

measures and the internal-external control measure, and for ease in

verbal identification whenever recruits were present.









54

The Personal Questionnaire contained a biographical data sheet

(see Table 1 for results), a short 10-item general satisfaction survey,

and asked for squad members' feelings about the squad leader, the

name of the best squad leader in the company, the rank desired

during first enlistment, and the perceived odds for making the rank.

The biographical data was requested to check on the similarity of

the subjects and to compare these subjects to those used In Ruhe's

(1972) study. The satisfaction survey was intended to assess a

general attitude toward several activities related to recruit train-

ing, home life, and life in general. The intent behind asking for a

sociometric rating of the leader by the subordinates was to see if

back and white squad members would differ in their personal liking

for their particular leader. Having all of the subjects nominate

the best squad leader in their company was intended to see if sub-

ordinates would choose their own leader more or less often than

another squad leader, and to see if leaders would choose themselves

more or less often than another squad leader. Each subject was

asked to indicate the rank he would like to reach during his first

enlistment in an effort to estimate his level of aspiration, and,

similarly, he was asked to indicate his feeling as to the odds of

making this rank in an effort to estimate his expectancy of

success.
















CHAPTER III


ANALYSIS AND RESULTS



This chapter is divided into two parts: (a) Methods of

Analysis and (b) Results.


Methods of Analysis


This part of the chapter presents the methods used in analyzing

the data and is subdivided into the following sections: (a) Inter-

action Process Analysis Scoring, (b) Between Black and White Leaders,

(c) Between Leaders of the Same Race, (d) Between Black and White

Subordinates, (e) Between Groups and (f) Additional Data.

Interaction Process Analysis Scoring

The behavioral data collected utilizing the IPA is essentially

count data possessing the characteristics of the Poisson distribution.

The basic conditions defining the Poisson distribution (Burford,

1968) are: (1) that the distribution is independent through time or

space (i.e., that the probability of occurrence of an event in any

given interval of time or space is independent of other such inter-

vals), (2) that increasing or decreasing the interval of time or

space increases or decreases proportionately the probability of










occurrence of an event, (3) that if the given interval of time or

space is small the probability of two or more occurrences of the

event within the interval is also very small and (4) that the

probability of X occurrences of the event in the interval increases

or decreases continuously as the interval increases or decreases

continuously.

The raw count data observed by the black and white observers

for each subject in each IPA category was converted to frequency per

unit time for each task and then linearly transformed into whole

numbers by multiplication by a factor of 10,000 and rounding to the

nearest whole number. The transformed data was then given a square

root transformation in an effort to achieve uniform variance. The

square root of Poisson count data yields a response that will possess

approximately a constant variance independent of Its mean (Mendenhall,

1968).

The transformed count data for each of the two observers in

each IPA category were added together (by task) to arrive at a score.

Thus, for each task, every subject had 12 scores, one for each of the

IPA categories. To arrive at a score for positive social-emotional

behavior for each leader, the scores in IPA categories 1 (shows

solidarity), 2 (shows tension release) and 3 (agrees) were summed;

similarly, a score for negative social-emotional behavior was calcu-

lated by adding the scores in categories 10 (disagrees), 11 (shows

tension), and 12 (shows antagonism). To arrive at a score for

directive leadership for each leader, the scores in IPA categories








57
4 (giving suggestions), 5 (giving opinion),and 6 (giving information)

were summed; similarly, a score for non-directive leadership was

calculated by adding the scores in categories 7 (asking for informa-

tion),8 (asking for opinion) and 9 (asking for suggestions).

Between Black and White Leaders

Differences in the various measures between leaders for the

four group types were analyzed using a 2-X-4 analysis of variance

(ANOVA) design with eight observations per cell. An ANOVA was run

for each of the following: (a) group performance for both tasks;

(b) each IPA category for both tasks to analyze interpersonal be-

havior; (c) self-esteem (ZSE); (d) self-esteem (RSE); (e) internal

control; (f) duration of speech for both tasks; (g) satisfaction with

subordinates; (h) satisfaction with the work during both tasks;

(i) positive social-emotional behavior for both tasks; (j) negative

social-emotional behavior for both tasks; (k) directive leadership

behavior for both tasks and (1) non-directive leadership behavior

for both tasks. While the RSE score is essentially an ordinal

measure and would normally be analyzed using non-parametric tech-

niques, the number of data points on the scale (i.e., seven) is

sufficient to allow the data to be analyzed by an ANOVA due to the

robustness of the technique.

