Relationship of work behavior types and situational leadership within colleges of nursing

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Relationship of work behavior types and situational leadership within colleges of nursing
Physical Description:
vii, 101 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Poston, Laura Iona, 1951-
Publisher:
s.n.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Nursing school administrators -- United States   ( lcsh )
Leadership   ( lcsh )
Work -- Psychological aspects   ( lcsh )
Educational Leadership thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1988.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Laura Iona Poston.
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 - 024011346
oclc - 19568406
System ID:
AA00012961:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text














RELATIONSHIP OF WORK BEHAVIOR TYPES
AND SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP
WITHIN COLLEGES OF NURSING












BY

LAURA IONA POSTON












A DISSERTI'ATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1988


rFi' ITY OF FLORIM Ii"



































Copyright 1988

by

Laura lona Poston















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


First, I would like to thank Dr. John Nickens for

his time, expertise, and guidance as chairperson of my

supervisory committee. I would also like to thank Dr.

James Hensel and Dr. Kathleen Smyth for serving as

committee members.

I am grateful for the Christian love, fellowship,

and prayers provided by Donna and Rob Poynor, Mary

Alice Green, Bob Robinson, Paula Johns, Stephanie

Carmen, Ruth Milton, and others associated with the

Singles Ministry at First Baptist Church, Gainesville,

Florida, during my doctoral studies.

Special thanks are extended to Kris Mackey, Allen

Witt, Bruce Judd, Chuck Hale, Christianah Fallade, and

other classmates who added much needed moral support to

the process. Also, I wish to thank my brother, members

of my extended family, and my friends, especially Kathy

Conner, Dora Lee Phillips and Joy Lilley, for their

support and encouragement during my doctoral studies.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the love and

support of my parents, who spent many a long distant

phone call encouraging me onward and upward.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ............................. iii

ABSTRACT........................................ vi

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION.............................. 1

Background................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................. 5
Justification........................... ... 6
Delimitations ............................. 10
Limitations................................ 10
Assumptions............................... 11
Definitions of Terms....................... 11
Organization of the Study................. 13

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE...................... 15

Situational Leadership.................... 15
Background .............................. 16
The Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness
Model.... ...................... ....... 20
Work Behavior Types ....................... 28
The Marston Behavioral Model............ 29
Nickens and Bauch's Model of Analysis:
The Marcus Paul Placement Profile..... 36
Related Studies in Nursing Education....... 40

3 METHODOLOGY............................... 46

Subjects................................... 46
Data Collection............................ 47
Instrumentation.............. ............. 48
Demographic Questionnaires............... 48
Marcus Paul Placement Profile........... 49
Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability
Description........................... 54
Data Analysis .............................. 56













4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY...................... 58

Description of the Sample Population...... 58
Research Questions....................... 62

5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.. 72

Summary .................................. 72
Discussion................................ 76
Recommendations......... ... ............. 82

APPENDICES

A LETTER TO COLLEGE OF NURSING DEANS........ 85

B RESPONSE CARD............................. 88

C COVER LETTER TO DEAN...................... 90

D COVER LETTER TO FACULTY................... 92

E DEAN'S QUESTIONNAIRE...................... 94

F FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE.................... 95

REFERENCES..................................... 97

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH............................. 101















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

RELATIONSHIP OF WORK BEHAVIOR TYPES
AND SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP
WITHIN COLLEGES OF NURSING

By

Laura lona Poston

August, 1988

Chairman: John M. Nickens
Major Department: Educational Leadership

The problem of this study was to determine the

relationship of work behavior types and situational

leadership within colleges of nursing. Specifically,

the theory that effective leaders adapt their work

behavior types to the work behavior types of those

being led was investigated.

The research sought to answer the following

questions: (a) Are certain work behavior types

characteristic of faculty in baccalaureate nursing

programs? (b) Are the faculty perceptions of their

dean's work behavior type congruent with their dean's

work behavior type? (c) How do work behavior types of

faculty relate to the faculty's perceptions of their












dean's work behavior type? (d) Do the perceptions of

faculty who have deans with high effectiveness scores

differ from the perceptions of faculty who have deans

with low effectiveness scores in regard to whether they

and the dean have the same work behavior type?

Participants of the study were 46 faculty members

and their respective deans from randomly sampled

colleges of nursing accredited by the National League

for Nursing. The Leader Effectiveness Adaptability

Description (LEAD) was used to determine effectiveness

scores. The Marcus Paul Placement Profile (MPPP) was

used to determine work behavior type.

There was no evidence to support the theory that

effective deans adapt their work behavior types to the

work behavior types of their faculty. This lack of

support may have been due to (a) the use of actual

rather than perceptual effectiveness scores, (b) the

instruments used, and/or (c) the work behavior type of

the deans in the sample. However, by finding

consistency between faculty perceptions of their dean's

work behavior type and their dean's actual work

behavior type, evidence has been provided to support

the concept that work behavior analysis is valid for

use in higher education administration to determine how

leaders are perceived by others.















CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION



The success of any organization depends to a great

degree on its leadership. In institutions of higher

education, one of the important leadership positions is

the dean of a college/school within the university.

The dean performs as an executive leader in shaping and

accomplishing the mission of the institution. The dean

can be as concerned about the institution as the

president; however, the dean's responsibilities are

shaped, or curtailed, by relations with other

administrators and the faculty (Dibden, 1968).

The dean's administration is marked by deliberate

efforts to inform and be informed by colleagues in the

faculty of all developments which affect the

educational program (Gould, 1964). The dean must

encourage and support excellence of faculty personnel

and performance. At the same time, the dean has the

critical role of acting as the intermediary between the

college and the university at large.

According to Gilley, Fulmer, and Reithlingshoefer

(1986), there is no question that leaders in colleges












and universities, public and private, "face one of the

most challenging periods in their history" (p. 3).

Providing effective leadership during this period has

become a critical task.



Background



Providing effective leadership in higher education

is no easy task. In their leadership role, deans must

use the human and environmental resources available

within their academic discipline to accomplish the

educational goals of the institution.

In professional programs, deans not only provide

balance between the structural and functional

innovations of their programs and the university to

which it is affiliated, but also have the additional

responsibility of linking their college to their

professional field. Current knowledge of advances in

their respective fields is necessary so that faculty of

professional programs may prepare their graduates to

function safely and effectively in the profession.

Deans of professional programs must have current

knowledge in their professional field in order to

provide the leadership necessary for the faculty to

remain current and keep the program current.












In addition, American professional programs are

oriented toward the concept of clinical practice.

There is a clear functional distinction between the

arts and sciences disciplines and professional

programs, a distinction between "knowledge for its own

sake" and the "utilization of knowledge for problem-

solving" (Dill, 1980, p. 179). The dean must be an

advocate for the professional program and the way it

complements the arts and sciences disciplines. The

professional program dean has the responsibility of

maximizing and integrating the strengths of the

professional program with the remainder of the

university, as well as with the professional field.

Deans of colleges of nursing, for example, must

balance the responsibilities of higher education

administration with the responsibility of a

professional program which has a major impact on the

health care system. Nursing programs cannot be run in

isolation from either the health care system or the

university environment. Deans of colleges of nursing

must be sensitive to changes in the American health

care system, how these changes affect nurses, and how

these changes affect nursing education. The dean of a

college of nursing then must provide leadership and












support for the faculty in order to provide quality

nursing education. It is important for a college of

nursing dean to be both an administrator and a nurse.

A key concern of nursing deans is their leadership

effectiveness in working with and through faculty to

achieve the goals of the college and the institution

(Douglas, 1981). Researchers tend to believe that

there is no one best style of leadership (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1988). Effectiveness depends on the leader,

the follower, and other situational variables. This

concept has been developed into situational leadership

theory. One application of this theory is Hersey and

Blanchard's Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model.

Although the model developers did not advocate a

single ideal leader behavior style as being appropriate

in all situations, they did advocate consistency in

using the same style for all similar situations and

varying the style appropriately as the situation

changes. An important concept in the Tri-Dimensional

Leader Effectiveness Model is that effective leaders

adapt their leader behavior to meet the needs of their

followers and the particular situation (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1969, 1988). "If their followers are

different, they must be treated differently" (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1988, p. 124).












Individual behavioral differences in the work force

have received much attention from researchers since the

turn of the century (Nickens, 1984). Research on human

behavior in work situations has documented differences

in aptitude, proficiency, and personality types. The

behavioral model developed by W. M. Marston laid the

foundation for greater understanding of an individual's

general qualities and behaviors as they relate to the

work situation (Nickens, 1984).

It is these individual work related qualities and

behaviors, also known as work behavior traits or types,

that leaders must consider, as well as environmental

situations, in order to be effective. In higher

education, the dean has been identified as leader and

the faculty as followers, each having individual work

related qualities and behaviors. If Hersey and

Blanchard's Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model

has validity, then it can be theorized that effective

deans adapt their work behavior types to the work

behavior types of the faculty.



Statement of the Problem



By extending the concepts of Hersey and Blanchard's

theory, this researcher tested the Tri-Dimensional












Leader Effectiveness Model. Specifically, the theory

that effective leaders adapt their work behavior types

to the work behavior types of those individuals being

led was investigated. The problem of this study was to

determine the relationship of work behavior types and

situational leadership within colleges of nursing.

The following research questions were examined:

1. Are certain work behavior types characteristic

of faculty in baccalaureate nursing programs?

2. Are the faculty perceptions of their dean's work

behavior type congruent with their dean's actual

work behavior type?

3. How do work behavior types of faculty relate to the

faculty's perceptions of their dean's work behavior

type?

4. Do the perceptions of faculty who have deans with

high effectiveness scores differ from faculty who

have deans with low effectiveness scores in regard

to whether they and the dean have the same work

behavior type?



Justification



In 1978 Dimond and Slothower wrote that research in

nursing administration has been and is a neglected area












of research. Furthermore, Dimond and Slothower stated

that there is no firm cognitive base in nursing from

which nursing administrative practice can be derived.

Although organizational dynamics have been the most

common kind of research, Dimond and Slothower (1978)

supported the need for continuing systematic inquiry

along these lines.

The importance of studying nursing education

administration, including leadership behaviors, was

also recognized by Leininger (1974). She suggested

that study in this area could enhance the possibility

of "helping leaders move into organizational settings

and leadership positions that match their skill,

interests, potential capabilities, and experience" (p.

34).

Miller, Heller, Moore, and Sylvia (1987) confirmed

that relatively little research has been conducted in

nursing education administration during the past 30

years. They conclude that higher education

administration in nursing is a relatively young field

of study and that there is a need to demonstrate

evidence of theoretically guided research in this

field. By examining the relationship of work behavior

types and situational leadership in colleges of












nursing, a contribution has been made to theory

building and an organized body of nursing education

leadership knowledge.

Leaders and leadership have been studied

extensively since the days of Plato, Caesar, and

Plutarch (Bass, 1981). Three basic approaches to the

study of effective leaders have been to identify

universal personality traits, to identify behavior

leaders engage in, and to reconcile the diversity of

behavioral and trait research results (Robbins, 1984).

The third approach, which has gained wide acceptance in

recent years, considers not only leader behavior and

characteristics, but also group behavior and

characteristics as well as other situational variables.

One theory in which this third approach is used is

Hersey and Blanchard's Tri-Dimensional Leader

Effectiveness Model. Leadership effectiveness by

adaptability is a prime characteristic of this

situational leadership theory. By extending the

concepts of Hersey and Blanchard's model, this

researcher tested the Tri-Dimensional Leader

Effectiveness Model by theorizing that effective

leaders adapt their work behavior types to the work

behavior types of those being led. Thus a unique












feature of this research was that situational

leadership was considered from the perspective of

personality work behavior types rather than leadership

styles or situational variables.

In addition to testing the Tri-Dimensional Leader

Effectiveness Model, through this research the

application of work behavior types as defined by the

Marcus Paul Placement Profile has been expanded. At

the time of the study, work behavior types were being

used in career planning and placement. Through this

study, it has been shown that work behavior types can

be used in higher education administration for

determining how leaders are perceived by others. Thus

a new theoretically valid use for the Marcus Paul

Placement Profile has been added through this research.

This research also has practical implications.

Effective leadership at all levels of higher education

administration will be crucial to meeting the

challenges facing college and university personnel

during the remainder of this century. Therefore,

providing education for people who are potential higher

education leaders also becomes a challenge for college

and university personnel. The findings of this study

can be useful to higher education administration












programs in the areas of career planning, academic

advising, preparation of placement files, and planning

for effective and meaningful academic programs and

mentoring systems.



Delimitations



The following delimitations were set.

1. The focus of this study was on deans and faculties

in colleges of nursing accredited by the National

League for Nursing.

2. Information on leader effectiveness was confined to

that measured by the Leader Effectiveness and

Adaptability Description.

3. Information on work behavior type was confined to

that measured by the Marcus Paul Placement Profile.



Limitations



There were limitations to this study.

1. All of the participants in this study were in

colleges of nursing. Therefore, generalizations to

other disciplines may not be appropriate.

2. The majority of the deans of colleges of nursing

are female (Lucas, 1986). Therefore,












generalizations to male college of nursing deans

may not be appropriate.

3. Work behavior type was measured in one way, by the

self-rated Marcus Paul Placement Profile.

4. Leader effectiveness was measured in one way, by

the self-rated Leader Effectiveness and

Adaptability Description.



Assumptions



The following assumptions were made.

1. Work behavior type analysis is a concept that can

be applied to this issue.

2. The Marcus Paul Placement Profile is a valid and

reliable instrument for measuring work behavior

type of deans and faculty of colleges of nursing.

3. The Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability

Description is a valid and reliable instrument for

measuring leader effectiveness of deans of colleges

of nursing.

4. Participants will answer the surveys honestly and

responses will accurately reflect their attitudes

and preferences.












Definition of Terms



Dean. This term refers to the chief administrative

officer of a program who may have the title of dean,

chair or its derivative, director, or other titles such

as coordinator or head.

Colleges of Nursing. This term refers to all

nursing schools and colleges which have a program

leading to the baccalaureate degree in nursing and

which are accredited by the National League for

Nursing. These schools may be located in public or

private colleges and universities. There may or may

not be other nursing degree programs associated with

the nursing school/college.

Leadership effectiveness. This term refers to the

appropriateness of the style of a leader to the

situation and is based on the leader's ability to adapt

their leadership style to the needs of the followers

and the situation. It is further defined by Hersey and

Blanchard (1988) as the style adaptability score on

the Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability Description.

Work behavior type. This term refers to the

categorizing of certain predisposed behavior traits

found in the work situation as defined by the Marcus

Paul Placement Profile.












Marcus Paul Placement Profile (MPPP). This term

refers to an instrument developed by Nickens (1984) and

Bauch (1981) to discern work behavior type. MPPP work

behavior types are categorized as energizer (results

oriented), inducer (people oriented), concentrator

(technically oriented), and producer (quality

oriented).

The Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability

Description (LEAD). This term refers to an instrument

developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1988) to measure

three aspects of leader behavior: (a) style, (b) style

range, and (c) style adaptability (effectiveness). The

LEAD comes in two forms: the LEAD-Self and the LEAD-

Other. The LEAD-Self measures self-perception of how

an individual behaves as a leader. The LEAD-Other

reflects the perceptions of a leader's subordinatess,

superior(s), or associates (peers).



Organization of the Study



In Chapter 1, the problem investigated and the

specific questions examined have been presented.

Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature and

research on situational leadership and work behavior









14


types. The procedures for the collection and analysis

of the data are presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4

contains the results of the data collection, including

a description of the sample population and data

analysis for each research question. Chapter 5

includes a summary of the study, discussion of the

findings, and recommendations for additional research.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW



This review covers three areas. The first section

is an overview of the theoretical framework for

situational leadership, including Hersey and

Blanchard's Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model.

The second section is an overview of the theoretical

framework for work behavior types and the Marcus Paul

Placement Profile. In the final section, a synthesis

is provided of related research on nursing education

leadership, situational leadership, and work behavior

types.



Situational Leadership



Leaders and leadership have been topics of

discussion and study throughout the ages. "There are

almost as many different definitions of leadership as

there are persons who have attempted to define the

concept" (Bass, 1981, p. 7). Many theories of

leadership have been used to explain either the factors

involved in emergence of leadership or the nature of












leadership and its consequences (Bass, 1981). One of

the more recent leadership theoretical frameworks which

has become popular is situational leadership.



Background



Robbins (1984) identified three basic approaches

which researchers have used to explain what makes an

effective leader. The first approach was to identify

universal personality traits that leaders had to some

greater degree than nonleaders. Although a number of

traits of personality and character were identified as

being associated with leaders, these traits were not

consistent and unique in all the studies. The trait

approach was found to have certain limitations. It

ignored the needs of followers, generally failed to

clarify the relative importance of various traits, and

ignored situational factors (Robbins, 1984).

In a second approach, leadership was explained in

terms of the behavior that a person engaged in.

Researchers searched for something unique in the way

that effective leaders behaved. For example, did

effective leaders tend to be more democratic than

autocratic? However, the researchers were not












successful in identifying consistent relationships

between patterns of leadership and group performance

(Robbins, 1984). The primary limitation of the

behavioral approach was that there was no consideration

of situational factors that influence success or

failure.

Nevertheless, several models did gain wide

acceptance, including Blake and Mouton's Managerial

Grid. Blake and Mouton i1964) developed a two-

dimensional view of leadership style based on the

styles of "concern for people" and "concern for

production." Concern for production is on the

horizontal axis, while concern for people is on the

vertical axis. The grid has nine possible positions

along each axis. Leaders may be high or low on both

axes, or they may be high on one and low on the other.

In the grid, Blake and Mouton identified five

different types of leadership based on concern for

production and concern for people. These styles were

called impoverished (1-1), country club (1-9), task (9-

1), middle-of-the-road (5-5), and team (9-9). Based on

their research findings, Blake and Mouton concluded

that managers perform best under a 9,9 style. However,

the Managerial Grid tends to be an attitudinal model












with which are measured the values and feelings of a

manager and there is little substantive evidence to

support the conclusion that a 9,9 style is most

effective in all situations (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982;

Robbins, 1984).

The third approach has been to explain leadership

by reconciling the diversity of behavioral and trait

research results. In this third approach, not only the

leader behavior and characteristics are considered, but

also group behavior and characteristics as well as

other situational variables. Several models of this

approach have proved successful and gained wide

recognition, including Fiedler's Leadership Contingency

Model (Robbins, 1984).

Fiedler (1967) developed his Leadership Contingency

Model in an attempt to define specific circumstances

under which various leadership styles were most

appropriate. According to his model, three major

situational variables seemed to determine whether a

given situation was favorable to leaders. The first

was their personal relations with the members of their

group (leader-member relations). The second variable

was the degree of structure in the task that their

group had been assigned to perform (task structure).












The third situational variable was the power and

authority that their position provided (position

power).

In Fiedler's model, there were eight possible

combinations of these three situational variables.

Fiedler then attempted to determine what the most

effective leadership style, task-oriented or

relationship-oriented, seemed to be for each of the

eight situations. Fiedler (1967) concluded that "the

appropriateness of the leadership style for maximizing

group performance is contingent upon the favorableness

of the group-task situation" (p. 147). Furthermore,

Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders tend to

perform best in group situations that are either very

favorable or very unfavorable to the leader while

relationship-oriented leaders tend to perform best in

situations that are intermediate in favorableness.

Although Fiedler's Leadership Contingency Model is

useful to a leader, his model does have limitations.

Fiedler seems to suggest a single continuum of leader

behavior with only two basic leader behavior styles,

task-oriented and relationship-oriented. However,

there is evidence to indicate that leader behavior must

be plotted on two separate axes rather than a single

continuum (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).












The Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model



Ralph E. Hersey and Theodore Blanchard (1969, 1988)

sought to provide a framework which would be helpful in

integrating independent approaches to the understanding

of human behavior and management theory. Hersey and

Blanchard's Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model

is an outgrowth of the insights of many earlier writers

in leadership/management theory. The model has been

used in many widespread and diverse organizations in

several fields.

Hersey and Blanchard (1988) defined leadership as

"the process of influencing the activities of an

individual or a group in efforts toward goal

achievement in a given situation" (p. 86). The

leadership process thus becomes a function of the

leader, the follower, and other situational variables.

Therefore, in any situation in which someone is trying

to influence the behavior of another individual or

group, regardless of hierarchical relationships,

leadership is occurring.

In the Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model,

the terms "task behavior" and "relationship behavior"

are used to describe concepts similar to previous












theories (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). The four basic

leader behavior quadrants are labeled high task and low

relationship, high task and high relationship, high

relationship and low task, and low relationship and low

task (see Figure 1).

The four basic styles of behavior described in

these four quadrants are essentially different

leadership styles. Hersey and Blanchard (1988) defined

leadership style of an individual as "the behavior

pattern that person exhibits when attempting to

influence the activities of others as perceived by

those others" (p. 116). Note that this may be very

different from how the leader perceives his or her own

behavior, which Hersey and Blanchard defined as self-

perception rather than style.

Some combination of task and relationship behavior

comprise a person's leadership style. Central to the

concept of leadership style, these two types of

behavior, task and relationship, are defined as

follows:

Task behavior--The extent to which leaders are
likely to organize and define the roles of the
members of their group (followers); to explain what
activities each is to do and when, where, and how
tasks are to be accomplished; characterized by
endeavoring to establish well-defined patterns of
organization, channels of communication, and ways
of getting jobs accomplished.






















High High Task
Relationship and
I and High
0
Low Task Relationship






o
(0


Low Task High Task
Sand and
Low Low
Relationship Relationship





(Low) -------- > Task Behavior --------> (High)





Figure 1 Basic Leader Behavior Styles

(Hersey & Blanchard, 1988, p. 117)

Copyrighted Materials from Prentice-Hall and
Leadership Studies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Used with Permission.












Relationship behavior--The extent to which
leaders are likely to maintain personal
relationships between themselves and members of
their group (followers) by opening up channels of
communication, providing socioemotional support,
"psychological strokes," and facilitating
behaviors. (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988, p. 116 117)

Recognizing that the effectiveness of leaders

depends on how their leadership style interrelates with

the situation in which they operate, Hersey and

Blanchard added an effectiveness dimension to their

model (Figure 2). This was an attempt to integrate the

concepts of leader style with situational demands of a

specific environment. "When the style of a leader is

appropriate to a given situation, it is termed

effective; when the style is inappropriate to a given

situation, it is termed ineffective" (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1988, p. 117).

Since the effectiveness of a leader behavior style

depends on the situation in which it is used, Hersey

and Blanchard have contended that any of the basic

styles may be effective or ineffective depending on the

situation. "The difference between the effective and

ineffective styles is often not the actual behavior of

the leader but the appropriateness of this behavior to

the environment in which it is used" (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1988, p. 117 118).





























Effectiveness
Dimension


Task Behavior
Dimension ---------------------->





Figure 2 Effectiveness Dimension

(Hersey & Blanchard, 1988, p. 118)

Copyrighted Materials from Prentice-Hall and
Leadership Studies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Used with Permission.












"It is the interaction of the basic style with the

environment that results in a degree of effectiveness

or ineffectiveness" (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988, p. 118).

Hersey and Blanchard have opined that it is important

to remember that the environment in which the leader is

operating is the third dimension. The leader's basic

style can be thought of as a particular stimulus and

the response to this stimulus can be considered

effective or ineffective. Thus Hersey and Blanchard

are taking the position that there is no one best

leadership style. The response or results are

evaluated rather than the stimulus. This concept is

illustrated in Figure 3, a diagram of the Tri-

Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model.

Since there is no leader behavior style that is

effective in all situations, Hersey and Blanchard have

contended that effective leaders adapt their leader

behavior to meet the needs of their followers and the

particular environment. If the followers are

different, they must be treated differently. Hersey

and Blanchard (1982) defined the concept of adaptive

leader behavior as follows:

The more managers adapt their style of leader
behavior to meet the particular situation and the
needs of their followers, the more effective they
will tend to be in reaching personal and
organizational goals. (p. 94)









































Relationship and
and High
Low Task Relationship


Low High Task
Relationship and
and Low
Low Task Relationship


i .





Lo To t;










-3
4ask eoL




/ -3
-4i


Figure 3 Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model

(Hersey & Blanchard, 1988, p. 119)

Copyrighted Materials from Prentice-Hall and
Leadership Studies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Used with Permission.












The use of the appropriate style of leader behavior

becomes a challenge to the effective leader. Through

research, Hersey and Blanchard have found that most

leaders have a primary leadership style and a secondary

leadership style. The primary leadership style is the

behavior pattern used most often when attempting to

influence the activities or others. Leaders may or may

not have one or more secondary, or supporting, styles

that they use on occasion.

In addition to leadership style, leaders have

style range (or flexibility). Style range is the

extent to which that leader is able to vary his or her

leadership style. "Leaders vary in their ability to

vary their style in different situations" (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1988, p. 271). Some leaders seem to be

limited to one style while other leaders are able to

utilize two, three, or all four basic styles.

Perhaps more important than style range is style

adaptability. Style adaptability is the degree to

which leaders are able to vary their style

appropriately to the demands of a given situation.

Hersey and Blanchard have noted that leaders who have a

narrow style range can be effective over a long period

of time if they remain in situations in which their












style has a high probability of success. Conversely,

leaders who have a wide style range may be ineffective

if these behaviors are not consistent with the demands

of the situation. "Thus, style range is not as

relevant to effectiveness as style adaptability; a wide

style range will not guarantee effectiveness" (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1988, p. 273).

In summary, leadership involves accomplishing goals

with and through people. Paul Hersey and Kenneth

Blanchard (1969, 1988) developed the Tri-Dimensional

Leader Effectiveness Model, integrating the concepts of

leaders style with situational demands of a specific

environment. The model is distinctive because a single

ideal leader behavior style that is not suggested as

being appropriate in all situations. Leaders who adapt

their style of leader behavior to the needs of the

followers and the situation are generally more

effective than leaders who do not adapt their

leadership behavior.



Work Behavior Types



The scientific study of work behavior has grown

steadily since the turn of the century (Nickens, 1984).












This interest can be attributed to an increased

awareness that the American work force must become more

productive. Researchers have found that successful job

and personnel matching will increase satisfaction and

productivity and will gratify more fully the needs of

both organizations and individuals (Nickens, 1984).

The study of work behavior traits and types, as known

today, began with the work of William Moulton Marston,

psychologist, professor, and scientist.



The Marston Behavioral Model



In his book, Emotions of Normal People, Marston

(1928) laid the foundation for greater understanding of

human behavior in personal as well as work situations.

His proposed model of behavior consisted of four major

categories: dominance, compliance, inducement, and

submission. Marston described each category in

physiological and behavioral terms.

He defined dominance as a "central release of

additional motor energy directed toward dominating

obstacles to a reaction already in progress" (Marston,

1927, p. 349). It consists of "an increase of the self

to overcome an opponent, a feeling of an outrush












of energy to remove opposition" (Marston, 1928, p.

140). Dominance is a fundamental behavior and may be a

desirable emotion when competition and aggressiveness

are appropriate behaviors.

Compliance ranks with dominance as a basic

emotional response. Compliance means control (but not

inhibition or inaction) of tonic motor discharge

reinforcement by a phasic reflex (Marston, 1927).

Later, Marston (1928) defined compliance as a

decrease of the motor self to let an opponent move
the organism as if by will; either passively, by
making the self give up some dominant activity, or
some anti-dominant way. It is a feeling of
acceptance of an object of force as inevitably just
what it is, followed by self-yielding sufficient to
bring about harmonious readjustment of self to
object. (p. 183)

In other words, compliant behavior results from

recognizing or believing that outside forces are

imminently stronger. Compliance may be a desirable

emotion when it allows individuals to be one with God

or nature, to feel empathy, or to be an effective team

member.

Dominance and compliance formed one axis in

Marston's model. Although individuals display these

emotions in varying degrees at various times, there is

always an effort to maintain a balance between the












extremes of each axis (Marston, 1928). The point of

balance varies between individuals, thus explaining

differences in their behavior.

Marston (1927) defined submission as a

voluntary yielding to whatever stimuli may be
imposed. It does not seem to overwhelm, or
dominate the subject by force, but rather brings
about a spontaneous lessening of the subject's
resistance to it until the subject has become less
strong than the stimulus. (pp. 356 357)

Submission is usually a pleasant emotion and may take

the form of consideration, service to others,

selflessness, accommodation, and generosity.

In 1928, Marston's definition of inducement stated

that "inducement consists of an increase of self, and

making of the self more completely allied with the

stimulus person, for the purpose of establishing

control over that person's behavior" (p. 273).

Individuals who gain voluntary submission from others

exhibit inducement behavior. This behavior may take

the form of persuasion, personal charm, friendliness,

seduction, or subtle manipulation.

Submission and inducement form the second axis of

Marston's model. As on the dominant-compliance axis,

they are at opposite ends of a continuum. Submission

and inducement are separated by intensity of response,












either active or passive, and by the orientation of the

individual, either outward or inward.

Marston divided the two axes of the model

horizontally. Dominance and inducement form the upper,

active component of the model. Submission and

compliance form the lower, passive component. The

dimensions represent tendencies, not all inclusive

labels. Individuals exhibit degrees of all types of

behaviors. Behavior traits, however, tend to cluster

more around one particular dimension.