Between Leaders of the Same Race

Comparisons between leaders of the same race were analyzed

using the ANOVA method. To understand how these analyses were

accomplished the example of black leader, equal racial composition

group, is presented. The median score for each attribute








58
(e.g., self-rated consideration) of the black leaders for Type 0 and

Type 2 groups was established. A high attribute classification was

given to scores above the median; low, to those below the median.

Ties were broken by random selection. The performance time (for one

task) associated with the black leaders, within a group type and

classified as high versus low in the attribute, became the cell

entries for a 2-X-2 ANOVA, where the two rows represented a high

versus low classification and the two columns represented a Type 0

group versus a Type 2 group. Therefore, for black leaders, equal

racial composition situation, two 2-X-2 ANOVAs were performed:

(a) one for the knot-tying task and (b) one for the ship-routing

task. For the black leader, equal size group situation, high and low

classifications were again established and two 2-X-3 ANOVAs were run

for each attribute, where the rows represented the high versus low

classification and the columns represented Types 1, 2 and 3 groups.

Thus, four ANOVAs (i.e., two 2-X-2 for the equal racial composition

situation and two 2-X-3 for the equal size situation) were performed

for each attribute over each leader type. Specifically, a multi-

variance general linear hypothesis program, BMDX63 (Dixon, 1969),

was run for each ANOVA to Investigate the performance of subordinate

groups of equal size and equal racial composition supervised by black

and white leaders, using high and low classifications of: (a)

consideration (self-rated); (b) initiating structure (self-rated);

(c) consideration (subordinate-rated); (d) initiating structure

(subordinate-rated); (e) self-esteem, using both the ZSE and RSE










scores; (f) internal control and (g) intelligence. The subordinate-

rated scores for consideration and initiating structure were means

for the ratings given by all subordinates (black and white) for the

particular group type.

Between Black and White Subordinates

Within each subordinate group type, differences in the various

measures between subordinates were analyzed for each leader type

using the t-statistic. For every individual subordinate measure,

the average black subordinate score was subtracted from the average

white subordinate score to arrive at a "difference between" score

for each group type and leader type. A 2-X-4 ANOVA with eight

"difference between" scores per cell was then run. A t-statistic for

each cell of the 2-X-4 matrix was then computed by dividing the

individual cell mean by the square root of the quantity: mean square

error divided by the number of observations in the cell. This was

accomplished for each of the following: (a) each IPA category for

both tasks to analyze interpersonal behavior; (b) duration of speech

for both tasks; (c) self-esteem, using both ZSE and RSE scores; (d)

internal control; (e) satisfaction with fellow subordinates;

(f) satisfaction with the leader and (g) satisfaction with work in

the tasks.

Between Groups

Differences in the various measures between groups were analyzed

using the ANOVA technique. Excepting performance of the group for

both tasks (which was analyzed as a between leader measure), a









group score for each measure in question was calculated by taking

the average of the measure for the particular group type. The

average Included both leader and subordinates. A 2-X-4 ANOVA with

eight observations per cell was then run for each of the following:

(a) each IPA category for both tasks; (b) duration of speech for

both tasks; and (c) satisfaction with work in the tasks.

Additional Data

The data obtained by means of the Personal Questionnaire was

analyzed by various methods. The general satisfaction survey score

was analyzed in exactly the same manner as the other individual

attributes were analyzed. Analysis of the leader sociometric rating by

group members was accomplished either through the use of the t-statistic

with a pooled variance estimator (Mendenhall, 1971) or with the z-

statistic, as appropriate. Comparisons were made by group type, by

leader type.and by leader for all subordinate types. Analysis of

the nomination made by individual subjects for the best squad

leader in their company was accomplished through the use of the X2

test statistic for the chi-square distribution. Two-by-two contin-

gency tables were used to provide the test statistic for comparing:

(a) both subordinate types under black leaders, (b) both sub-

ordinate types under white leaders, (c) black subordinates nominating

their own leader as the best, (d) white subordinates nominating their

own leader as the best and (e) both leader types nominating them-

selves as the best. The X2 test statistic included Yates' correction

for continuity (Champion, 1970). The question concerning the rank

which each subject would like to reach and the question concerning










the odds to make that rank were analyzed through the use of the z-

statistic, with the following comparisons being made: (a) between

leaders, (b) between subordinates, (c) black leader to both sub-

ordinate types, (d) white leader to both subordinate types and

(e) black subjects to white subjects.