Marston also identified clusters of traits for each

category. These clusters are shown (in part) in Figure

4. It can be observed that each cluster characterized

a primary emotional tendency. Although Marston did not

statistically confirm these clusters, later researchers

(Allport & Odbert, 1936, Geier, 1980) substantiated the

trait clusters through factor analysis.

Building on Marston's work, Geier (1967) attempted

to formulate a trait approach to leadership. He found

that subjects used trait terminology to describe their

own behavior traits as well as to describe the behavior

and leadership style of others. He also discovered

that subjects reported themselves in terms of behaviors

they least exhibited. These findings were also the














DOMINANCE

aggressiveness

boldness

courage

dare-devilry

determination

egocentricity

ego-emotion

fighting instinct







adapting

awe

caution

conforming

well-disciplined

empathy

fear

COMPLIANCE


SUBMISSION

accommodating

admiration

a good child

altruism

benevolence

considerate

docility

being an easy mark







alluring

appealing

attraction

captivation

charming

convincing

converting

INDUCEMENT


Figure 4 Sample of Marston's (1928) Clusters of Traits












basis for the Marcus Paul Placement Profile in which

work behavior types are discerned from descriptions of

traits which are most and least like the subject.

Geier also developed an updated list of cluster traits

(Figure 5).

Geier clarified Marston's terminology and redefined

dominance as "active positive movement in an

antagonistic environment" (Geier, 1979, p. 2).

Compliance was "a cautious tentative response

designated to reduce antagonistic factors in an

unfavorable environment" (p.2). Submission was defined

as "passive aggressiveness in a favorable environment"

(p. 2). And inducement was redefined as "active

positive movement in a favorable environment" (p.2).

Geier also added the idea to the two-axis model

that people with traits centered around the dominance

or inducement dimension were process-oriented and

wanted to shape the environment according to their own

particular viewpoint. Individuals with traits centered

around the submission or compliance dimensions were

product-oriented and focused on the how and why of

things and events.













DOMINANCE

adventurous

aggressive

argumentative

arrogant

assertive

bold

brave

competitive


STEADINESS (submission)

accommodating

attentive

cheerful

companionable

confidential

considerate

contented

controlled







admirable

affectionate

boastful

charming

energetic

flexible

joyful

optimistic

persuasive

INFLUENCING (inducement)


accurate

adaptable

calculating

calm

cultured

easily-led

humble

peaceful

precise

COMPLIANCE


Figure 5 Sample of Geier's (1979) List of Cluster Traits












Nickens and Bauch's Model of Analysis: The Marcus Paul
Placement Profile

Bauch (1981) used Marston's model and Geier's

research to develop the Marcus Paul Placement Profile

(MPPP). This instrument was designed to identify work

behavior types in order to match people to jobs. In

the education setting, it could provide a basis for

counseling, career development, and selection.

Organizational leaders could use it for recruiting, job

placement, training, and team building.

The intent of the MPPP was to increase

understanding of work behavior, both for the employer

and employee. Bauch (1981) believed that work behavior

traits and types were not judgments of work behaviors,

but were terms to be employed to increase understanding

of work behaviors. Therefore, he felt that any

terminology used should be positive or neutral and

reflect work behaviors. Thus some of Marston's and

Geier's terminology was modified for application in the

work setting. Bauch replaced words with negative

connotations with positive or neutral terms.

In place of Marston's categories of dominance,

inducement, submission, and compliance or Geier's

dominance, influence, steadiness, and compliance, Bauch












described work behavior types as energizer, inducer,

concentrator, and producer. The descriptions of these

primary types follow as they would appear on a report.

1. Energizers are actively involved in getting
results. They take the direct approach in pursuing
their goals. They are impatient with details, want
direct answers to their questions, and expect
immediate action on their problems. They are
creative, and can produce workable solutions when
problems occur. They may become bored with the
routine, and are most satisfied when working in a
dynamic environment that provides both challenges
and rewards.

2. Inducers involve their associates in pursuing
objectives. They are sensitive to needs of others,
and convey optimistic outlooks as they influence
associates. Being good at group processes to
accomplish goals, they are popular leaders. They
are sought by fellow workers for moral support, and
to help clarify issues and ideas. They place
greater emphasis on interpersonal relations than on
their organization. They are people oriented and
are most happy when their work involves people.

3. Concentrators are technically oriented workers who
apply their skills in an orderly manner to their
work assignments. They are steady, persistent, and
devoted to their professions. They are confident
in their skills and abilities to do their jobs, and
appreciate being allowed to concentrate on their
assignments on their own. Enjoying the technical
aspects of their work, they spend long continuous
periods of time pursuing a task. When at work,
their interaction with associates is at a minimum.
There is little need for supervision and approval.

4. Producers strive for quality. They carefully
follow procedures, and will meet standards and
deadlines. They expect to be told exactly what is
expected from them, and strive to deliver. They
appreciate stability and routine in their work, and
like clear and direct supervision. They need
recognition for their work, and do best when
rewarded according to policy. They trust their












organization and tend to remain loyal to it even
when times are difficulty. (Nickens, 1988,
computer program printout)

The MPPP work behavior traits characteristic of

each work behavior type are presented in Table 1.

These traits are used in the MPPP in the form of 24

sets of forced choice items. In each set, subjects

indicate which term is most descriptive of their work

behavior and the term which least represents their work

behavior.

The major contribution of Nickens (1984) to this

theory of work behavior type was the automation of the

response analysis and reporting, which provides the

analyst with a printed structure for communicating the

results to the client. Specifically, responses marked

on the MPPP response sheet can be quickly entered into

a microcomputer and results analyzed and printed

immediately in a form that can be discussed.

The computer analysis of the responses generates

the individual's work behavior profile in terms of one

of the four major work behavior types. The profile

also includes a narrative describing the individual's

strengths and tendencies in the work setting. In

general, the profile describes the individual's style

of interacting with others, ability to complete tasks,










Table 1 Bauch's (1981) List of Work Behavior Traits


ENERGIZER INDUCER CONCENTRATOR PRODUCER
(dominance)* (inducement)* (submission)* (compliance)*


aggressive
bold
certain
competitive
decisive
demanding
determined
direct
dominant
eager
forceful
independent
leader
new ideas
original
outspoken
sure
takes charge
venturesome
vigorous


attracts people
change agent
convincing
enthusiastic
expressive
friendly
happy
hopeful
inspiring
playful
personable
persuader
popular
respected
seeks new ideas
sociable
talkative
team leader


accepting
attentive
caring
committed
contented
considerate
diplomatic
disciplined
easy going
exacting
loyal
orderly
patient
peaceful
reasonable
respectful
satisfied
sharing
steady
tolerant
trusting
understanding


accurate
agreeable
careful
cautious
compliant
conforming
contented
devoted
exacting
follows orders
follows procedures
governed
logical
precise
resigned
respectful
responsible
systematic
thinker


* Marston's (1928) original terms












leadership potential, need for supervision, and

preference for working in a technical or data-oriented

position or in one that is people-oriented (Bauch,

1981).

There is at least one important difference between

the MPPP and Marston's model. Both Marston and Geier

viewed behavior as a two-dimensional model with each

dimension representing two opposites. A major problem

with the Marston model of behavior analysis is the

inadequacy in explaining the paradoxical and

simultaneous occurrence of dominant and compliant

feelings, and of inductive and submissive feelings.

Nickens (1984) avoided this problem by treating the

"opposite pairs" independently. By recognizing the

independence of traits, Nickens provided a more

powerful tool than Marston's and Geier's model for

explaining complex behaviors on an individual basis.



Related Studies in Nursing Education



In this section, an overview of related literature

in nursing education leadership, situational

leadership, and work behavior types is presented.

During the past 15 years, college of nursing deans

have become a popular subject for descriptive,












interpretive, and satirical commentaries and some

research. Studies of the deanship have traditionally

been focused on the characteristics of deans or the

characteristics of their role. Many of the studies are

small and done as doctoral dissertations or by the

deans themselves (Hall, 1985).

In response to the statement that college of

nursing deans have been overstudied during the past 15

years, Hall (1985) concluded that deans had been

overstudied, but not understood. Hall felt that

college of nursing deans may have been studied more

than other people. She attributed this to the

uniqueness of this successful group of women, i.e.,

women at the top of a woman's profession. This has led

to the feeling that deans are overstudied. But Hall

felt deans are not understood since there is a lack of

quality administrative and leadership theory that is

connected to research. Thus Hall has supported the

continuing need for research of college of nursing

deans.

Miller et al. (1987) confirmed that relatively

little research had been conducted in nursing education

administration during the past 30 years. Their

investigation yielded 84 studies that were conducted in












nursing education administration during the past 30

years. They reported that minimal research in academic

administration in nursing was conducted during the 20-

year period from 1956 through 1975. Specifically, they

found that 28.5% of the studies conducted in nursing

education administration were completed during the

period from 1956 through 1975, while 71.5% of the total

were conducted between 1975 and 1985. Only 17.9% of

the total were published studies while the remaining

82.1% were doctoral dissertations.

Research conducted in nursing education

administration can be categorized into six domains

(Miller et al., 1987). These domains are baseline data

about the administrator, administrators as individuals,

administrators as individuals in organizations, schools

of nursing as complex organizations, schools of nursing

as organizations in environments, and organizational

change and the administrator.

The study of leadership behavior falls under the

domain of administrators as individuals in

organizations. Since 1978, studies which have focused

on leadership behaviors in nursing higher education

administration using the situational leadership

approach have been done by Gooding (1978/1979), Finnick

(1984/1985), Lucas (1986), and Wakefield-Fisher (1987).












Using situational leadership theory, Gooding

(1978/1979) sought to determine the relationship

between leadership style of administrative heads of

baccalaureate programs and faculty maturity,

organizational structure, and leader position power.

Gooding found that the deans tended to exhibit a

combination of either high relationship-high task

behavior or high relationship-low task behavior.

Finnick (1984/1985) used Hersey and Blanchard's

Situational Leadership Theory to determine perceived

leadership styles and the perceived effectiveness of

these styles in accredited baccalaureate nursing

programs in Pennsylvania. Using the LEAD-Self and the

LEAD-Other, Finnick found that the administrative heads

perceived themselves using the two high relationship

styles while the faculty perceived them using all four

styles.

In addition, Finnick found that administrative

heads perceived their leadership adaptability to be

above average in effectiveness while the faculty

perceived them to be positive but low in effectiveness.

On a global question on effectiveness, faculty

perceived their administrative heads' leadership style

to be above average to very effective. Based on her












findings, Finnick concluded that there was a difference

in perception concerning leadership behavior styles and

adaptability between faculty and administrative heads.

Lucas (1986) used the situational leadership

approach to investigate the relationships between the

leadership behaviors of nursing deans and selected

organizational variables in baccalaureate and higher

degree nursing programs. Making no attempt to

distinguish between effective and ineffective deans,

Lucas found significant correlations between certain

leadership behaviors (determined by the LBDQ) and

specific organizational variables. Based on her

findings, Lucas proposed that organizational variables

should be included in leadership theory for nursing

academic administrators.

Using situational leadership theory, Greiner's

theory of organizational life cycles, and Mintzberg's

theory of a professional bureaucracy, Wakefield-Fisher

(1987) investigated the relationship between the

professionalization of faculty teaching in doctoral

nursing programs, deans' leadership styles, and

doctoral faculty scholarly productivity. Most of the

findings related to the research question were

nonsignificant. Based on the findings, Wakefield-









45


Fisher concluded that highly professional faculty may

produce regardless of or despite their dean's leader

behavior.

Although each of these four researchers used a

situational leadership approach to study nursing

education administration, there were no studies found

investigating the relationship between situational

leadership and personality work behavior types of deans

and faculty in colleges of nursing. Thus there was a

need to expand the body of knowledge in this area.















CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY



The methodology of the study is described in this

chapter. It contains an explanation of procedures

including subjects, data collection, instrumentation,

and data analysis.



Subjects



The participants were 46 faculty members and their

respective deans from randomly selected colleges of

nursing in the United States with baccalaureate

programs accredited by the National League for Nursing.

Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous.

It is important to note that this study was a

measure of leadership adaptability, not a

representation of college of nursing deans or faculty.

An important consideration was that there be variance

in the situations from which the participants were

selected in order to analyze the interrelationships

present. Therefore, faculty and deans from seven

colleges of nursing were involved for the total of 46

participants and their respective deans.












Data Collection



Initial selection of the colleges of nursing was

from the 1987-88 list of baccalaureate and master's

degree programs in nursing accredited by the National

League for Nursing. Selection was based on a table of

random numbers. Letters were sent to the deans of

20 randomly selected colleges of nursing formally

inviting them and their faculty to participate in the

study. The letters (Appendix A) included an

explanation of the purpose of the study, the importance

of each person's participation, assurance of

confidentiality, and appreciation for each person's

participation. A response card (Appendix B) for

indicating willingness to participate was included.

When the response cards were received, the data

collection instruments were mailed to the faculty and

deans in those seven colleges of nursing where the dean

indicated a willingness to participate. The data

collection instruments for the dean consisted of a

cover letter (Appendix C), a questionnaire for

demographic information, the Marcus Paul Placement

Profile, and the Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability

Description. Data collection instruments for the












faculty consisted of a cover letter (Appendix D), a

questionnaire for demographic data, a self-rated Marcus

Paul Placement Profile, and a Marcus Paul Placement

Profile for rating the dean. Self-addressed stamped

envelopes were included for each participant for ease

of return. All responses were treated in a

confidential manner. To increase response rate, the

participants were offered the opportunity to receive

their individual Marcus Paul profile.



Instrumentation



Demographic Questionnaires



In order to describe the sample population,

questionnaires were included to collect demographic

data. The questionnaire for the dean (Appendix E)

consisted of items for obtaining institutional data and

individual data on the dean. The institutional data

collected were institution type (public/private),

institution size (number of students), number and type

of nursing degree programs offered, number of BSN

students, and number of BSN faculty. Individual data

collected on the dean were dean's length of service in












this institution, total length of service in a dean

position, total number years in a higher education

administrative position, total number years in nursing

higher education, degrees held, and age.

The questionnaire for the faculty (Appendix F)

consisted of items for obtaining individual data.

Individual data collected on the faculty were faculty's

length of service in this institution, rank, tenure

status, total number of years in nursing higher

education, degrees held, and age.



Marcus Paul Placement Profile



The Marcus Paul Placement Profile (MPPP) was

used to measure the deans' and faculty's self-

perception of work behavior type, as well as the

faculty's perception of their dean's work behavior

type. The MPPP was developed by J. Nickens and J.

Bauch as a tool to increase understanding of work

behavior. The instrument was designed to be utilized

as a tool in the educational setting for student

personnel and placement as well as in the business

setting for recruiting, job placement, work assignment,

team building, and training (Nickens, 1984). For this

reason, the MPPP was chosen for this study.












Nickens and Bauch believed that work behavior

traits and types were not judgments of work behaviors,

but were terms to be employed to increase understanding

of work behaviors. Accordingly, terminology used in

the profile are positive or neutral and reflect work

behavior rather than social behaviors (Nickens, 1984).

The basis of the analysis is the client's
choice of words from 24 sets (boxes) that are most
and least descriptive of his or her perceived work
behavior. The 24 boxes are presented on an
instrument that permits the drawing of circles
around numbers associated with word choices. These
numbers are entered into a computer program which
associates the numbers with the appropriate MPPP
behavior type score. The scores are scaled,
plotted on the graph, and the standard
interpretation printed. (Nickens, 1984, pp. 10-
11)

Reported for the MPPP are independent scores for

four behavior types: energizer, inducer, concentrator,

and producer. Each of the behavior type scores is

plotted on a scalethat extends from minus 15 through

plus 15. The center of the scale is the norm score, 0.

The graph readily allows the observation of the

deviations of each score with respect to the norm and

with respect to other scores. The client's highest

score of the four MPPP scores represents the client's

primary type of best fit. A verbal description of the

behavior associated with the score of best fit follows












the graph. An interpretation of the behavior

associated with the relative scaled scores is also

provided (Nickens, 1984).

Any discussion of instrumentation must also include

a section on reliability and validity. Reliability is

the degree of consistency of results. "It is possible

for a measuring instrument to be reliable without being

valid. However, it cannot be valid unless it is first

reliable" (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1985, p. 226). "So

if one demonstrates a satisfactory level of validity,

at least internal reliability must be assumed"

(Nickens, 1984, p. 14). Therefore, the developers of

the MPPP chose to prove reliability by proving

validity.

Instrument face validity is supported by the

theoretical basis on which the MPPP was developed

(Nickens, 1984). The instrument was also found to have

a high degree of concurrent validity.

Ninety-six Santa Fe Community College career
education students responded to the MPPP, and
analyzed their own responses with a microcomputer.
After examining their MPPP's the students responded
to a questionnaire in which they rated the accuracy
of the analysis components provided by the computer
system. The results are presented in Table 1.
It can be observed that 88.4% of the students
responded that both paragraphs of the printed MPPP
was "an accurate description of my work behavior."
The practice of relating a measurement to a
criterion to determine the amount of congruence is












Table 1

Career Education Students' Ratings of MPPP Validity
for Describing their Work Behavior


N %
Both paragraphs accurate descriptions 84 88.4
First paragraph not an accurate description 0 -
Second paragraph not an accurate description 10 10.4
Neither paragraph an accurate description 1 1.1
Not useable 1 1.1



called concurrent validity. Rarely has the
literature reported measures that account for more
than 64% of the variance in a criterion measure.
This high degree of congruence between students'
perceptions of their work behavior and the
descriptions provided by the MPPP is sufficiently
valid for helping college students understand their
work behaviors. (Nickens, 1984, p.14)

The MPPP was also found to have predictive validity

when used for career planning. Glenn (1982/1983)

studied vocational education coordinators in Florida

and reported significant relationships between MPPP

work behavior types and areas of job satisfaction.

Furthermore, she found that specific areas of job

satisfaction were found to be significantly related to

work behavior type.

Additional research related to the question of

predictive validity of the MPPP was conducted by

Wellstood (1984/1985). Wellstood studied the

relationships between work behavior types, job












satisfaction, and attrition in medical technology. She

administered the MPPP, the Job Descriptive Index, and a

demographic data questionnaire to 111 medical

technologists. Wellstood reported that work behavior

type relates to overall and to specific aspects of job

satisfaction. In addition, attrition from medical

technology can be predicted from producer and energizer

scores on the MPPP.

The face validity of the MPPP, research at Santa Fe

Community College, and research at the University of

Florida have proven that the MPPP is valid for use as a

career advisement tool for helping people understand

their work strengths and for suggestions for writing

effective letters of reference for individuals seeking

job placements (Nickens, 1984). The developers of the

instrument have stated that all theoretically valid

uses of the instrument have not been researched

completely at this time (Nickens, 1984). Since the

instrument was designed to be utilized as a tool in the

business setting as well as the educational setting, it

was chosen for this study. Use of the MPPP in this

study would also provide additional insight into

another theoretically valid use for it.












Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability Description



The Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability

Description (LEAD) instruments were developed by Hersey

and Blanchard in order to obtain data about the

behavior of leaders in terms of the Tri-Dimensional

Leader Effectiveness Model (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).

The LEAD comes in two forms: the LEAD-Self and the

LEAD-Other. The LEAD-Self is used to measure self-

perception of how an individual behaves as a leader.

The LEAD-Other is used to determine the perceptions of

a leader's subordinates, superiors, and peers or

associates.