All significance testing was standardized and performed at the

.05, .01 and .001 levels of significance. If an abbreviated form is

used in presenting results, the following shorthand notation will

be used: (1) black leaders and white leaders will be designated

BL and WL, respectively; (2) black subordinates and white subordi-

nates will be designated BS and WS, respectively; (3) group types

0, 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., 2-person, equal racial composition subordinate

groups, and 4-person subordinate groups with 1, 2 or 3 blacks,

respectively) will be designated TO, TI, T2 and T3, respectively;

(4) the high/low classification within leader types will be desig-

nated HI and LO, respectively; and (5) the cells of the various two-

way matrices will be designated by the row variable and group type,

separated by a slant (for example, BL/T3 means black leader,

Type 3 group). Figure 4 summarizes both the shorthand notation

and the designs for data testing.


Results


This part of the chapter presents the tests of the various

hypotheses and incidental data. It is divided into the following

sections: (a) Differences Between Black and White Leaders,












Figure 4

Notation and Designs for Data Testing


Design for testing data between black and white leaders:

Group Type
Leader T T) MlT (TL
Black (BL) BL/TO BL/TI BL/T2 BL/T3
White (W) L/T W/T WL/T WL/T2 WL/T3


Design for testing data between leaders of the same race:

(A) Equal Size Subordinate Groups


Attribute
Classification (Tl)
High (HI) HI/TI
Low (LO) LO/TI


Group Type
(T2)
HI/T2
LO/T2


HI/T3
LO/T3


(B) Equal Racial Composition Subordinate Groups

Attribute Group Type
Classification (TO) 1T2)
High (HI) HI/TO HI/T2
Low (LO) LO/TO LO/T2


Design for testing data between black and white subordinates:


Leader
Black (BL)
White (ML)

Design for testing data between


Leader
Black (BL)
White (WL)


Group Type
(TO) (Ti) .(T2) .I
WS-BS WS-BS WS-BS WS-BS
WS-BS WS-BS WS-BS WS-BS


groups:

Group Type


(TO)
BL/TO
WL/TO


(T)
BL/Tr
WL/TI


T2)
BL/T2
WL/T2


(T3)
BL/T3
WL/T3










(b) Differences Between Leaders of the Same Race and (c) Incidental

Results.

Differences Between Black and White Leaders

This section reports the results of the tests run on the Group I

hypotheses.

Group performance. Hypotheses I.A states that groups supervised
by white leaders will outperform groups supervised by black leaders

in accomplishing assigned tasks.

Groups supervised by black leaders took significantly longer to
perform both the knot-tying task (F,56=5.15, p< .05) and the ship-

routing task (F1 56=6.61, p<.05), as compared to those supervised by

white leaders. The mean time for groups supervised by black leaders

to perform the knot-tying task was 677.10 seconds; for groups super-

vised by white leaders, 489.32 seconds. For the ship-routing task,
the mean times were 1315.47 and 883.13 seconds, respectively.

Hypothesis I.A was supported.

Interpersonal behavior. Hypothesis I.B(a) states that white

leaders will exhibit more interpersonal behavior than black leaders.

During the knot-tying task, black leaders, as compared to
white leaders, exhibited: (a) less showing of solidarity (F1,56=

9.37, p<.O1, (b) less giving of suggestions (F1,56=19.01, p<.01),
(c) less asking for information (F1,56-16.65, p<.01), (d) less
asking for opinion (F1,56=5.72, p<.05) and (e) less disagreeing

(FI,56=6.72, p<.05). (See Table 3 for the mean leader scores for
these categories.) No main effects of group type were observed.












TABLE 3
MEAN IRA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES


Black Leaders White Leaders
Knot-Tying Task

Category 1: Shows solidarity 1.58 6.16

4: Gives suggestion 25.45 40.77

7: Asks for information 2.33 8.75

8: Asks for opinion 0.80 3.76

10: Disagrees 4.57 8.81


Ship-Routing Task

Category 5: Gives opinion 6.50 9.96

8: Asks for opinion 2.65 6.12










A significant interaction effect (F3,56=4.13, p<.05) was found for

category 6 (gives information) showing that: (a) black leaders of
racially balanced groups gave more information as the number of their

subordinates increased from two to four (p<.05); (b) when they super-
vised four-man subordinate groups, black leaders gave less informa-
tion when the number of black subordinates increased from two to three

(p<.01); (c) white leaders gave less information to their subordinates
in racially balanced dyads than they did in four-man groups whose
composition was 75 percent black (p<.05); (d) white leaders gave

more information in four-man groups when the racial composition

changed from 25 to 75 percent black (p<.05) and (e) black as compared
to white leaders gave less information when supervising four-man
subordinate groups whose composition was 75 percent black (p<.001).
(See Table 4 for the cell means.)
During the ship-routing task, black leaders, as compared to
white leaders, exhibited: (a) less giving of opinion (F1,56 6.46,

p<.05), and (b) less asking for opinion (F1,56=9.44, p<.0).
(See Table 3 for the mean leader scores for these categories.) Main

effects were found between group types in categories 2 (shows
tension release) (F3,56C3.76, p<.05), 11 (shows tension) (F3,56=

4.73, p<.01), and 12 (shows antagonism) (F3,56=3.61, p<.05).
Leaders, regardless of race, emitted fewer tension release comments
when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than either 50 percent
black tetrads (p<.0l) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), displayed
less tension when supervising racially balanced dyads than either 50
percent black tetrads (p<.Ol) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.0l),
displayed less tension when supervising 25 percent black tetrads rather.than














TABLE 4

MEAN IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES


Group Type


Leader (TO) (TI) (T2) (T3)


Knot-Tying Task


Category 6: Gives information



Ship-Routing Task

Category 1: Shows solidarity


2.12 4.95
7.05 7.29


0.81
2.53

0.81
7.92


10: Disagrees


9.49
0.83

1.53
3.59


9.38
8.47


1.00
1.97


0.39
14.64


3.54
3.55


4.10 6.88
8.26 4.31










50 percent black tetrads (p<.05), showed less antagonism when super-
vising racially balanced dyads than either 50 percent black

tetrads (p<.05) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), and exhibited
less antagonism when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than either

50 percent black tetrads (p<.05) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05).

(See Table 5 for the mean group type scores for categories 2, 11 and

12.) Significant interaction effects between leader race and group

type were found in categories 1 (shows solidarity) (F3,56=3.04,

p<.05) and 10 (disagrees) (F3,56=3.32, p<.05). In category I the

following differences were found: (a) black leaders emitted fewer

solidarity-type comments when supervising racially balanced dyads

than when supervising 25 percent black tetrads (p<.01), and (b) black

leaders of 25 percent black tetrads emitted more solidarity-type

comments than did black leaders of 50 percent black tetrads (p<.0l)

and 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05) and white leaders of 25 percent

black tetrads (p<.01). In category 10 the following differences

were found: (a) black leaders of racially balanced dyads displayed

less disagreeing behavior than did white leaders of the same type

subordinate groups (p<.01) and black leaders of 75 percent black

tetrads (p<.01), (b) black leaders displayed less disagreeing be-

havior when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than when super-

vising 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05) and (c) white leaders of 25

percent black tetrads displayed less disagreeing behavior than did

white leaders of 50 percent black tetrads (p<.05). (See Table 4

for the cell means for categories 1 and 10.)


















TABLE 5

MEAN IPA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN
GROUP I HYPOTHESES


Group

(TO)I (Tl)


Ship-Routing Task


Category 2: Shows tension release

11: Shows tension

12: Shows antagonism


1.36

1.04

0.50


EFFECTS -


Type

(T2)


0.00

3.11

0.28


3.36

6.60

3.32


2.68

5.74

2.84


__


III III


I










Hypothesis I.B(a) was supported.

Self-esteem. Hypothesis I.B(b) states that white leaders will

score higher in self-esteem than black leaders.

No significant differences were found between black and white

leaders in either the ZSE or RSE measures.

Hypothesis I.B(b) was not supported.

Internal control. Hypothesis I.B(c) states that white leaders

will score higher in internal control than black leaders.

White leaders scored significantly higher (F1,56=9.91, pc.Ol)

in internal control than did black leaders. The mean score for

white leaders was 7.72; for black leaders, 10.51. It should be

noted that a low score signifies more internal control.

Hypothesis I.B(c) was supported.

Duration of speech. Hypothesis I.C(a) states that black leaders

will have a greater speech duration than will white leaders.

No significant differences were found between black and white

leaders in speech duration in either task.

Hypothesis I.C(a) was not supported.

Satisfaction with subordinates. Hypothesis I.C(b) states that

black leaders will indicate more satisfaction with subordinates

than will white leaders.

No significant differences were found between black and white

leaders in their satisfaction with subordinates.

Hypothesis I.C(b) was not supported.










Satisfaction with work in the tasks. Hypothesis I.C(c) states

that black leaders will indicate more satisfaction with work in the

tasks than will white leaders.

No significant differences were found between black and white

leaders in their satisfaction with work in the tasks.

Hypothesis I.C(c) was not supported.

Differerides Between Leaders of the Same Race

This section reports the results of the tests run on the

Group II hypotheses.

Consideration (self-rated). Hypothesis I (a) states that the

performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition

will be faster when supervised by leaders who perceive themselves

high in consideration compared to those who perceive themselves as

low.

No significant main effects were found for either black or

white leaders; however, a significant interaction effect (F1,12

5.09, p<.05) occurred in the measure for white leaders supervising

groups of equal racial composition in the performance of the ship-

routing task. (See Table 6 for the cell means.) Investigation of

this effect revealed that under white leaders low in self-rated

consideration racially balanced dyads completed the problem faster

than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05). This may well be due to

chance.

Hypothesis I.(a) was not supported.











TABLE 6

MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL RACIAL COMPOSITION -
GROUP II HYPOTHESES


White Leaders


Ship-Routing Task


Attribute
Cons ideration (self-rated)


Classification
(H1)
(LO)


Group Type
(TO) (T2
1014.25 706.25
515.75 1236.25


Knot-Tying Task

Attribute
Initiating structure (self-rated)



Black Leaders

Knot-Tying Task

Attribute
Consideration (subordinate-rated)


(HI)
(LO)


(HI)
(LO)


194.20
594.67


322.40
875.00


713.00
445.40


919.67
517.80










Initiating structure (self-rated). Hypothesis 11(b) states

that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial

composition will be faster when supervised by leaders who perceive

themselves high in initiating structure compared to those who per-

ceive themselves as low.

No significant main effects were found for either black or

white leaders. A significant interaction effect (F2,18'4.49,

p<.05) occurred for black leaders supervising groups of equal size

in the performance of the ship-routing task: (a) under black

leaders high in self-rated initiating structure, 25 percent black

tetrads completed the problem faster than 75 percent black tetrads

(p<.05); (b) under black leaders high in self-rated initiating struc-
ture, racially balanced tetrads completed the problem faster than

75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), and also faster than racially
balanced tetrads supervised by black leaders low in self-rated

initiating structure (p<.01) and (c) under black leaders low in

self-rated initiating structure, 25 percent black tetrads completed

the problem faster than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05).

(See Table 7 for the cell means.)

Another significant interaction effect (F1,12=5.51, p<.05)

occurred only for white leaders supervising groups of equal racial

composition in the performance of the knot-tying task. Investigation

of this effect revealed that under white leaders high in self-rated

initiating structure racially balanced dyads completed the problem

faster than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05). (See Table 6 for

the cell means.)
















TABLE 7

MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL SIZE GROUP II HYPOTHESES


Black Leaders


Ship-Routing Task


Attribute
Initiating structure
(self-rated)


Classification
(H I)
(LO)


(TI)
637.00
1166.67


Group Type
(T2)
929.75
2467.50


21 Wj. 300
I 44o. DO










Hypothesis 11(b) was not supported.

Consideration (subordinate-rated). Hypothesis 11(c) states

that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial

composition will be faster when supervised by leaders rated by their

subordinates as high in consideration compared to those rated as

low.

Groups of equal size performing the ship-routing task under

white leaders high in consideration, as rated by their subordinates,

took significantly less time (F1,18=5.00, p<.05) than those under

white leaders low in this measure. Mean task performance time was

706.75 versus 1198.56 seconds. No group type main effects were found

between groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition.

An interaction effect occurred (F ,12=7.45, p<.05) in this measure

for groups of equal racial composition performing the knot-tying

task under black leaders. Investigation of this effect revealed

that under black leaders high in subordinate-rated consideration

racially balanced dyads completed the problem faster than racially

balanced tetrads (p<.05), and also faster than racially balanced

dyads supervised by black leaders low in subordinate-rated

consideration (p<.05). (See Table 6 for the cell means.)

Hypothesis I1(c) was not strongly supported.

Initiating structure (subordinate-rated). Hypothesis 11(d)

states that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal

racial composition will be faster when supervised by leaders rated

by their subordinates as high in initiating structure compared to

those rated as low.










No significant differences were found for either black or white

leaders.

Hypothesis 11(d) was not supported.

Self-esteem. Hypothesis 11(e) states that the performance of

groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be faster

when supervised by leaders high in self-esteem compared to those low

In self-esteem.

No significant differences were found for either black or white

leaders in either self-esteem measure.

Hypothesis II(e) was not supported.

Internal control. Hypothesis 11(f) states that the performance

of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be

faster when supervised by leaders high in internal control compared

to those low in internal control.

For this measure a reversal occurred. Groups of equal size

performing the knot-tying task under black leaders high in internal

control took significantly longer (F1 18=4.42, p<.05) than those under

black leaders low in internal control. Mean task performance time

was 850.25 versus 602.25. No group type main effects were found

for groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition

supervised by either black or white leaders.

Hypothesis 11(f) was not supported.

Intelligence. Hypothesis 11(g) states that the performance

of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be

faster when supervised by leaders high in intelligence compared to

those low in intelligence.










No significant differences were found for either black or white

leaders.
Hypothesis 11(g) was not supported.
Incidental Results

This section reports the results of data analyses involving

differences between black and white subordinates, differences between
groups, differences between leaders In leadership style and social-

emotional behavior, and information derived from the Personal
Quest ionnaire.
Differences between black and white subordinates.
During the knot-tying task, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates, exhibited behavior as follows:
(a) less giving of suggestions in racially balanced dyads under
black leaders (t=3424 p<.01; x =27.33, xBS=9.63);

(b) less giving of opinion in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=3.74, p<.001; xWS=7.67, xBS=1.51) ;
(c) more giving of opinion in 75 percent black tetrads under
white leaders (t=2.00, p<.05; xi =1.76, xBS=5.05);
(d) less giving of information in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.93, p<.01; S=9.66, BS=6.7) ;

(e) less asking for information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.46, p<.05; x~WS6.80, ;BS=1.58);
(f) more asking for opinion in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=3.56, p<.001; WSO0.66, ZBS=3.80) ;

(g) less disagreeing in racially balanced dyads under white


leaders (t=3.04, p<.01; xWS=ll.57, XBS=4.01);









(h) less showing of tension in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.07, p<.05; x =4.30, BS5=1.32); and
(i) more showing of antagonism in 75 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.18, p<.05; xs=1.59, XBS=4.76).
Every t-test for differences between subordinates was accomplished
using 56 degrees of freedom.
During the ship-routing task, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates, exhibited behavior as follows:
(a) more showing of solidarity in racially balanced dyads under
black leaders (t=2.42, p<.05; xWS=0.00, xBS=1.73);
(b) less showing of solidarity in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.54, p<.05; XWS=1.82, XBS=0.00);
(c) less giving of suggestions in 25 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.90, p<.01 ; WS,=11.75, Xg=2.37);
(d) less giving of opinion in racially balanced tetrads under
white leaders (t=2.43, p<.05; x~S=6.64,, xBS=2.48);
(e) less giving of information in 25 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.13, p<.05; xWS=19.84; xBS=16.20);
(f) less giving of information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.33, pc.05; xWS=16.90, xBS=12.91);
(g) less asking for information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.58, p<.05; WS=8.80, XBS=2.97);
(h) more asking for suggestions in racially balanced tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.06, p<.05; WS=2.08, BS= 4.39);
(i) less asking for suggestions in racially balanced dyads
under white leaders (t=3.09, p<.01; xWS=3.47, B =0.00);









(j) less asking for suggestions in 25 percent black tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.04, p<.05; x=3.79, xBS=1.51);
(k) less disagreeing in 25 percent black tetrads under black
leaders (t=2.02, p<.05; xws2.36, S=.0.00) ; and
(1) less disagreeing in racially balanced tetrads under white
leaders (t=3.06, p<.O1; xWS=4.78, ;BS=1.21).
In their duration of speech, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates: (a) during the knot-tying task,spoke less in
racially balanced dyads under black leaders (t=2.40, p<.05; XWS=
131.13, xBS=62.13) and in racially balanced tetrads under white
leaders (t-2.42, p<.05; x S=101.94, xBS=32.38); and (b) during the
ship-routing task, spoke more in 75 percent black tetrads under black
leaders (t=2.22, p<.05; W=175.88, gBS=231.92), and less in racially
balanced dyads (t=3.07, p<.01; xWS=158.00, XBS=80.38) and tetrads
(t=2.56, p<.05; xW=107.94, xBS=43.25) under white leaders.
In the other measures, black subordinates, as compared to white
subordinates: (a) were higher in self-esteem in racially balanced
dyads under black leaders, as measured by Ziller's instrument
(t=2.21, p<.05; BWS=19.38, 3BS=26.38); (b) were not significantly
different in internal control; (c) were higher in satisfaction with
fellow subordinates in racially balanced dyads under black leaders
(t=2.12, p<.05; xW=38.88, x.s=46.50); (d) were higher in satisfac-
tion with the leader in racially balanced dyads under black leaders
(t=2.94, p<.01; 'WS=26.63, BS=36.25) and (e) were lower in satisfac-
tion with the work in the tasks in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.30, p<.05; xWS=34.00, XBS=25.50).









Differences between groups. During the knot-tying task, the
behavioral differences exhibited in groups supervised by black leaders,

as compared to those supervised by white leaders, were as follows:
(a) less agreeing (F1,56=6.62, p<.05), (b) less asking for informa-

tion (F1,56=9.08, p<.01), (c) less asking for opinion (FI,56=

10.98, p<.01), and (d) more showing of antagonism (F1,56=4.13, p<.05).
(See Table 8 for the mean group scores for these IPA categories.)
Main effects of group type were found in category 4 (gives suggestion)
(F3,56=8.58, p<.01). Irrespective of leader race, three-person

groups, on the average, gave more suggestions when the subordinate
group consisted of racially balanced dyads than when the subordinate
group consisted of 25 percent black tetrads (pc.O01), racially
balanced tetrads (p<.00:), or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.001).
(See Table 9 for the mean group type scores for category 4.) A
significant interaction effect (F3,56=3.12, p<.05) was found in

category 6 (gives information): (a) three-person, white-supervised
groups with racially balanced subordinate dyads gave more information
on the average than five-person, white-supervised groups with both
25 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.05) and racially balanced
subordinate tetrads (p<.01); (b) three-person groups with racially
balanced subordinate dyads gave less information on the average

under black leaders than under white leaders (p<.01) and (c)
five-person groups with 75 percent black subordinate tetrads gave
less information on the average under black leaders than under white
leaders (p<.05). (See Table 10 for the cell means.)
















TABLE 8

MEAN GROUP IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS


Groups Supervised Groups Supervised
by Black Leaders by White Leaders

Knot-Tying Task

Category 3: Agrees 8.52 13.46

7: Asks for information 2.36 4.52

8: Asks for opinion 0.65 2.39

12: Shows antagonism 3.35 1.89


Ship-Routing Task

Category 7: Asks for information 11.50 9.37

8: Asks for opinion 1.18 2.22
















TABLE 9

MEAN GROUP IPA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE


MAIN EFFECTS


Knot-Tying Task

Category 4: Gives suggestion



Ship-Routing Task

Category 2: Shows tension release

6: Gives information

10: Disagrees

11: Shows tension


24.87 15.83 14.62 15.89


0.77

11.87

1.82

1.00


0.40

17.60

2.53

2.55


1.78

14.78

4.39

4.27


1.95

15.28

3.87

3.85


(IT3


-i-


G roue
(TO) (TI)


Tue
(T2)
















TABLE 10
MEAN GROUP IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS


Group Type
Leader (TO) (T) T2)


Knot-Tying Task

Category 6: Gives information



Ship-Routing Task

Category 1: Shows solidarity


0.94 1.88 3.33
7.81 2.66 2.07


0.92
5.25


0.51 2.41 0.78 2.09
0.87 0.23 0.60 0.78










During the ship-routing task, the average behavior exhibited in

groups supervised by black leaders, as compared to those supervised
by white leaders, was as follows: (a) more asking for information

(F1,56=5.06, p<.05) and (b) less asking for opinion (F1,56=7.33,
p<.01). (See Table 8 for the mean group scores for these IPA cate-

gories.) Main effects of group type were found in category 2 (shows

tension release) (F3,56=2.94, p<.05), 6 (gives information) (F3,56=
5.18, p<.01), 10 (disagrees) (F3,56=3.84, p<.05).and 11 (shows ten-

sion) (F3,56=5.52, p<.01). Irrespective of leader race, groups:
(a) showed less tension release on the average when the subordinate

group was a 25 percent black tetrad than when it was a racially
balanced tetrad (p<.05) or a 75 percent black tetrad (p<.05);

(b) three-person groups gave less information on the average than

five-person groups with 25 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.001)

or 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.05); (c) three-person
groups disagreed less than five-person groups having racially balanced
subordinate tetrads (p<.01) or 75 percent black subordinate tetrads

(p<.05), and five-person groups with 25 percent black subordinate
tetrads less than those with racially balanced subordinate tetrads

(p<.05) and (d) three-person groups showed less tension than five-
person groups with both racially balanced subordinate tetrads (p<.001)

and 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.01). (See Table 9 for
the mean group type scores for categories 2, 6, 10 and 11.) A
significant interaction effect (F3,56=3.02, p<.05) was found in

category 1 (shows solidarity): (a) three-person, black-supervised

groups with racially balanced dyads showed less solidarity than










five-person, black-supervised groups with both 25 percent black

subordinate tetrads (p<.05) and 75 percent black subordinate tetrads

(p<.05); (b) five-person, black-supervised groups with 25 percent
black subordinate tetrads showed more solidarity than either five-

person, black-supervised groups with racially balanced subordinate

tetrads (p<05) or five-person, white-supervised groups with 25 percent

black subordinate tetrads (p<.0l); (c) five-person, black-supervised groups

with racially balanced subordinate tetrads showed less solidarity

than five-person, black-supervised groups with 75 percent black

subordinate tetrads (p<.05) and (d) five-person, black-supervised

groups showed more solidarity than five-person, white-supervised

groups with 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.05). (See

Table 10 for the cell means.)

In average duration of speech, there was no significant differ-

ence between black- and white-supervised groups performing the knot-

tying task. However, black-supervised groups talked among themselves

more than white-supervised groups while performing the ship-routing

task (F1,56=6.89, p<.05). The mean speech duration for black-

supervised groups was 203.53 seconds; for white-supervised groups,

133.04 seconds.
There were no significant differences between black- and white-

supervised groups in average measures of self-esteem, internal

control,and satisfaction with work in the tasks.

Differences between leaders in leadership style and social-
emotional behavior. During the knot-tying task, black leaders

exhibited less non-directive leadership behavior (F1 ,56=15.11,










p<.01) and less positive social-emotional behavior (F1,56=11.24,

p<.01). For non-directive leadership, the mean scores were 5.83

and 15.66; for positive social-emotional behavior, 13.61 and 23.46.

A main effect of group type was found for negative social-emotional

behavior (F3,56=3.04, p<.05). Leaders, regardless of race, displayed

more negative social-emotional behavior when supervising racially
balanced groups as the number of subordinates increased from two to

four (p<.0l). (See Table 11 for the mean scores for each group

type.) A significant interaction effect (F3,56=3.03, p<.05) was
found for the directive style of leadership: (a) black leaders of
racially balanced dyads used more directive comments than black

leaders of 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05) and (b) black leaders

showed less directiveness as compared to white leaders of 25 percent
black tetrads (p<.05), racially balanced tetrads (p<.05) and 75 percent

black tetrads (p<.00l). (See Table 12 for the cell means.)
During the ship-routing task, black leaders exhibited less

directive leadership behavior than did white leaders (F1,56 5.14,

p<.05). The mean score for black leaders was 37.76; for white
leaders, 51.02. A main effect was found among group types in
negative social-emotional behavior (F3,56=6.32, p<.01). Leaders,

regardless of race, displayed less negative social-emotional behavior

when supervising racially balanced dyads than when supervising
racially balanced tetrads (p<.0l) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.01),
and when supervising 25 percent black tetrads as compared to racially
balanced tetrads (p<.01) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.01). (See

Table 11 for the mean scores for each group type.) There were no

interaction effects.
















TABLE 11
MEAN LEADER IPA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS
IN SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR


Group Type
(TO) (I) (T 2) (L


Knot-Tying Task

Negative social-emotional behavior 7.71


Ship-Routing Task

Negative social-emotional behavior 5.91


13.11 21.39 15.48


5.95 16.10 15.13
















TABLE 12

MEAN LEADER IPA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTION IN LEADERSHIP STYLE


Group
Leader (TO) (TI)


Knot-Tying Task


Directive style of leadership


BL 43.22
WL 50.46


36.06
54.12


33.64
58.46


20.40
64.35


I


Te;pe -=










General satisfaction survey. There were no significant differ-

ences found on this measure between leaders or between black and white

supervised groups. In the analysis of differences between leaders,

a significant difference was found between group types (F3,56=343,

p<.05); leaders, regardless of race, indicated more general satis-

faction if they had supervised racially balanced tetrads rather than

25 percent black tetrads (p<.01) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05).

(ee Table 13 for the mean scores for each group type.) Black subordi-

nates, as compared to white subordinates, were higher in general

satisfaction in 75 percent black tetrads under white leaders (t=

2.20, p<.05, df=56; xWS=26.38, xBS=30.21).

Sociometric rating of leader by subordinates. White leaders of

racially balanced dyads were rated higher by white subordinates than

by black subordinates (t=2.32, p<.05, df=14). The mean rating for

white leaders by white subordinates was 3.50 and by black subordinates,

2.50. No other significant differences were found in the comparisons

by group type, by leader type or by leader for both subordinate

types.

Nomination for best squad leader. Black subordinates under

black leaders choose their leader as the best squad leader in their

company more often than did black subordinates under white leaders

(X =5.54, p<.05, df=l). Black leaders choose themselves as the best
squad leader in their company more often than did white leaders

(X =6.56, p<.05, df=l). No significant differences were found between

black and white subordinates under black leaders, black and white

subordinates under white leaders, and white subordinates nominating

their own leader regardless of leader race.