The LEAD-Self contains 12 leadership situations in

which respondents are asked to select from four

alternative actions--a high task/low relationship

behavior, a high task/high relationship behavior, a

high relationship/low task behavior, and a low

relationship/low task behavior--the style they felt

would most closely describe their behavior in that type

of situation.

The LEAD-Self was designed to measure three aspects

of leader behavior: style, style range, and style

adaptability. Style is identified as one of four types












as indicated in the theory. Style range (or

flexibility) is defined as the extent to which a leader

is able to vary his or her leadership style. Style

adaptability (or degree of effectiveness) is defined as

the degree to which leaders are able to vary their

style appropriately to the demands of a given

situation. Style and style range are determined by

four ipsative style scores while the style adaptability

is determined by one normative score (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1982).

The responses of 264 managers, ranging in age from

21 to 64, were used to standardize the LEAD-Self. The

managers represented a variety of managerial levels.

The concurrent validity coefficients of the 12 items

ranged from .11 to .52, and 10 of the 12 coefficients

(83%) were .25 or higher. Item analyses data and

reliability data were also collected on the sample of

264 managers. Each response option met the

operationally defined criterion of less than 80% with

respect to selection frequency. The stability of the

LEAD-Self was moderate. In two administrations across

a 6-week interval, 75% of the managers maintained their

dominant style and 71% maintained their alternate

style. The contingency coefficients were both .71 and












each was significant (p=.01). The correlation for the

adaptability scores was .69 (p=.01) (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1982).

The logical validity of the scale was clearly

established (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). Face validity

was based on a review of the items, and content

validity emanated from the procedures used to create

the original set of items.

Recognizing that one's self-perception may not

reflect one's actual style, the LEAD-Other was

developed. The LEAD-Other contains the same 12

leadership situations and reflects the perceptions of a

leader's subordinates, superiors, and peers or

associates. During one empirical validity study, a

significant correlation of .67 was found between the

adaptability scores of the managers and the independent

ratings of their supervisors (Hersey & Blanchard,

1982).



Data Analysis



A computer program developed by Marcus Paul

Computer Systems was used to score the MPPP. Subject's

responses to the 24 frames were entered into the












computer. The program generated a score for each work

behavior type and denoted the major work behavior type

for each subject.

The Lead was scored manually according to the

directions provided by the Center for Leadership

Studies (1973). Scores were derived for style range

and style adaptability. The adaptability scores were

then classified as either high or low.

The study was designed to determine the

possibility of significant relationships between work

behavior types and situational leadership within

colleges of nursing. To answer question 1, a frequency

distribution was used. To answer questions 2 4,

crosstabulation and the chi square test for

independence were used. The chi square test for

independence was used because it is nonparametric and

assumes no particular distribution. Significance was

set at the .05 level.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THE STUDY



The problem of this study was to determine the

relationship of work behavior types and situational

leadership within colleges of nursing. In addition to

describing the sample population, this chapter contains

the results of the study and provides answers to the

research questions posed in Chapter 1.



Description of the Sample Population



The participants in this study were 46 faculty

members and their respective deans from randomly

selected colleges of nursing accredited by the National

League for Nursing. The colleges of nursing were in

higher education institutions located across the United

States. These institutions were both public and private

and ranged in size from less than 3,000 students

through 20,000 students. The number of baccalaureate

nursing students in the selected colleges of nursing

ranged from 30 through 125. The number of faculty in

the baccalaureate nursing programs ranged from 5












through 20. In addition to a baccalaureate nursing

program, three colleges of nursing had a master's

program. One of these colleges also had an associate

degree program.

The data on the faculty obtained from the

demographic questionnaire have been summarized in Table

2. It was found that about 24% of the subjects had

been at their current institution 3-5 years, the

majority held the rank of assistant professor and were

not tenured, almost one third had been in nursing

higher education 5-10 years, all held at least a

master's degree, and over 40% were in the age range of

36-45.

The frequency distribution of work behavior types

found in faculty of colleges of nursing is shown in

Table 3. Concentrators and producers were the

predominant work behavior types of the faculty. In

this study it was found that about 76% of the

participants were either producers or concentrators,

with concentrators predominating. The remaining 23.91%

of the participants were either energizers or inducers.

The faculty's deans had been in their current

position from less than 1 year to greater than 12

years. The range for total number of years in a dean's












Table 2 Characteristics of the Participating Faculty


Characteristic N Percent


A. Years at current institution
<1
1-3
3-5
5-7
7-9
9-12
>12

B. Current rank
instructor
assistant professor
associate professor
professor

C. Tenure status
non-tenured
tenured


3 6.52
3 6.52
11 23.91
7 15.22
8 17.39
9 19.57
5 10.87


23.91
54.35
17.39
4.35


32 69.57
14 30.43


D. Total years in nursing higher education
<1 2
1-5 5
5-10 15
10-15 8
15-20 8
>20 8


E. Degrees held
master's
doctoral


F. Age
<30
30-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
>65


4.35
10.87
32.61
17.39
17.39
17.39


46 100.00
11 23.91


0 .00
6 13.04
19 41.30
17 36.96
4 8.70
0 .00












Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Work Behavior
Types (WBT) Found in Faculty of Colleges
of Nursing.


WBT Frequency Percent


energizers 3 6.52
inducers 8 17.39
concentrators 18 39.13
producers 17 36.96
Total 46 100.00




position ranged from less than 1 through 15 years. The

range for total number of years in nursing higher

education ranged from 5 to greater than 20 years. All

but one dean had a doctoral degree. The one dean

without a doctoral degree reported that she was a

doctoral candidate. The age range was 35 through 65.

It was found that the deans' work behavior fell into

two types: energizers and concentrators, and that their

effectiveness scores on the LEAD-Self ranged from 4

through 18 on a scale of -24 through 24. For the

purpose of analysis the effectiveness scores were

divided at the median into high and low categories.

Thus there was variance in all variables needed for

this research. Specifically, the 46 faculty

represented all MPPP work behavior types and were












administered by deans with two work behavior types and

a range of effectiveness scores from 4 through 18.



Research Questions



Question 1: Are certain work behavior types

characteristic of faculty in baccalaureate nursing

programs?

From Table 3 in the description of the sample

population section, it can be seen that concentrators

and producers were the predominant work behavior types

of faculty in baccalaureate nursing programs. The

proportions found in the study differed from those

proportions found in the general population.

Approximately 60% of the general population are either

producers or concentrators, with producers

predominating. Energizers and inducers represent an

additional 20% each (Bauch, 1981).

In this study it was found that 76% of the

participants were either producers or concentrators,

with concentrators predominating. The remaining 24% of

the participants were either energizers or inducers.

This difference in proportions from the general

population may be due to the nature of the nursing

profession and/or to the nature of nursing education.












Question 2: Are the faculty perceptions of their

dean's work behavior type congruent with their dean's

actual work behavior type?

Results of the comparisons of faculty perceptions

of their dean's work behavior types to their dean's

actual work behavior type are summarized in Table 4.

It can be observed from this table that 63.04% of the

faculty perceived their dean's work behavior type to be

the same as the dean's actual work behavior type. The

remaining 36.96% perceived their dean's work behavior

type to be different from the dean's actual work

behavior type. Using the chi square test of

independence, no significant difference was found

between the faculty perceptions of their dean's work

behavior type and the dean's actual work behavior type.

This lack of significant difference indicates that

faculty perceptions of their dean's work behavior type

were congruent with their dean's actual work behavior

type. Consistency of leaders' self-perceptions with

what associates perceived of their leader behavior was

not always supported in the literature. For example,

Finnick (1984/1985) found a difference in perceptions

between faculty and deans in her study of perceived

effectiveness of leadership styles. Therefore, the












Table 4 Comparisons of Faculty Perceptions of Their
Dean's Work Behavior Type to Their Dean's
Actual Work Behavior Type.


row variable= actual WBT of the dean
col. variable= faculty perception of their dean's work
behavior type

cell format: count/percent:total/percent:row/percent:col

perceived perceived
as same different TOTAL


dean's 14 7 21
wbt is 30.43 15.22 45.65
energizer 66.67 33.33
48.28 41.18


dean's 15 10 25
wbt is 32.61 21.74 54.35
concen- 60.00 40.00
trator 51.72 58.82


TOTAL 29 17 46
63.04 36.96 100.00


no significance at the .05 level



inconsistency with other researchers may be due to the

instrument used and types of perceptions measured.

According to situational leadership theory,

followers react to their leaders based on their

perception of the leader's behavior (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1988). Therefore, work behavior type












instruments may be valid for use in deriving a better

understanding of perceptions as a basis for improving

work relations.



Question 3: How do work behavior types of faculty

relate the faculty's perception of their dean's work

behavior type?

The results of the comparisons of faculty work

behavior types to faculty perceptions of their dean's

work behavior type are summarized in Table 5. It was

found that only 14 of the 46 faculty perceived their

dean's work behavior type to be the same as their own.

The majority of faculty (70%) perceived the dean's work

behavior type to be different from their own. This is

not surprising considering, as shown in Table 4, that

about 63% of the faculty accurately identified their

leaders' work behavior type.

Using the chi square test of independence, no

significant difference was found between faculty

perception of their dean's work behavior type and the

faculty work behavior types. Thus, it was concluded

that faculty were not perceiving the dean to be

adapting their work behavior type to the work behavior

type of the faculty.












Table 5 Comparisons of Faculty Work Behavior Types
to Faculty Perceptions of Their Dean's Work
Behavior Type.


row variable= faculty work behavior types
col. variable= faculty perception of their dean's work
behavior type

cell format: count/percent:total/percent:row/percent:col


faculty's
wbt is
energizer



faculty's
wbt is
inducer



faculty's
wbt is
concen-
trator


faculty's
wbt is
producer


TOTAL


perceived
dean as
energizer


1
2.17
33.33
6.67


3
6.52
37.50
20.00


8
17.39
44.44
53.33


3
6.52
17.65
20.00


15
32.61


perceived
dean as
inducer


2
4.35
66.67
20.00


3
6.52
37.50
30.00


2
4.35
11.11
20.00


3
6.52
17.65
30.00


10
21.74


perceived
dean as
concen-
trator


1
2.17
12.50
6.25


7
15.22
38.89
43.75


8
17.39
47.06
50.00


16
34.78


perceived
dean as
producer


0
.00
.00
.00


1
2.17
12.50
20.00


1
2.17
5.56
20.00


3
6.52
17.65
60.00


TOTAL


3
6.52




8
17.39


18
39.13




17
39.96


5 46
10.87 100.00


no significance at the .05 level


I I


,












This finding may be due to factors other than work

behavior type, e.g., environmental factors.

Institutional size and organizational structure may

interfere with the deans' ability to observe and

identify the work behavior types of their faculty.

Thus the deans would have no reference for adapting

their own work behavior type. Another possible reason

for this finding is that deans may be unaware that

interpersonal relations and leadership effectiveness

can be enhanced by adapting their behavior to the needs

of their followers. Since faculty perception of the

dean is based on observed behavior of the dean, this

finding also supports the use of work behavior type as

a tool to determine how deans are being perceived by

others.



Question 4: Do the perceptions of faculty who have

deans with high effectiveness scores differ from the

perceptions of faculty who have deans with low

effectiveness scores in regard to whether they and the

dean have the same work behavior type?

It was theorized that effective leaders adapted

their work behavior type to the work behavior type of

those faculty being led. The expected finding to












support this theory would be that those deans who are

perceived by the faculty as having the same work

behavior type as the faculty would have higher

effectiveness scores than those deans who are perceived

as having different work behavior types from the

faculty.

Although 30% of the faculty perceived the dean's

work behavior type to be the same as their own, 70% of

the faculty perceived the dean's work behavior type to

be different from their own. Again, this is not

surprising since Table 4 showed that about 63%

accurately identified their leaders work behavior type.

Of the 14 faculty who perceived the dean as having a

work behavior type the same as their own, 57% had deans

with a high effectiveness score, while 43% had deans

with a low effectiveness score. Of the 32 faculty who

perceived the dean as having a work behavior type

different from their own, 66% had deans with a high

effectiveness score, while 34% had deans with a low

effectiveness score.

The comparisons of perceptions of faculty who had

deans with high scores to perceptions of faculty who

had deans with low scores are summarized in Table 6.

Using the chi square test of independence, no












Table 6 Comparisons of Perceptions of Faculty Who
Have Deans with High Scores to Perceptions
of Faculty Who Have Deans With Low Scores


row variable= effectiveness score of the faculty's
deans
col. variable= faculty perception of their dean's work
behavior type compared to their own

cell format: count/percent:total/percent:row/percent:col

dean dean
perceived perceived
as same different TOTAL

faculty
whose 8 21 29
dean had 17.39 45.65 63.04
a high 27.59 72.41
score 57.14 65.63

faculty
whose 6 11 17
dean had 13.04 23.91 36.96
a low 35.29 64.71
score 42.86 34.38


TOTAL 14 32 46
30.43 69.57 100.00


no significance at the .05 level



significant difference was found. These findings show

little evidence that effective deans adapted their work

behavior type to the work behavior type of the faculty

being led. However, the scores used to measure

effectiveness were actual (as reported by the dean)












rather than perceptual (as reported by the faculty) and

were not validated by faculty. Research where faculty

perceptions of effectiveness scores are used may yield

different results and support the theory. Another

possible reason the theory was not supported may be

that the predominate work behavior types of the deans

were concentrator and energizer. These two types focus

more on task and results than interpersonal

relationships. Thus deans who have an inducer work

behavior type, which is people oriented, may be more

attentive to the need to adapt their behavior to their

followers than those deans who are energizers,

concentrators, or producers. Further research is

needed to determine if this is true.

A third possible reason that the theory was not

supported may be differences in approach of the

instruments which measured work behavior type and

leadership effectiveness. On the MPPP, respondents are

asked to choose words or phrases which are most like

them and least like them in the job situation from 24

sets of descriptive behavioral words. On the LEAD,

respondents are given 12 leadership situations and

asked to select from four alternative actions the one

they feel would most closely describe their own












behavior in that type of situation. Thus the MPPP

focuses on behaviors and personality while the LEAD

focuses on leadership style and situations. An

instrument which measures leader effectiveness in terms

of behaviors and personality may yield different

results.

In summary, there was consistency between faculty

perceptions of their dean's work behavior type and the

dean's actual work behavior type. Nevertheless, no

significant difference was found to support the theory

that effective leaders, as measured by the LEAD, adapt

their work behavior types to the work behavior types of

those individuals being led. This lack of support may

have been due to one or more of the following reasons:

(a) actual effectiveness scores were used rather than

perceptions of effectiveness scores, (b) the

instruments used, and (c) the work behavior type of the

deans in the sample.















CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Summary



Leaders of institutions of higher education are

facing one of the most challenging periods in history

(Gilley et al., 1986). Providing effective leadership

at all levels of higher education, including the

position of academic dean, has become critical to

guiding higher education through the days ahead.

Researchers have reported that effectiveness

depends on the leader, the follower, and other

situational variables. This concept has been developed

into situational leadership. One model which is used

that is consistent with this theory is Hersey and

Blanchard's Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model.

Although Hersey and Blanchard do not advocate a

single ideal leader behavior style as being appropriate

in all situations, they do advocate consistency in

using the same style for all similar situations and

varying the style appropriately as the situation

changes. An important concept in the Tri-Dimensional












Leader Effectiveness Model is that effective leaders

adapt their leader behavior to meet the needs of their

followers and the particular situation (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1988). Based on this model, it can be

theorized that effective higher education deans adapt

their work behavior types to the work behavior types of

their faculty.

By extending the concepts of Hersey and Blanchard's

model, this researcher tested the Tri-Dimensional

Leader Effectiveness Model. Specifically, the theory

that effective leaders adapt their work behavior types

to the work behavior types of those individuals being

led was investigated. The problem of this study was to

determine the relationship of work behavior types and

situational leadership within colleges of nursing.

Answers were sought to the following questions:

1. Are certain work behavior types characteristic of

faculty in baccalaureate nursing programs?

2. Are the faculty perceptions of their dean's work

behavior type congruent with their dean's actual

work behavior type?

3. How do work behavior types of faculty relate to the

faculty's perceptions of their dean's work

behavior type?












4. Do the perceptions of faculty who have deans with

high effectiveness scores differ from the

perceptions of faculty who have deans with low

effectiveness scores in regard to whether they and

the dean have the same work behavior type?

Since this study was a measure of leadership

adaptability and involved interrelationships, variance

in participants was needed. Therefore, 46 faculty

members and their respective deans selected from a

random sample of National League for Nursing accredited

colleges of nursing in the United States were the

participants. Letters were sent to the deans of the

randomly selected colleges of nursing inviting them and

their faculty to participate in the study.

Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous.

A mailed questionnaire for demographic data, the

Marcus Paul Placement Profile (MPPP), and the Leader

Effectiveness and Adaptability Description (LEAD) were

used to obtain data for the study. The MPPP was

developed by Nickens (1984) and Bauch (1981) as a tool

to increase understanding of work behavior. The LEAD

was developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1982) to obtain

data about the behavior of leaders in terms of the Tri-

Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model.












The study was designed to determine the possibility

of significant relationships between work behavior

types and situational leadership within colleges of

nursing. Data analysis consisted of frequency

distribution and the nonparametric measures of

crosstabulation and chi square test of independence.

This research has several implications. Miller et

al. (1987) confirmed that relatively little research

has been conducted in nursing education administration

during the past 30 years. They concluded that higher

education administration in nursing was a relatively

young field of study and that there was a need to

demonstrate evidence of theoretically guided research

in this field. By examining the relationship of work

behavior types and situational leadership in colleges

of nursing, a contribution has been made to theory

building and an organized body of nursing education

leadership knowledge.

A theory was also tested in this research. A prime

characteristic of Hersey and Blanchard's Tri-

Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model is leadership

effectiveness by adaptability. By extending the

concepts of Hersey and Blanchard's model, this

researcher tested the Tri-Dimensional Leader












Effectiveness Model by theorizing that effective

leaders display work behavior types similar to those

being led. Thus a unique feature of this research was

that situational leadership was considered from the

perspective of personality work behavior types rather

than leadership styles or situational variables.

Additionally, by showing the utility of the Marcus

Paul Placement Profile in higher education

administration, a contribution was made to the

understanding of work behavior analysis theory in

higher education administration while expanding the

scope of theoretically valid uses of Nickens and

Bauch's instrument. The findings of this study may

also be useful to leaders of higher education

administration programs in the areas of career

planning, academic advising, preparation of placement

files, and planning for effective and meaningful

academic programs and mentoring systems.



Discussion



There was consistency between faculty perceptions

of their dean's work behavior type and their dean's

actual work behavior type. However, no significant












difference was found to support the theory that

effective leaders adapt their work behavior types to

the work behavior types of those individuals being led.

The first question considered was whether certain

work behavior types are characteristic of faculty in

baccalaureate nursing programs. Approximately 60% of

the general population are either producers or

concentrators, with producers predominating.

Energizers and inducers represent an additional 20%

each (Bauch, 1981). In this study it was found that

76% of the participants were either producers or

concentrators, with concentrators predominating. The

remaining 24% of the participants were either

energizers or inducers. This difference in proportions

may be due to the nature of the nursing profession

and/or to the nature of nursing education.

There was no significant difference between faculty

perceptions of their dean's work behavior type and

their dean's actual work behavior type. Thus, it was

concluded that faculty perceptions of their dean's work

behavior type were congruent with the deans' actual work

behavior type. Consistency of the leaders' self-

perceptions with what associates perceived of their

leader was not always supported in the literature. For












example, Finnick (1984/1985) found a difference in

perceptions between faculty and deans in her study of

perceived effectiveness of leadership styles. The

inconsistency between the findings of this researcher

and the findings of other researchers may be due to the

instrument used and types of perceptions measured.

According to situational leadership theory,

followers react to the leader based on their perception

of the leader's behavior (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988).

Therefore, work behavior instruments may be valid for

use in deriving a better understanding of perceptions

as a basis for improving work relations. Since faculty

perception of the dean is based on observed behavior of

the dean, this finding also supports the use of work

behavior type as a self-examination tool by deans to

determine how they are being perceived by others.

Although there was congruency between perceptions,

there was no significant difference between the actual

faculty work behavior types and how they perceived the

deans' work behavior type. Thus, it was concluded that

there is no relationship between faculty work behavior

types and faculty perception of the work behavior type

of their deans. It can also be concluded that faculty

were not perceiving the dean to be adapting their work

behavior type to the work behavior type of the faculty.












These findings may be due to factors other than

work behavior type. Institutional size and

organizational structure may interfere with the deans'

ability to observe and identify the work behavior types

of their faculty. Thus the deans would have no

reference for adapting their own work behavior type.

Another reason may be that deans are unaware that

adaptation to followers may enhance interpersonal

relations and increase leadership effectiveness.

Additional study will be necessary to determine if

other factors contributed to the lack of support for

the theory that effective deans adapt their work

behavior types to the work behavior types of those

individuals being led.

The crux of the entire study was the investigation

of the relationship between perceptions of faculty who

had deans with high effectiveness scores and

perceptions of faculty who had deans with low

effectiveness scores in regard to whether they and the

dean have the same work behavior type. As a part of

the Tri-Dimensional Leader Effectiveness Model, Hersey

and Blanchard (1988) theorized that effective leaders

adapt their leader behavior to the needs of the

followers and the particular environment. Using work












behavior types, it was hoped that this theory could be

extended by showing that effective deans adapt their

work behavior type to the work behavior type of those

faculty being led.

Little evidence was found in this study to support

this extension of Hersey and Blanchard's model.

However, the scores used to measure effectiveness were

actual rather than perceptual and were not validated by

faculty. Research where faculty perceptions of

effectiveness scores are used may yield different

results and support the theory.

Another possible reason the theory was not

supported may be that the predominate work behavior

types of the deans were concentrator and energizer.

These two types focus more on task and results than

interpersonal relationships. Thus deans who have an

inducer work behavior type, which is people oriented,

may be more attentive to the need to adapt their

behavior to their followers than those deans who are

energizers, concentrators, or producers. Further

research is needed to determine if this is true.

A third possible reason that the theory was not

supported may be differences in approach in the

instruments used to measure work behavior type and












leadership adaptability. On the MPPP, respondents are

asked to choose words or phrases which are most like

them and least like them in the job situation from 24

sets of descriptive behavioral words. On the LEAD,

respondents are given 12 leadership situations and

asked to select from four alternative actions the one

they feel would most closely describe their own

behavior in that type of situation. Thus the MPPP

focuses on behaviors and personality while the LEAD

focuses on leadership style and situations. An

instrument in which leader effectiveness is measured in

terms of behaviors and personality may yield different

results.

In summary, there was consistency between faculty

perceptions of their dean's work behavior type and the

dean's actual work behavior type. Nevertheless, no

significant difference was found to support the theory

that effective leaders, as measured by the LEAD, adapt

their work behavior types to the work behavior types of

those individuals being led. This lack of support may

be due to one or more of the following reasons: (a)

actual effectiveness scores were used rather than

perceptions of effectiveness scores, (b) the

instruments used, and (c) the work behavior type of the

deans in the sample.












Recommendations



Based on the findings in this study, the following

recommendations seem appropriate.

1. In this study it was concluded that the use of

work behavior types in higher education administration

is valid for determining how leaders are perceived by

others. However, no significant relationship was found

to support the theory that effective leaders adapt

their work behavior types to the work behavior types of

those individuals being led. This study should be

replicated to determine the consistency of the

findings.

2. In this study the perceptions of faculty

concerning their dean's work behavior type were

investigated. A study should be developed to

determine the perception of deans concerning the work

behavior types of their faculty.

3. The dean's actual effectiveness score was used

in this study. A study should be developed to

determine the relationship between faculty perception

of deans' effectiveness scores and faculty perception

of the adaptation of the dean's work behavior type to

their own.












4. The instruments used in this study differed in

approach to effectiveness and adaptability. A study

on the relationship between work behavior type and

situational leadership should be developed using an

instrument in which leader effectiveness is measured in

terms of behaviors and personality.

5. Develop a study to determine the relationship

between situational leadership and work behavior type

in other professional schools for purposes of

comparison.

6. Develop a study to determine the relationship

between situational leadership and work behavior type

in nursing service departments. The purpose of this

study would be to determine and compare perceptions of

nursing leaders in service and education.

7. Evidence has been provided to support the

concept that work behavior type analysis is valid for

use in higher education administration for determining

how leaders are perceived by others. An on-going

education and self-evaluation program should be

developed for nursing education leaders based on work

behavior types and the findings of this study.



































APPENDIX A
LETTER TO COLLEGE OF NURSING DEANS












March 1, 1988


Dear Dean:

You and your faculty have been selected to participate
in a national study of leadership adaptability and work
behavior type. This project is under the direction of
Dr. John M. Nickens, professor of Educational
Leadership, University of Florida, and Dr. Kathleen
Smyth, FAAN, professor of Nursing, University of
Florida.

The objectives of the study are to determine:
1. If certain work behaviors are characteristic of
faculty in baccalaureate nursing programs.
2. If faculty perceptions of their dean's work
behavior type are congruent with their dean's
work behavior type.
3. If work behavior types of faculty relate to the
faculty's perceptions of their dean's work
behavior type.
4. If the perceptions of faculty who have deans
with high adaptability scores relate to
perceptions of faculty who have deans with low
adaptability scores in regard to whether they
and the dean have the same work behavior type.

Data collection instruments for the dean consist of a
questionnaire for demographic information, the Marcus
Paul Placement Profile (MPPP) which provides an
indication of work'behavior type, and the Leader
Effectiveness and Adaptability Description (LEAD-Self)
which provides some indication of leader style, style
range, and adaptability. Data collection instruments
for the faculty consist of a questionnaire for
demographic data, a self-rated Marcus Paul placement
Profile and a Marcus Paul Placement Profile for rating
the dean. Participants will be able to complete these
instruments in about 15 or 20 minutes.

Participation in this study by you and your faculty is
very important. You will provide valuable information
that can add to the understanding of situational
leadership theory.









86


Responses will be kept in confidence. Results will be
reported statistically so that neither individuals nor
institutions will be identified. I will be able to
send a computer analysis and explanation of their
particular work behavior type to anyone who is
interested.

Please return the response card, indicating your
willingness to participate, to me by April 1, 1988.

Sincerely,




lona Poston, RN, MSN
Educational Leadership
University of Florida



































APPENDIX B
RESPONSE CARD























The dean and faculty of the College of Nursing,
(circle one)
do do not wish to participate in this study.

number of faculty willing to participate:


Dean's signature:



































APPENDIX C
COVER LETTER TO DEAN












April 1, 1988


Dear Dean:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this national
study of leadership adaptability. Enclosed you will
find the forms for the faculty. Your participation
involves completing the three attached forms and
returning them to me in the envelope provided.

There are two forms on blue paper. The first is a
demographic questionnaire for the purpose of describing
the population involved in the study. The second blue
form is the Marcus Paul Placement Profile (MPPP) which
is a measure of work behavior type. The blue MPPP is
for your perception of yourself. Instructions for
completing the form are on side one.

The third form (green) is the Leader Effectiveness &
Adaptability Description (LEAD-Self). The LEAD-Self is
a measure of leader style, range, and adaptability.
You should be able to complete all of these forms in
approximately 20 minutes.

Participation in this study by you is very important.
You will provide valuable information that can add to
the understanding of situational leadership theory.
Please answer all questions as honestly as you can.
Responses will be kept in confidence. Results will be
reported statistically so that individuals and
institutions will hot be identified.

Return the completed instruments in the addressed,
stamped envelope by April 20, 1988. If you would like
a computer analysis and explanation of your particular
work behavior type and/or if you would like an analysis
of your LEAD-Self, print your name on the appropriate
form(s) and I will mail you a copy of your results.
Thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,



Iona Poston, RN, MSN
Educational Leadership




































APPENDIX D
COVER LETTER TO FACULTY













April 1, 1988


Dear Colleague:

Your nursing program has been selected to participate
in a national study of leadership adaptability. Your
administrative head has consented to participate in
this study and now your participation would also be
appreciated. Your participation involves completing
the three enclosed forms and returning them to me in
the envelope provided.

There are two forms on gold paper. The first is a
demographic questionnaire for the purpose of describing
the population involved in the study. The second gold
form is the Marcus Paul Placement Profile (MPPP) which
is a measure of work behavior type. The gold MPPP is
for your perception of yourself. Instructions for
completing the form are on side one.

The third form is a blue Marcus Paul Placement Profile.
The blue MPPP is for your perception of your dean.
Mark the boxes (most and least word descriptors) as you
perceive your dean in the job situation. You should be
able to complete all of these forms in approximately 20
minutes.

Participation in this study by you is very important.
You will provide valuable information that can add to
the understanding of situational leadership theory.
Please answer all questions as honestly as you can.
Responses will be kept in confidence. Results will be
reported statistically so that individuals and
institutions will not be identified.

Return the completed instruments in the addressed,
stamped envelope by April 20, 1988. If you would like
a computer analysis and explanation of your particular
work behavior type, print your name on the gold self-
perception MPPP and I will mail you a copy of your
results. Thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,



lona Poston, RN, MSN
Educational Leadership



































APPENDIX E
DEAN'S QUESTIONNAIRE




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EY8OZK1ZZ_WNBR7A INGEST_TIME 2013-01-23T14:13:27Z PACKAGE AA00012961_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES