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

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
African Americans ( jstor )
Dyadic relations ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Psychological research ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Self concept ( jstor )
Self esteem ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
White people ( jstor )
Leadership ( lcsh )
Race ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

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

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
020296914 ( ALEPH )
ADA8980 ( NOTIS )
14092693 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BLACK AND
WHITE LEADERSHIP IN A NATURALISTIC SETTING
By
WILLIAM ROBERT ALLEN
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1975


To Marl es, my wife,
with love and appreciation


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation to his Supervisory
Committee for their support and help in completing this dissertation.
The efforts of Jack M. Feldman, H. Joseph Reitz and James F. Burns
have proven invaluable in many ways, particularly in light of the
untimely passing of Walter A. Hill, the original committee chairman.
Walter A. Hill was both mentor and friend, and his support and
influence on this work and others was appreciated and will long be
remembered. Jack M. Feldman, first a committee member, assumed the
chairmanship and helped greatly toward placing this in completed
form. H. Joseph Reitz agreed to serve during the latter stages of
completion and has been very helpful. James F. Burns has been
steadfast in his support and helpful in his comments. The contribu
tions and friendship of these gentlemen are gratefully acknowledged.
Several others have also been helpful in many different ways.
Marvin E. Shaw and Robert C. Ziller offered many thoughtful comments
during the formative stages of the present work. Ira Horowitz,
William F. Fox, John H. James and William V. Wilmot have provided
considerable support and encouragement during the doctoral program.
Robert R. Bell and Fred J. Nutt have helped in their comments and
friendship.


A special word of appreciation is in order for John A. Ruhe and
Jerome F. Dederick. John A. Ruhe's generous suggestions, support
and friendship proved extremely helpful and was greatly appreciated.
SMCS Jerome F. Dederick USN, acting in his capacity as liaison with
the Navy during data collection, did much more than required and
contributed considerably with his enthusiasm and friendship. In
addition, the fidelity and friendship of Frankie Hammond, who pre
pared the final copy, is sincerely appreciated.
Finally, the author must recognize the many sacrifices made by
his wife, Marlies, and children, William, Robert and Elizabeth.
Their support, love and understanding made the doctoral program
and this study possible.
iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ¡
LIST OF TABLES vi i
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF THE STUDY, LITERATURE
REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 1
Introduction 1
Purpose of the Study 3
Literature Review 5
Hypotheses 24
I I METHODOLOGY 26
Subjects 26
Physical Environment 31
Design 33
Tasks 43
Observer Training and Reliability **6
Procedure 49
Questionnaire 52
III ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 55
Methods of Analysis 55
Results 61
IV SUMMARY, DISCUSS ION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH 91
Summary 91
Discussion 94
Implications for Future Research 108
v


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
REFERENCES 113
APPENDICES
A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SQUAD LEADERS 134
B PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE 135
C I EC 138
D SOCIAL ORIENTATION TASKS l4l
E RSE 145
F LOQ 148
G SBD 152
H JDI-GT 156
I JDI-SL. ....... 157
J JD I-S QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT SUBORDINATES 158
K JDI-FS QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT FELLOW SUBORDINATES. ... 161
L LAST PAGE 164
M INSTRUCTIONS 165
N INSTRUCTIONS 166
0 INSTRUCTIONS 170
P SHIP-ROUTING INFORMATION 171
Q AVAILABLE ROUTE COMBINATIONS 172
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 173
V


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1 PERSONAL PROFILE OF SQUAD LEADERS AND SQUAD MEMBERS. 27
2 RELIABILITY BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE OBSERVERS. ... 48
3 MEAN I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES 64
4 MEAN I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS GROUP I HYPOTHESES 66
5 MEAN I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES 68
6 MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X
GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL RACIAL
COMPOSITION GROUP II HYPOTHESES 71
7 MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP
TYPE INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL SIZE -
GROUP II HYPOTHESES 73
8 MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS 80
9 MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS. 81
10 MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS 82
11 MEAN LEADER I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS IN
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR 86
12 MEAN LEADER I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTION IN LEADERSHIP STYLE 87
13 MEAN LEADER SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS FOR
THE GENERAL SATISFACTION SURVEY 89
14 RESULTS OF TESTING HYPOTHESES 93
v i I


LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
TABLE
15 SUMMARY OF OBSERVED I PA DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
LEADERS 98
16 FREQUENCY COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED I PA
BEHAVIOR BETWEEN LEADERS, SUBORDINATES AND GROUPS
BY TASK TYPE AND BY GROUP TYPE 99


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Recruit Company Organization 29
2 Physical Plan of Experiment Rooms and Observation
Stations 32
3 Schema of the Basic Research Design 35
4 Notation and Designs for Data Testing 62


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BLACK AND
WHITE LEADERSHIP IN A NATURALISTIC SETTING
By
Will iam Robert Allen
March, 1975
Chairman: Jack M. Feldman
Major Department: Management
The objective of this study was to investigate differences in
attitudes and behavior between black and white leaders supervising
biracial groups of varying size and composition. In addition, differ
ences between subordinates and groups were investigated.
A total of 288 male naval recruits participated, evenly balanced
between blacks and whites. Eight different black and white squad
leaders, 6k in all, supervised groups composed of members from their
own squads in performing a knot-tying task and a ship-routing task,
while a pair of racially mixed observers watched through a one-way
window and recorded group interaction using Bales' Interaction Process
Analysis (lPA). Each leader supervised one of four types of groups:
racially balanced dyads, 25 percent black tetrads, 50 percent black
tetrads and 75 percent black tetrads. The result was fundamentally
a two-by-four factorial design. An assistant in the experimental room
recorded the time to perform each task and each individual's speech
duration.
After performing the tasks each subject completed a series of
questionnaires. Leaders completed the Leadership Opinion Question
naire, providing a self-rated measure of the leadership dimensions
x


initiating structure and cons¡deration: subordinates completed the
Supervisory Behavior Description, providing a subordinate-rated
measure of the same dimensions. Individual satisfaction with
subordinates, tasks, leaders and/or subordinates was measured using
selected scales of the Job Descriptive Index. Individuals completed
Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale, Ziller's Self-Esteem
Instrument, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale and answered certain
personal questions.
As hypothesized, white supervised groups performed both tasks
faster than black supervised groups, and black leaders were less
expressive in their behavior and scored lower in internal control
than white leaders. Performance deficiency was explained in terms
of status incongruence, group heterogeneity and experimental stress;
the less expressive behavior, in terms of status characteristic
theory, interracial interaction disability and social stress.
Contrary to the hypotheses, white leaders were not higher in
self-esteem, and black leaders did not have a greater speech duration,
more satisfaction with subordinates, or more satisfaction with the
tasks. Also not supported were hypotheses stating that, for each
task, the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial
composition would be faster when supervised by leaders high in
self- and subordinate-rated initiating structure and cons¡deration,
self-esteem, internal control and intelligence (measured by the Navy
Basic Test Battery), compared to leaders of the same race low in
these attributes.
xi


Comparing black and white leaders' use of the I PA categories
indicated race, group and interaction effects. White leaders were
clearly more active in interpersonal behavior. In every instance
of a significant difference between leader types for both tasks,
black leaders displayed less of the behavior in question than did
white leaders. Although white leaders gave and asked for more opinions
during the ship-routing task, the results were more pronounced
during the knot-tying task where white leaders exhibited more activity
in five of the twelve categories: showing solidarity, giving sugges
tions, asking for information and opinions and disagreeing. These
results suggest inhibition on the part of the black leaders. Patterns
of behavior displayed through I PA differences suggest similar results
for black subordinates. During the knot-tying problem, black super
vised groups displayed, on the average, less agreeing, less asking
for information, less asking for opinion and more antagonism, suggest
ing behavior that hindered performance. During the ship-routing
problem, black supervised groups displayed, on the average, less
asking for opinion but more asking for information, and were greater
in speech duration, which may have hindered performance by detracting
from task demands.
The data suggest that the leaders, regardless of race, experi
enced supervision difficulties due to increasing the size of sub
ordinate groups and due to increasing the relative number of blacks
xii
in subordinate tetrads.


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF THE STUDY, LITERATURE
REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Introduction
The emergence of the "new Negro" or "black" is one of the most
striking phenomena of the latter half of the 19601 s (Miller and Dreger,
1973).^ As these minority-group Americans become assimilated into
social institutions in a manner, and at levels, never before achieved,
the appropriateness of current organizational practices may have to be
questioned. As Miller and Dreger (1973) have pointed out, the
behavioral setting can make a major difference in comparative behaviors.
One important modification in the behavioral setting will be the
emergence of more blacks into positions of leadership and influence.
Not only is this an expectation of society in general, it is, as King
and Bass (1970) point out, natural for blacks to desire managerial
positions when they have already achieved entry into the organization
2
and access to skilled jobs.
When making racial designations, the terms black and white will be
favored over the terms Negro and Caucasian in the belief that they are
the currently preferred social terms.
2
King and Bass (1970) have proposed a hierarchy of concerns about
integration in organizations that is analogous to Maslow's (195*0 postu
lation of a hierarchy of needs. Their hierarchy was conceptualized as
a three-tiered, truncated pyramid consisting of: entry into the organization,
access to skilled jobs, and access to managerial positions.
1


The research literature is presently equivocal as to how blacks
might compare to whites in leadership or supervisory roles. We know
very little about racial differences in these areas. The basic problem
is to determine what differences there are and to see if these
differences can be explained. Because blacks do form a significant
ethnic subgroup in our society and because our social institutions are
now dominated by whites, this problem should be considered as openly
and objectively as possible so that as organizational integration
proceeds difficulties can be properly anticipated and effectively
minimized. The need for social psychological research concerning
actual differences between blacks and whites and the nature of the
supervisor-subordinate interaction in job settings has been expressed
by many authors (see, e.g., Dreger and Miller, 1968; King and Bass, 1970;
Moskos, 1967; Triandis and Malpass, 1971).
Racial differences and the psychology of blacks have been discussed
in numerous works (e.g., Allen, 1970; Anastasi and Foley, 1949; Bendix
and Lipset, 1953; Benedict and Weltfish, 1943; Boyd, 1950; Deutsch,
Katz and Jensen, 1968; Dreger and Miller, I960, 1968; Dunn and Dobzhansky,
1946; Frazier, 1939, 1957; Garth, 1925, 1931; Ginzberg, 1956; Harding
et _aK, 1969; Kardiner and Ovesey, 1951, 1962; Katz, 1970; K1ineberg,
1935, 1944; Knox, 1945, 1949, 1952; Lindzey, 1954; Miller and Dreger,
1973; Montagu, 1952; North, 1957; Pettigrew, 1964; Sarason and Gladwin,
1958; Shuey, 1958; Tyler, 1956; Woodworth, 1916).^ Early comparative
3
WHle the term race will be used for convenience, no meaning is
intended other than that of distinctiveness of appearance and commonality
of experience; the issue of whether there are consequential differences
in the genetic endowment of blacks and whites will not be considered
(cf., Katz, 1964).


3
research was concerned primarily with attempts to measure and describe
interracial differences within a normative framework where the behavior
of whites served as a norm against which black behavior was evaluated.
Social psychological research was concerned primarily with the response
of whites to blacks; thus, attempts to do such things as modify attitudes,
measure social distance, etc., were directed to whites rather than
blacks (cf., Miller and Dreger, 1973).
The relatively recent advances being made by minority-group Americans
into positions of leadership and supervision is a trend deserving further
study, particularly in field and naturalistic settings where blacks and
whites coexist in comparable organizational positions. The experimental
study of black-white relationships is a relatively unexplored field
offering unique research opportunities (Katz, 1970).
Purpose of the Study
The main concern of this study is the development of knowledge and
information concerning differences In leadership qualities between
black and white leaders. This study from its inception was conceived
to follow Ruhe (1972). It is not an exact replication, but several of
the same methodological techniques were employed in an effort tc-
generalize earlier results to natural work groups outside the laboratory,
to enhance the external validity of both studies. The focus i.s on
differential leadership qualities, though certain comparisons o~ black
and white subordinate behavior were made.
At this point it is appropriate to briefly describe the Ruhe study.
Using 96 male undergraduate students as subjects (^8 black and *8 white),


4
Ruhe randomly assigned each of 12 black and 12 white older students (who
had volunteered to be supervisors) to supervise three different types of
subordinate dyads (one all-black, one all-white, and one racially-mixed).
The remaining 72 students, 36 black and 36 white, were randomly assigned
to one of the three subordinate dyads that participated once with a black
supervisor and once with a white supervisor. Each group performed
three tasks: knot-tying, ship-routing and letter writing. During the
performance of the tasks two trained observers (one black and one white)
coded the group interaction using Bales' (1950) Interaction Process
Analysis (IPA). Other output measures recorded were: duration of speech
for each group member, amount of time needed to complete each task and
cohesiveness. After performing the last of the tasks, both supervisor
and subordinates completed satisfaction rating forms (from Smith, Kendall
and Hulin, 1969) for each other and for the work in the tasks. At the
end of their participation each subject completed a self-esteem form
(from Ziller, 1971).
In designing the present study the desire was to draw from the
Ruhe study and extend the scope of research in this area, using a different
subject population in a more naturalistic setting. In keeping with this
desire, several methodological changes were made: (l) group size and
racial composition were varied; (2) instruments for measuring leader
behavior (the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and Supervisory Behavior
Description, which provide leader dimensions known as initiating structure
and consideration. from Stogdill and Coons, 1957) were included to tie
in with recognized leadership literature; (3) the Internal-External
Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) assessing locus of control was included,
since this quality has been shown to be related to effectiveness in


5
attempts to influence others (Lao, 1970); (4) a second self-esteem
instrument (the Self-Esteem Scale, from Rosenberg, 1965) was included
because it is based on verbal self-report; (5) cohesiveness (defined
to be the proportionate usage of "we" or "I") was eliminated as an
output variable due to the apparent lack of a conceptual base in the
biracia! situation (Ruhe, personal communication); and (6) the letter
writing task was eliminated because it was felt that the manner in which
this was handled by Ruhe was not appropriate in the field setting, since
in the university setting each group was asked to develop a recruiting
letter urging college students to join an all-volunteer Navy.
From the above, therefore, the principal purpose of the present
study can be stated as an investigation of some of the possible differences
between black and white leaders supervising racially heterogeneous
groups, of varying size and racial composition, in the performance of
two tasks.
Literature Review
Synthesizing the literature addressed by this study is a difficult
task due to its scope and diversity. Further, because of the relatively
recent dramatic changes in black-white relations, there is a very real
possibility that much of the research in existence may be partially,
if not totally, irrelevant to the present day black, assuming that
enduring changes in attitudes and behavior have occurred. This should
be borne in mind when the 1 iterature is examined. Notwithstanding the
difficulty of synthesis and the relevancy issue, several highly plausible
general conclusions do emerge. Upon these hypotheses can be advanced and
tested within the limits established by this study.


6
The review of the literature that follows focuses mostly on those
attributes which have been found to differentiate between blacks and
whites and which were addressed by this study, with the exception of the
research involving the leader dimensions initiating structure and
consideration. The review is grouped under the following sub-headings:
B?racial Work Groups. Leadership Studies, Leader Behavior and Task
Performance, Self-Concept, Locus of Control, Intelligence and Aptitude,
Job Satisfaction, Miscellaneous Related Research and Cone1us ion.
Biracial WorkGroups
The behavior displayed in biracial work groups and problem-solving
situations may suggest how blacks and whites compare in leadership
positions. Blacks have displayed marked social inhibition and subordination
to white partners in cooperative problem-solving situations, even when
both races were matched on intelligence and made to display equal
ability at the task; blacks mostly ignored one another, made fewer
proposals, were less willing to argue for their point of view, were
more susceptible to group influence, ranked whites higher on mental
ability, favored whites when talking, favored one another as future
work companions, and expressed less satisfaction with group experiences
than did whites (Cohen, 1972; Katz and Benjamin, I960; Katz, Goldston
and Benjamin, 1958).
Although some studies suggest that blacks alter their behavior in
an unfavorable direction or decrease in performance efficiency when
faced with a white rather than a black frame of reference (Hatton, 1967;
Katz and Cohen, 1962; Katz, Epps and Axelson, 1964; Katz, Roberts and
Robinson, 1965; Preston and Bayton, 1941), others suggest improved
performance in the white norm condition (Epps, Katz and Runyon, 1970;
Katz, Epps and Perry, 1970; Katz et 1972),


7
Some of the work done by Katz and his colleagues uses the race of
the experimenter as one of the major variables. These provide results
relevant to this study. Under a low stress conditions blacks worked
better in an all-white environment; however, under a high stress
condition black efficiency improved in the all-black environment and
went down in an all-white environment (Katz and Greenbaum, 1963).
These results were interpreted in terms of the hypothesis of an inverted
U-shaped relationship between arousal and performance (cf., Malmo, 1957;
Duffy, 1957), with the low stress, all-black environment considered
insufficiently arousing for optimal performance and the high stress,
all-white environment too arousing, since the blacks worked best in a
low stress, all-white environment. In another study (Katz, Roberts and
Robinson, 1965), relating the most difficult task level to intelligence
reduced black performance under a white experimenter, but when the same
task level was described as a test of eye-hand coordination (i.e., an
ability which blacks are not stereotyped as lacking), black performance
was better with a white experimenter than with a black experimenter.
These results were related to the concept of task motivation as a
joint function of the subjective probability and incentive value of
success (cf., Atkinson, 1964); thus, when the likelihood of winning
approval was equally high, blacks would work harder for a white person
(i.e., a higher status individual) than a black person.
Actual white behavior in the biraciai situation has not been studied
to the same degree as black behavior. Burnstein and McRae (1962)
investigated the attitudinal effect of participation in biraciai
problem-solving groups and found that under conditions of shared threat


8
a reduction in the expression of prejudice occurred, although communication
to the black participants was significantly less by the high prejudiced
white subjects regardless of the presence or absence of shared threat.
Another study (Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958) found that group
reward produced a greater amount of cooperative behavior in both black
and white subjects. Although no more 1ikely to have correct solutions
than blacks in group problem-solving, whites still exercised more social
influence (Katz and Benjamin, I960; Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958).
When talking, whites have favored whites as the target of their inter
action (Cohen, 1972; Katz and Benjamin, I960; Katz, Goldston and Benjamiin,
1958). While in one study (Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958) whites
chose blacks as often as they chose one another as future working
companions and ranked blacks as high as themselves on task competence,
in another experiment (Katz and Cohen, 1962), whites downgraded the
problem-solving ability of black partners and expressed less willingness
to continue working with the blacks as compared to a control group of
whites.
From these studies we can reach several plausible conclusions.
Black performance probably depends upon the rae ia 1 -environmental
conditions under which they must work and anticipation of a cross-racial
comparison may have a favorable motivational effect. Members of both
races may favor white recipients when talking, ostensibly because whites
are perceived as having higher social status. Whites are probably more
influential in biracial group decisions and blacks are probably more
susceptible to group influence. The reaction of whites to blacks in the
biracial problem-solving situation remains equivocal.


9
If leadership is viewed as a social exchange process a satisfactory
conceptual base can be provided for predicting group performance on the
basis of the research concerning biracial work groups. The essence of
social exchange is the development of relationships with other persons
such that benefits of mutual value can be "traded" between participants
of both equal and unequal status (Jacobs, 1970). Thus, participants
accrue "assets" which determine their status within the group. Leaders
are afforded or possess the greater assets, allowing them to function
more effectively in their leadership role. Implicit in this exchange or
transactional approach is the understanding that individual, situational
and cultural differences have the potential of impinging upon the
leadership process and influencing or moderating relevant variables.
Therefore, the research conceri iracial work groups suggests that
groups supervised by white leaders will outperform groups supervised by
black leaders because white leaders will have more transactional assets
than will black leaders.
Leadership Studies
An important consideration is the functioning of blacks in leadership
positions and their acceptance by whites as leaders. Support for a
proposal that whites in the job setting would be willing to have blacks
over them in a position of leadership and supervision can be found in
Campbell (1971) where 86 percent of the white respondents to a 15-city
survey said they would not mind at all having a qualified black as a
supervisor on their job and Cavanagh (1971), who found that whites
accepted a black supervisor more readily than did many of the blacks.
Using the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (Fleishman,
1953), Glasgow (1970) found no significant differences between the


10
initiating structure and cons¡deration leader behavior scores of a
sample of black public school principals and those of a sample of white
principals taken from a previous study. Glasgow points out that black
principals see themselves as being competent to assume the leadership
role in professionally staffed organizations.
Leadership assumption in a simulated clerical task was investigated
by Fenelon and Megaree (1971). The rate of leadership assumption by
high-dominance white women paired with low-dominance black women was
significantly lower than the rate of leadership assumption by both black
and white high-dominance women in the other groups. Analysis of the
process for deciding who should assume leadership suggested that the
above finding stemmed from the reluctance of the high-dominance white
women to assume leadership over the low-dominance black women, coupled
with the increased assertiveness of low-dominance black women when
paired with a white partner.
Using a business game to investigate interaction difficulties of
black and white coworkers with blacks in a supervisory position, Richards
and Jaffee (1972) found that the performance ratings by white observers
of black supervisors were significantly poorer than those of white
supervisors; that subordinates supervised by blacks gave more suggestions
and opinions and disagreed more than subordinates supervised by whites
whereas subordinates supervised by whites showed more solidarity and were
more accepting than subordinates supervised by blacks and some of these
behaviors (e.g., being less accepting) appeared to hinder the
effectiveness of black supervisors; and that subordinates with negative
racial bias gave poorer ratings to black supervisors than subordinates
with more positive racial attitudes.


11
Investigating the effects of varying racial compositions upon the
attitudes and behavior of black and white supervisors and subordinates,
Ruhe (1972) found no significant differences between black and white
supervisors in style of leadership (defined to be directive or nondirective),
duration of speech, self-esteem and satisfaction with subordinates and
work in three tasks.
Studies relating behavior scored by the I PA to leadership or
interracial leadership behavior (Richards and Cuffee, 1971; Richards and
Jaffee, 1972; Ruhe, 1972; Zdep, 1969) are generally inconsistent. The
only notable commonal ity is the lack of an indicated relation for
categories 2 (showing tension release), 3 (agreeing), 7 (asking for
information), 10 (disagreeing) and 12 (showing antagonism). Richards
and Cuffee (1971) found that leaders (race unspecified) of interacting
groups emitted more behavior in catagories 4 (gives suggestion), 6
(gives information) and 9 (asks for information), and, in general,
emitted more behaviors; in addition, they found in interacting groups
that the effectiveness of leaders correlated with categories 1 (shows
solidarity), 4 (gives suggestion), 5 (gives opinion) and 11 (shows
tension). Richards and Jaffee (1972) found white leaders emitting more
behavior than black leaders in categories 1 (shows solidarity), 4 (gives
suggestion)and 6 (gives information). Ruhe (1972) found that white
leaders emitted more behavior than black leaders in categories 8 (asks
for opinion) and 9 (asks for suggestion). Zdep (1969) relates
leadership to categories 1 (shows solidarity), 4 (gives suggestion) ,5
(gives opinion), 6 (gives information), 8 (asks for opinion) and 9 (asks
for suggestion).


12
Overall, perhaps the best conclusion that can be reached is that
the evidence fails to demonstrate great deficiencies for blacks in
positions of leadership. More specifically, based on the results of the
two studies relating IPA-scored behavior to leadership (Richards and
Jaffee, 1972; Ruhe, 1972) the most plausible general conclusion for
differences in IPA-scored behavior between black and white leaders
appears to be that when differences occur white leaders will emit more
behavior than black leaders.
Leader Behavior and Task Performance
Initiating structure and cons¡deration as dimensions of leader
behavior emerged from studies initiated by the Personnel Research Board
of the Ohio State University (cf., Stogdill and Coons, 1957). These
dimensions resulted from a factor analysis of hypothesized dimensions
of leader behavior (Halpin and Winer, 1957) and were identified as the
smallest number of dimensions which would adequately describe leader
behavior as perceived by the leader's subordinates and as the leader
himself reported his own attitudes toward his role (Korman, 1966). They
are frequently used to account for a leader's behavior and its effects.
They may be defined as follows (cf. Harris and Fleishman, 1955;
Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Fleishman and Peters, 1962):
Initiating Structure: Includes behavior indicative
of the extent to which an individual is likely to
organize and structure his role and those of his
subordinates toward goal attainment. A high score
characterizes individuals who assume a more active
role in defining and facilitating group activity
through planning, scheduling, task assignment,
establishing ways of getting thigs done, and
establishing desired subordinate roles.
Cons¡deration: Includes behavior indicative of the
extent to which an individual is likely to emphasize
mutual trust, respect for subordinate's ideas,


13
consideration for their feelings, and maintenance
of a certain warmth between himself and his group.
A high score characterizes individuals who emphasize
a deeper concern for subordinate needs and indicates
a climate of good rapport and two-way communication.
A low score is indicative of a more authoritarian and
impersonal relationship between the leader and his
subordinates.
From the literature there is little doubt that the leadership
dimensions initiating structure and cons¡deration and similar behavior
categories describe important leader behaviors, but the lack of
consistent empirical evidence as to how these behaviors predict group
performance poses a major theoretical problem (Anderson, 1966; Campbell
et aK, 1970; Korman, 1966; House, Filley and Kerr, 1971; Lowin,
Hrapchak and Kavanagh, 1969). With regard to structured leadership
behavior, the typical case seems to be that leaders high in initiating
structure or similar measures of instrunental or structuring behavior
have higher performing subordinate groups (Bales, 1953; Bass and Dunteman,
1963; Bass et ., 1963; Dunteman and Bass, 1963; Halpin and Winer,
1957; Katz and Kahn, 1953; Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950; Moore, 1953;
Moore and Smith, 1952; Stouffer et aj.., 1949); however, Korman (1966)
revealed several studies showing no relationship between initiating
structure and performance. Two studies (House, Filley, Gujarati, 1971;
House, Filley and Kerr, 1971) have found a positive relationship between
initiating structure and satisfaction. With regard to supportive
leadership behavior, the typical case seems to be that leaders high in
consideration or expressive behavior have subordinate groups who are high
in measures of satisfaction (Argyle, Gardner and Cioffi, 1958; Baumgartel,
1956, 1957; Comrey, Pfiffner and Wallace, 1954; Danielson and Maier, 1957;
Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Halpin, 1954; Halpin and Winer, 1957;


14
Hemphill, 1957; Indik, Seashore and Georgopoulos, I960; Moore, 1953;
Moore and Smith, 1952; Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964; Patchen, I960;
Seeman, I960; Spector, Clark and Glickman, I960); however, this type
of leadership behavior has also been found to relate positively to
departmental and individual performance (Argyle, Gardner and Cioffi, 1958;
Blu and Scott, 1962; Indik, Seashore and Georgopoulos, I960; Katz and
Kahn, 1953; Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950; Likert, 1961). Leaders rated
high on both initiating structure and consideration are more likely to
be judged effective by their superiors and to have desirable effects
on productivity and group morale (Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Fleishman
and Simmons, 1970; Halpin, 1954; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Misumi and
Tosaki, 1965; Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964; Shartle, 1956); one study
(Halpin, 1955) has shown that while the effective leaders of air crews
were both structuring and considerate, the same condition was not true
of leaders of educational institutions. Korman (1966) concludes that,
despite the fact that initiating structure and cons{deration have
become almost bywords in American industrial psychology, it seems
apparent that very little is now known as to how these variables
predict work group performance and the conditions which affect such
predictions. Indeed, Lowin, Hrapchak and Kavanagh (1969), after a
thorough reading of the relevant 1 iterature, suggest that there appears
to be much evidence that initiating structure and cons¡deration can each
correlate positively, negatively, both positively and negatively (depending
on other variables) and only weakly if at all with effectiveness and
morale indices. Korman's (1966) review shows a predominance of low to
moderate correlations, almost all of a concurrent nature. There is as
yet almost no evidence on the predictive validity of initiating structure


15
and cons iderat ion nor on the kinds of situational moderators which might
affect such validity (Korman, 1966).
Given the above results, one cannot reliably predict the relationship
between initiating structure or consideration and task performance.
However, if one must predict the relationship the safer prediction appears
to be that task performance will be better for those leaders who are high
in these dimensions rather than low.
Self-Concept
As Jacobs (1970) has noted, it is important to the individual that
his self-concept be as favorable as possible; the more favorable it is,
the greater will be his assets in social exchange relationships. Although
Coleman .et ah (1966) found no difference in the self-concept of blacks
and whites in the educational setting, many studies of blacks suggest
the presence of an unfavorable self-image (Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969).
Society has fostered a negative self-concept among blacks by nurturing
and rewarding feelings of inferiority and unworthiness (Poussaint and
Atkinson, 1968), and this sort of self-image may account for such behavior
as black parents favoring a 1ight-skinned child (Coles, 1967; Grambs,
1964), dark-skinned men trying to marry wives of a lighter skin color
(Kardiner and Ovesey, 1962), and the tendency of the black child to
identify with the white majority (Clark and Clark, 1947; Goodman, 1952;
Landreth and Johnson, 1953; Morland, 1962; Radke and Trager, 1950;
Stevenson and Stewart, 1958). Considerable research supports the
contention that blacks almost inevitably develop feelings of low self
esteem (Ausubel and Ausubel, 1963; Bernard, 1958; Bridgette, 1970; Clark,
1967; Guggenheim, 1969; Jefferson, 1957).
However the "black is beautiful" theme that emerged during the 1960's
raises serious doubts as to the enduring validity of many of these earlier


16
studies. Indeed, recent research does indicate an improved self-image
among blacks, often equalling or exceeding that of whites (Back and
Parmesh, 1969; Carpenter and Busse, 1969; Dennis, 1968; Douglas, 1970;
Greenwald and Oppenheim, 1968; Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969; Hraba and
Grant, 1970; McElroy, 1971; Ogletree, 1969; Ruhe, 1972; White, 1971).
A careful examination of the literature leads one to the conclusion
that variables such as social setting (Ausubel, 1958; Coleman et a1.,
1966; Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969; Ruhe, 1972), sex (Carpenter and
Busse, 1969) and age (Clark and Clark, 1947; Morland, 1962; Proshansky
and Newton, 1968; Radke and Trager, 1950) are moderating variables in
the determination of self-concepts. Therefore, it is an oversimplication
to generalize and say that black self-concepts are necessarily less
favorable than white self-concepts.
In a recent review concerning self-concept and attitudes, covering
generally the late 1960's, Christmas (1973) found that the research
surveyed fell into three major categories which corroborate the
importance of moderating variables on self-concept:
The first was concerned with the influence of antecedent
factors upon current aspects of self-concept. In these
studies, self-concept was the inferred consequent of familial,
parent-child, or other social interaction; of counseling, guid
ance or role modeling; or of variations in learning
experience or educational practice (Allen, 1969; Crovetto,
1968; Crovetto, Fischer and Boudreaux, 1967; Henderson,
1967; Talley, 1968). A number of investigations explored
the possible effects of integrated, desegregated and
segregated schooling on self-attitudes (Bass, 1969;
Bienvenu, 1968; McWhirt, 1967; Strauss, 1967; Taylor, 1968).
The findings were generally inconclusive.
The second major group included studies in which antecedent
self-concept was presumably related to behavior. They
included investigations of self-evaluation and self-esteem
(Guggenheim, 1969; Soares and Soares, 1969; Williams and
Byars, 1969, 1970); differences between blacks and whites,
in regard to ethnocentrism and self-acceptance (Freeman et al.,


17
1966; Getter and Satow, 1969; Greenwald and Oppenheim,
1968; Hraba and Grant, 1970); and studies of level-of-
aspiration performance in learning tasks and academic
achievement (Blair, 1972; Caplin, 1966, 1969; Curtis,. 1967;
Freyberg and Shapiro, 1966; Gay, 1966; Greenberg et al/t
1965; Lourenso, Greenberg and Davidson, 1965). Here, too,
results were inconclusive and failed to show a definite
relationship between self-concept, broadly defined, and
behavior.
Finally, a number of research efforts were directed
toward determining possible correlations between self
esteem and variables such as occupational level, socio
economic status, residence, age, and sex, in blacks and
whites (McDonald and Gynther, 1965; Wendland, 1969; Wylie
and Hutchins, 1967; Yeatts, 1968). Here, at least,
recognition was given to the possibility, for example,
that socioeconomic status might outweigh the factor of
race. Yet, several investigators still compared blacks
of lower socioeconomic status with middle class whites,
while acknowledging this to be a limitation of the study
(Long and Henderson, 1968). The weakness of the design and
the methods of data analysis in these studies contributed
to the resultant lack of solidity in the findings.
Considering these findings on self-concept as a whole and even though
it is evident that black self-concepts are not necessarily less favorable
than white self-concepts, the evidence seems to favor the prediction
that whites will have greater self-esteem than will blacks. Since
leaders high in self-esteem possess a greater transactional asset than
leaders low in self-esteem it is reasonable to expect better task
performance from groups they supervise.
Locus of Control
It is often stated that locus of control is an important determinant
of individual behavior. For example, two review articles (Lefcourt,
1966; Rotter, 1966) have shown that when a person believes that
reinforcements are controlled by internal rather than external forces,
he is likely to make greater attempts at mastering the environment; to
be more resistant to influence attempts by others, yet more effective in


18
attempts to influence others; to prefer high-probability choices in
risk-taking behavior; to be lower in anxiety and higher in achievement
orientation; to act more responsively to probability changes in the
situation; to place higher value on skill determined rewards; and to be
involved in social action (Lao, 1970). Internal-external control is
consistently related to a variety of scales, with internal scorers
describing themselves as more active, striving, achieving, powerful,
independent and effective (Hersch and Scheibe, 1967). Also, internals
are more active in intellectual pursuits and show greater interest in
intellectual activities (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall, 1965;
Crandall, Katkovsky and Preston, 1962).
The research relating to this dimension in groups of blacks and
whites has consistently demonstrated class and racial differences (see,
e.g., Lao, 1970; Lefcourt, 1965; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965b), with a
sense of internal control being stronger in the middle class than in
the working class and stronger in whites than in blacks (Battle and
Rotter, 1963; Coleman est aK, 1966; Crandall, Katovsky and Crandall,
1965; Gurin, 1970; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965a). The interaction of
class and race is such that lower class blacks stand out as having
a particularly external orientation (Battle and Rotter, 1963; Coleman
_et 1., 1966; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965a).
While one study found no racial differences between blacks and
whites in locus of control (Hall, 1969), and even though blacks in one
situation behaved in a more cautious, internal fashion than did
whites (Lefcourt, 1965), blacks as a group seem to feel and behave as
if they have 1imited control of reinforcement. However, as Dreger and
Miller (1968) suggest, this reaction may be a function of the type of


19
situation being studied. Higher achievement scores and grades, greater
academic confidence and higher expectations and aspirations have been
reported on the part of black students with a strong feeling of personal
control (Gur in et aj,., 1969; Lao, 1970). In contrast to studies using
general locus of control measures, those using the Intellectual Achieve
ment Responsibility scale (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall, 1965)
report no race effects (Katz, 1967; Solomon, Houlihan and Parelius, 1969)
and only very slight social class effects (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall,
1965; Solomon, Houlihan and Parelius, 1969).
Based on the above, it is reasonable to expect that white leaders
will be higher in internal control than black leaders. Further,
regardless of leader race, the performance of groups supervised by
leaders high in internal control should be better than that of groups
supervised by leaders lew in this dimension because they have a
greater transactional asset and because they should be more effective
in influencing others.
Intelligence and Aptitude
The contribution of intelligence to leadership appears to be small
(cf., Shaw, 1971) but the review by Stogdill (1948) overwhelmingly
indicated that leaders are, on the average, more intelligent than
nonleaders. A low positive correlation between tested intelligence and
leadership behavior is indicated (Bass and Wurster, 1953a, 1953b;
Hollander, 1954). If we can view aptitude for learning as being a
subcategory of intelligence, similar results can be expected.
That blacks, as a group, shew up as deficient in abstract abilities
and score below whites on most measures of academic achievement and
aptitude is well documented (APA, 1969; Baughman and Dahlstrom, 1968;


20
Coleman et _aj_., 1966; Treger and Miller, 1968; Epps, 1969; McFann, 1970;
4
Pettigrew, 1964); however, the significance of this to their performance
as leaders has not been investigated.
With the notable exception above, the ability of tests in general
to distinguish between blacks and whites appears to be subject to
numerous moderating variables; further, their ability to predict per
formances for either race appears to be somewhat unreliable. These
conclusions are suggested by evidence such as the following:
(1) On personality-type tests, differences tend to disappear
when black and white subjects are matched on such variables
as intelligence (Thumin and Goldman, 1968) or socioeconomic
status (Flanagan and Lewis, 1969).
(2) Aptitude differences between blacks and whites have remained
even when the subjects were matched on socioeconomic status
(Flanagan and Lewis, 1969).
(3) While some studies strongly confirm that verbal and mathematics
tests predict scholastic performance equally well for blacks and
whites (Boney, 1966;"Cleary, 1966; Cleary and Hilton, 1966;
Munday, 1965; Stanley and Porter, 1967), other studies have
yielded no clear trends in predicting job performance (Gordon,
1955; Kirkpatrick et i., 1967; Tenopyr, 1967), and thus no
firm conclusions are possible (APA, 1969).
(4) Blacks have scored lower than whites on qualification tests
and then have performed equally well on job sample and job
knowledge tests (McFann, 1970).
(5) Blacks have been hired for certain positions for which their
measured intelligence disqualified them and then have gone
ahead and performed satisfactorily ("Merit for Hire," 1958).
(6) The contention that blacks are handicapped on tests of spatial
ability because of an environmental disadvantage has not
always been supported (Osborne and Gregor, 1968).
4
The APA report (1969) offers five possible factors as to why blacks
typically score belcw whites: cultural deprivation, anxiety induced by
the testing situation, unfairness of test content, improper interpretation
of test scores, and lack of content relevance.


21
The positive correlation between tested intelligence and leader
behavior combined with the consideration that a more intelligent person
will have a greater transactional asset than will a less intelligent
person suggests that it is reasonable to expect groups supervised by
leaders high in intelligence to outperform groups supervised by leaders
low in intelligence. This is also suggested by the consideration that
leaders with more intelligence will be able to comprehend and execute
task demands with greater facility.
Job Satisfaction
Depending on the demographic stratum to which they belong, blacks
may have higher, the same or lower job satisfaction that whites
(Feldman, 1972; Kahl and Goering, 1971; Katzel 1, Ewen and Korman, 1970;
Milutinovich, 1971). Although black job attitudes less favorable than
those of whites have been found (Katzel1, Ewen and Korman, 1970), the
evidence heavily favors the conclusion that black workers have job
attitudes as favorable or even more favorable than those of whites
(Feldman, 1972; Katzel1, Ewen and Korman, 1970; Nelson, Achabel and
George, 1971).
Investigating the relationship of race and job satisfaction and
the influence of participative and authoritative supervisory styles on
the job satisfaction of blacks and whites, Milutinovich (1971) found
that race has only limited influence on job satisfaction and that both
blacks and whites had higher job satisfaction under participative than
under authoritative supervision. Black blue- and white-collar workers
had similar job satisfaction, while white blue-collar workers were lower
than white-collar workers. Blacks, regardless of job type, had higher
job satisfaction than white blue-collar workers, but had lower satisfaction
than white white-collar workers.


22
In an extensive exploratory study of hardcore unemployed and
working-class blacks and whites, Feldman (1972) found that black subjects
evaluated several material and social job outcomes more highly than
whites and black working-class subjects rated a variety of outcomes,
including some higher order ones (Maslow, 1954), more highly than any
other group. He summarized his general pattern of results as suggesting
that the black subjects, particularly the working-class, perceive work
as a source of valued rewards, while the white working-class does not.
If differences in satisfaction between black and white leaders are
predicted the more plausible prediction seems to be that black leaders
will indicate greater satisfaction with work and subordinates than
will white leaders. This is suggested by the fact that in this study
the subjects (i.e., Navy enlisted personnel) should typically have
their origins in predominately working-class/blue-col lar environments.
The data suggests that blacks from these origins probably have greater
work-related satisfaction than whites with similar backgrounds.
Miscellaneous Related Research
Much of the available research, while not falling into any of
the previous categories, suggests important differences between blacks
and whites. Although in one study (Veroff et ak, I960) blacks and
whites were shown to be similar, it appears that blacks are less
achievement oriented than whites (Lott and Lott, 1963; Merbaum, 1962;
Mingione, 1965; Rosen, 1959). Consistent with recent studies of black
consciousness and black politics where power is the central theme
(Dizard, 1970; Kelman, 1970; Tomlinson, 1970), blacks have been shown to
have a higher need for power (Greene and Winter, 1971; Veroff et ak, I960).


23
Further, blacks, relative to whites, (a) generally score lower on need
for dominance and autonomy (Brazziel, 196*0 and self-liking (Clark,
1967), (b) are similar on need for affiliation (Veroff et al., i960) or
high in affiliation (Ferman, Kornbuk, and Miller, 1968), (c) have a
higher degree of self-doubt (Deutsch, I960) and social conformity
(S istrunk, 1971), (d) exhibit essentially the same creative talent
(Doyle, 1970) and (e) place a greater emphasis on verbal interaction
(Kochman, 1969).
Results presented by two studies (Broom and Glenn, 1966; Cameron,
1971) weaken the notion of a separate subculture insofar as such a
culture is indicated by opinion and personality differences. Indeed,
based on these studies, blacks and whites appear far more similar
psychologically than different. Analyzing responses to questions asked
on national public opinion surveys, Broom and Glenn (1966) found, in
general, that black and white differences in attitudes were smaller
than the differences between Southern and non-Southern whites and
between low- and high-education whites. In the other study, Cameron
(1971), using various instruments, found that blacks tested the same as
whites on mascul inity-femininity, extraversin, ego-strength and liking
of the generalized other; higher than whites on religiosity and "claimed
judged liking of the generalized other"; lower than whites on neuroticism
and hostility; and, on a lie scale, there was a slight tendency for
blacks to be more candid. Parallel sex and developmental differences
suggested to Cameron that the differential social influences are much
the same and are handled psychologically £he same for either race.
From these results we can conclude that blacks have stronger power
orientations, are less achievement oriented, emphasize verbal interaction
more and are probably psychologically similar to whites.


24
Relating the above now to the present study, black leaders can be
predicted to have a longer speech duration than white leaders when
directing groups in task accomplishment because of the greater emphasis
blacks place on verbal interaction.
Conclusion
The studies reviewed, particularly those concerning black-white
differences, represent many research designs, populations, situations
and methodologies. Although their results can be considered as suggestive
of enduring differences and thus helpful in understanding black-white
interaction in the work environment, additional research is necessary
to better establish these relationships, particularly in view of the
apparent change in the attitudes and behaviors of blacks since the
mid-1960's. The relative scarcity of blacks in positions of leadership
and supervision has seriously limited the knowledge in this area.
Hypotheses
Based on the literature review, hypotheses relevant to this study
can now be formally advanced. For ease of reference, they have been
categorized into two groups: group I deals with differences between
black and white leaders; group II with differences in task performance
depending upon specific leader attributes.
Group I: BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE LEADERS
A. Groups supervised by white leaders will outperform groups
supervised by black leaders in accomplishing assigned tasks
(where the shortest time for task accomplishment is the
performance criterion).
B. White leaders, as compared to black leaders, will: (a) exhibit
more interpersonal behavior, (b) score higher in self-esteem,
and (c) score higher in internal control.


25
C. Black leaders, as compared to white leaders, will: (a) have
a greater duration of speech, (b) indicate more satisfaction
with subordinates, and (c) indicate more satisfaction with work
in the tasks.
Group II: BETWEEN LEADERS OF THE SAME RACE
For each task, the performance of groups of equal size and of
equal racial composition will be faster when supervised by leaders
who: (a) perceive themselves high in consideration, (b) perceive
themselves high in initiating structure, (c) are rated by their
subordinates as high in consideration, (d) are rated by their subordinates
as high in initiating structure, (e) are high in self-esteem, (f) are
high in internal control, (g) are high in intelligence, compared to
other leaders of the same race who, respectively, are low in these
leader attributes.
Considering the findings and evidence presented in Chapter I as a
whole, it is evident that research and intuition are not clear as to
just what enduring differences exist between blacks and whites in
instances of leadership. This problem has been exacerbated by the
paucity of systematic, empirical information on the subject of black-
white leadership differences. Thus, this area is rather fertile for
study and an investigation focused here is most timely and relevant.
In Chapter II the methodology is presented in detail. Chapter III
presents the analysis and results. Chapter IV contains a summary,
discussion and implications for future research.


CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this study is presented in this chapter
in the following order: (a) subjects, (b) physical environment, (c)
design, (d) tasks, (e) observer training and reliability, (f) procedure
and (g) questionnaire. The study was carried out on the following
dates: August 28-31; September 1, 4-8, 11, 14, 1972. Training for
investigator assistants was conducted on August 28 and 29; data
collection was accomplished during the other days.
Sub jects
The cooperation of the Commanding Officer of a large U. S. Naval
Training Center located in the Southeastern United States was obtained
so that recruits attached to the Recruit Training Command could serve
as subjects. A total of 288 male recruits, 144 black and 144 white,
participated in the study. Sixty-four of these were squad leaders, 32
black and 32 white. A profile of the black and white squad leaders
and members obtained from a biographical questionnaire is shown in
Table 1.
All of the subjects were engaged in the seven week basic training
program prescribed by the Curriculum for Recruit Training (NAV-PERS 92353B,
26


27
TABLE 1
PERSONAL PROFILE OF SQUAD LEADERS AND SQUAD MEMBERS.
Squad Leaders ., Squad Members
Black White Black White
(N=3 2) (N=32) TR7T2) (N=112)
Average
19.21
19.00
19.17
18.:
Marital Status (Percent)
Married
3
13
7
4
Single
91
81
92
94
Divorced
6
3
0
1
Separated
0
3
1
0
Average number of Dependents
.34
.37
.48
Region of Birth (Percent)
Southern
94
41
88
56
Non-Southern
6
59
13
44
Region where Raised (Percent)
Southern
94
56
87
62
Non-Southern
6
44
13
38
Type of Community where Raised percent)
Farm Community 9
16
13
11
Small Town
22
28
26
26
Medium/Large City
69
44
55
48
Moved often
0
13
6
15
Perception of Family Income (Percent!
Higher than Average
)
0
13
1
10
About Average
59
84
46
73
Less than Average
28
3
40
13
Very Much Below Average
9
0
8
3
Mostly on Welfare
3
0
5
2
Raised by (Percent)
Mother and Father
56
91
48
78
Mother Only
31
6
36
13
Father Only
0
0
2
4
Others
13
3
14
6
Average Number of Siblings
4.50
2.78
4.87
3.41
Perception of Social Class (Percent)
Upper Class
6
0
6
2
Middle Class
38
66
35
61
Working Class
53
34
57
37
Poverty Class
3
0
1
1
Father's Occupation (Percent)
Unskilled
13
6
20
8
Semi-skilled
44
16
34
18
Skilled
38
44
31
48
Clerical/White Collar
0
25
4
13
Professional
3
9
5
11
Unknown
3
0
6
2
aA11 percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.
In some classifications the percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.


28
1968). Recruit training companies were organized as shown In Figure 1.
Squad leaders and occupants of other company positions are selected by
the company commander (who is usually a chief or first-class petty
officer) during the first few days of recruit training, usually on the
basis of the recruits' vita and initial Interviews. The position of
squad leader was selected as the level of leadership comparison in order
to obtain a large enough sample for statistical reliability. According
to the Company Commander's Guide (CRU ITRACOMORL INST 5*+00.1C, 1972),
squad leaders during recruit training have the following as their formal
duties and responsibilities:
(a) Be in charge of and responsible for the men in their squads.
(b) Assist and supervise the men in their squads in attaining high
standards of personal cleanliness, military appearance, conduct
and academic achievement.
(c) Assume responsibility, under the duty platoon leader, for the
performance of their squad on cleaning details.
(d) Insure that the yeoman is kept informed of personnel changes
within their squads.
Random sampling for the selection of participants was not possible
due to the rigor of their training schedule and the uneven distribution
of blacks in some companies. Altogether, thirty companies representing
approximately 2,150 men were canvassed to arrive at the final set of
subjects. To reduce variability in the length of time the squad leaders
and members had been in training as much as possible, selection of the
sample was further restricted to those companies engaged in the fifth day,
fourth week and in the first, second and fourth days, fifth week of
training. These days corresponded to the latest availability possible
for the recruits before entering the latter portion of their training,
during which no periods of availability could be scheduled.


Figure 1
Recruit Company Organization
29
Company Commander
Recruit Chief Petty Officer
Leader Leader Leader
Guide
L Right
Guide
Squad Squad Squad
Leader Leader Leader
-'Squad *Squad -'Squad
Members:Members Members
-Squad -Squad -Squad
Members Members Members
*Note: Approximately 8 squad members made up the typical squad.


30
The Navy provided a coordinator as Tiaison between the company
commanders and the researchers. The coordinator, SMCS Jerome F.
Dederick USN, scheduled groups from the appropriate companies on a
day-by-day and as-avaHable basis. He had recently been a company
commander himself and was held in high esteem by his colleagues. Because
of this, all 30 company commanders providing squads for the study were
cooperative and harmonious relations prevailed throughout the duration
of the study.
In selecting groups for study on a particular day, the coordinator
would, during the previous afternoon or evening, ascertain (by
consulting the daily master training schedule) which companies would be
available for possible participation (i.e., to find out those engaged
In the fifth day, fourth week and in the first, second and fourth days,
fifth week of their training and not scheduled for any special activity).
The coordinator, after checking with the investigator to find out what
additional types of groups were needed at that point, would then
contact the commanders of the available companies to solicit their
cooperation. Then the company commander was asked for the racial
distribution of squad leaders and members, and if or when those squads
meeting racial composition needs were available. The company commanders
were told only that the squads were needed for a study concerning the
problem-solving effectiveness of small groups; no mention was made of
leadership or race (although the interracial aspects were undoubtedly
guessed). The company commanders in turn decided which squad leaders
and squad members were to participate. Selection depended upon the
personal availability of the individual subject, not In the sense of
their volunteering to participate but more in the sense of whether or


31
not they were individually scheduled for some other activity. No known
consistent biasing occurred because the company comnanders were not
told how to select the participants.
This particular setting for the experimental study offered several
advantages:
(1) the population from which the subjects were drawn represented
a fairly wide cross-section of young males, both black and
white (although nearly all of the blacks turned out to be born
and raised in the South; see Table l).
(2) the leaders of the groups studied were, in fact, squad leaders,
who would have been appointed to their position in the same
manner whether or not a study was being conducted;
(3) similarly, the subordinates were, in fact, members of the
squad led by the squad leader who was the leader during the
study;
(4) the phenomena under investigation were studied as they existed,
providing a "natural experiment" as described by Shaw (1971).
Physical Environment
The study was conducted in the Conference Facility at the U.S.
Naval Training Center. Two rooms, each with a one-way window, were
utilized (see Figure 2). Trained observers were able to observe the
participants without disturbing or distracting them. Each room was
equipped with:
(a) a rectangular table and five chairs for the participants,
(b) a desk and chair for the investigator's inside assistant,


Figure 2
Physical Plan of Experiment Rooms and Observation Stations
0 = squad leader
1 = squad member (3- and 5-man groups)
2 = squad member (3- and 5-man groups)
3 = squad member (5 man group)
4 = squad member (5 man group)
A = investigator's inside assistant
B = black observer
D = desk with stop watches
M = microphone
S= speaker/amplifier
T = table
W = white observer
VjO
N>


33
(c) lengths of rope for knot-tying,
(d) a microphone, on the rectangular table, connected to a
speaker/amplifier operated by the observers on the other
side of the one-way mirror,
(e) stop watches mounted in a specially fabricated rack for
manipulation by the investigator assistant,
(f) a suitable supply of necessary forms and instruction cards.
The observation station outside for each room was provided with:
(a) suitable seating for the observers near the one-way window,
(b) a speaker/ampl ifier located at the observation station,
(c) recording forms and two large clipboards for the observers.
Design
There were 64 subordinate groups in the study:
(1) 16 two member subordinate groups, one black and one
white (designated a Type 0 group);
(2) 16 four member subordinate groups, one black and three
white (designated a Type 1 group);
(3) 16 four member subordinate groups, two black and two
white (designated a Type 2 group);
(4) 16 four member subordinate groups, three black and one
white (designated a Type 3 group).
Eight different black and eight different white squad leaders supervised
one of the four types of subordinate groups shown above, allowing 64
leaders in all to participate. In way of clarification, the term
group denotes a group that includes the leader plus the subordinates;
the term subordinate group denotes a group consisting of subordinates
only.
The study addressed itself to the effects of three factors: (l)
leader race, (2) group size and (3) group racial composition. Leader


race was varied by having equal numbers of black and white squad leaders
in charge of groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition.
Group size was varied by holding racial composition constant at 50
percent and varying the number in the subordinate group from two to four.
Group racial composition was varied by holding subordinate group size
constant at four and varying the number of members of each race from
one to three (and thus racial composition was 25 percent, 50 percent and
75 percent black or white). The four-member size and 50 percent racial
composition subordinate group is common to both the analysis of data
with subordinate group size varying and the analysis of data with
subordinate group racial composition varying. Otherwise, size and racial
composition would be confounding variables. Data analysis between
subordinate groups of varying size but equal racial composition was
accomplished by utilizing Type 0 and Type 2 groups, and between
subordinate groups of varying racial composition but equal size,
Types 1, 2 and 3. Basically, the result was a 2-X-4 factorial design
as shown in Figure 3.
Within the framework of the 2-X-4 design, the following were
stud ied:
(1) interpersonal behavior (defined to be the group interaction
processes),
(2) leader's style of leadership (directive versus non-directive),
(3) leader's social-emotional behavior (positive versus negative),
(4) group performance for two tasks (i.e,, the time for completing
each task) ,
(5) leader's and subordinate's duration of speech during each of the
tasks,
(6) leader's and subordinate's self-esteem,
(7) leader's satisfaction with the subordinates and the tasks,


35
Figure 3
Schema of the Basic Research Design
Group Type
0
2
3
Leader
B
B
B
B
Subordinates
BW
BWWW
BBWW
BBBW
Number of Groups
8
8
8
8
Leader
W
w.
w
W
Subordinates
BW
BWWW
BBWW
BBBW
Number of Groups
8
8
8
8
B = black subject
W = white subject


36
(8) subordinate's satisfaction with the leader, the tasks and
fellow subordinates,
(9) leader's perception of his initiating structure and consideration.
(10) subordinate's perception of the leader's initiating structure
and consideration,
(11) leader's and subordinate's generalized expectancies for
internal versus external control,
(12) leader's general intelligence.
The Bales (1950) interaction Process Analysis was used to measure
the group interaction processes (cf., Zdep, 1969; Richards and Jaffee,
1972; Katzell et al.. 1970; Ruhe, 1972). Initiations of interaction
in each of the 12 I PA categories by all leaders and subordinates were
recorded by trained observers while the tasks were being performed.
Two observers were used in scoring the I PA to establish reliability for
the observation process. In this situation one black and one white male
observer were used to observe each group session in an effort to
compensate for possible perceptual differences. No female observers were
used.
Certain categories of the IPA have been interpreted as reflecting
directive and non-directive leadership (Katzell et-al#., 1970). IPA
categories 4 (giving suggestions), 5 (giving opinion) and 6 (giving
information) were interpreted as directive, while categories 7 (asking
for information), 8 (asking for opinion) and 9 (asking for suggestions)
were interpreted as non-directive. Style of leadership was assumed to
be measured by these categories.
In a similar way IPA categories l (shows solidarity), 2 (shows
tension release) and 3 (agrees) were interpreted as positive social-
emotional behavior in the same sense as presented by Bales (1950), while
categories 10 (disagrees), 11 (shows tension) and 12 (shows antagonism)
were interpreted as negative social-emotional behavior.


37
The time required to complete each of the two tasks was used as a
measure of the group performance under the direction of the squad leader.
The time required was recorded, with the assumption that the less the
time needed for task accomplishment, the better the performance. No
quality considerations were given to group performance.
Speech duration for each group member during both tasks was
recorded on time-accumulating stop watches activated by the investigator's
inside assistant. This method has been shown to be a reliable technique
for recording absolute duration of speech (Bass, I960; Jaffee, Cohen
and Cherry, 1972). This measure was assumed to reflect the degree of
participation by the individual group members.
Self-esteem of each group member was measured by two instruments;
(l) the self-esteem portion (adult and student form) of the Self-Other
Orientation Tasks of Ziller (1971) (see Appendix D) and (2) the Self-
Esteem Scale of Rosenberg (1965) (see Appendix E).
Self-esteem, according to Ziller (1968), is the component of the self
system concerning the individual's perception of his worth within a
social context. The stem presents a horizontal array of six circles and
a list of significant other people such as a friend, a selfish person,
grandmother, someone you hope to be like, a principal and yourself.
The task requires the subject to assign each person to a circle. The
score is the weighted position of the self. In accordance with the
cultural norm, positions to the left are associated with higher self
esteem (Ziller, 1971). This assumption has been examined and validated
in a series of separate studies (cf., Ziller, Megas and DeCencio, 1964;
Henderson, Long and Ziller, 1965; Mossman and Ziller, 1968; Z iller et al.,
1969).


38
In contrast to Ziller's instrument, Rosenberg's 10*item
Guttman scale is designed to measure attitude toward the self along
a favorable-to-unfavorable dimension. Rosenberg designed the scale
with several criteria in mind, one being his conception of Self-
esteem (Rosenberg, 1965):
When we speak of high self-esteem, then, we
shall simply mean that the individual respects himself,
considers himself worthy; he does.not necessarily con
sider himself better than others, but he definitely does
not consider himself worse; he does not feel that he is
the ultimate in perfection but, on the contrary, recog
nizes his limitations and expects to grow and improve.
Low self-esteem, on the other hand, implies self
rejection, self-dissatisfaction, self-contempt. The
individual lacks respect for the self he observes. The
self-picture is disagreeable, and he wishes it were
otherwise.
The 10 Items, all of the Likert type, are scored through the use of
contrived items (Stouffer et jal ., 1952) to yield a seven point scale.
Rosenberg (1965), before the larger study reported therein, pretested
the instrument and found a significant association between the
individual's self-esteem and the likelihood that he would appear
depressed to others. Not only were people with low self-esteem
scores more likely to appear depressed to others but they were also
more likely to express feelings of unhappiness and discouragement .
A pilot sociometric investigation of 272 high school seniors (also
reported in Rosenberg, 1965) found that individuals rated low in
self-esteem by the instrument: (l) were less likely to be selected
as a leader by two or more classmates; (2) were judged as less
likely to be chosen by others if an election were held; (3) were
less likely to be described as active participants in classroom


39
discussions; and (4) were more likely to be described as relatively
subdued and inactive in classroom discussions. In the larger study
of slightly over 5,000 high school juniors and seniors (Rosenberg,
1965), he found that students with low self-esteem were lss likely
than those with high self-esteem to be active participants in
formal groups, to be active and frequent participants in informal
discussions, to be informal opinion leaders, and to be formal group
leaders. He also mentions in a footnote (p. 30) that a study by
E. Silber and J. S. Tippett showed a test-retest reliability of .85
for a group of college students retested after two weeks. The Rosen-
berg instrument was included in addition to the Ziller instrument
because it is based upon verbal self-report rather than spatial
abstraction.
Individual satisfaction with subordinates, tasks, leader,
and/or fellow subordinates was measured using selected scales of
the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) described by Smith (1967) and
Smith, Kendall, and Hul in (1969). The JDI in its complete form
measures satisfaction in five areas: type of work, pay, oppor
tunities for promotion, supervision and co-workers. For each area
there is a list of adjectives or short phrases, and the respondent
is nstructed to indicate whether or not each word or phrase applies
to the facet in question (e.g., the supervision) by circling Y
for yes or N for no. If he cannot decide if a word or phrase
applies, he is asked to circle a question mark. All group members
completed the work scale (see Appendix H) as a measure of satisfaction
with the tasks. Only the squad members completed the supervision


scale (see Appendix I) as a measure of satisfaction with the squad
leader. Both the squad leaders and the squad members completed
the co-workers scale; the leaders rated their subordinates indi
vidually (see Appendix J), while the squad members rated their
fellow subordinates (see Appendix K). Smith, Kendall and Hulin feel
that the JDI has several advantages as a measure of satisfaction:
it is directed toward specific areas of satisfaction rather than
global or general satisfaction, the verbal level required to answer
the JDI is quite low, and the responses are not self-referent.
There is a deliberate attempt to avoid the use of a self-referent,
since the basic needs or drives of the organism or their relevance
to satisfaction are not clearly established.
Assessment of the squad leader's perception of his own initi
ating structure and consideration was acccmplished through the use
of the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (see Appendix F), described
by Fleishman (1957b). This 40-item instrument was designed to
provide independent measures of initiating structure and cons¡dera
tion in 1eadership-group situations where primary concern is in the
assessment of leadership attitudes. Internal consistency as well
as test-retest reliability has been assessed (DiVesta, 1954; Fleish
man, Harris, and Burtt, 1955; Harris and Fleishman, 1955); reliability
for initiating structure was .67-.74, and for consideration. .77-
.80. Validity has been evaluated through correlations with inde
pendent leadership measures, such as merit rating by supervisors,
peer ratings, forced-choice performance reports by management and
leaderless group situation tests (Fleishman, 1957b).


41
Assessment of the leader's initiating structure and considerat ion
by subordinates was acccmplished through the use of the Supervisory
Behavior Description (see Appendix G), described by Fleishman
(1957a). This 48-item instrument is meant to parallel the Leadership
Opinion Questionnaire in scope and purpose. Reliability has been
assessed in terms of internal consistency, inter-rater agreement,
and stability of repeated measures over time (Fleishman, Harris, and
Burtt, 1955; Harris and Fleishman, 1955); reliability for initiating
structure was .46-.53, and for consideration, .55-.58. Its validity
has also been assessed through correlations with independent leadership
measures, such as objective group indices (absenteeism, turnover),
productivity ratings, peer ratings, and leadership group situation
tests (Fleishman, 1957a).
Both the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and Supervisory
Behavior Description are considered independent of the general
intelligence of respondents (Fleishman, 1957a, 1957b). While both
initiating structure and cons¡deration were found to be orthogonal
in factor analyses by Fleishman (1953) and Halpin and Winer (1957),
which has been interpreted as suggesting that the two are independent
(Fleishman, 1953, 1957a; Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Stanton, I960),
recent evidence (Lowin, Hrapchak. and Kavanagh, 1969) suggests a
relationship between them.
Expectancy for internal versus external control was measured
by Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Control Scale (see Appendix C).
The instrument and its developmental history is documented in
Rotter's (1966) monograph. In Rotter's theory, the control construct


kl
is considered a generalized expectancy, operating across a large
number of situations, which relates to whether or not the indi4
vidual possesses or lacks power over what happens to him.
Individuals are conceived to vary along a "locus of control"
dimension, with the end points labeled internal and external. The
29-item, forced-choice scale has a test-retest reliability that is
consistent and acceptable. Little relationship has been found
between intelligence and control measures (Hersch and Scheibe,
1967; Lefcourt, 1966; Rotter, 1966). There is, however, some evi
dence that intelligence is positively related to perceived internal
control (Bialer, 1961; Crandall, Katkovsky, and Preston, 1962).
The general intelligence of leaders was measured by the U.S.
Navy Basic Test Battery (BTB) given to all recruits upon entering
the recruit training program. This battery consists of four
peneil-and-paper examinations: (1) the general classification test
(GCT), (2) an arithmetic test (ARI) (3) a mechanical ability test
(MECH), (4) a clerical ability test (CLER). The classification
tests are primarily designed to measure an individual's aptitude
or capability for learning, rather than his achievement. For the
BTB, the raw score is converted to a Navy Standard Score (NSS).
According to the Manual of Enlisted Classification Procedures
(NAVPERS 15812B, 1970), the NSS is designed to provide standardiza
tion in test score recording and is meant to ease the function of
score comprehension, comparison, and interpretation; it is distributed
normally, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The
BTB is designed primarily to determine minimum eligibility for
service schools.


43
These scores were extracted from recruit records. The sum of
the four individual scores on the GCT, ARI, MECH. and CLER tests
was considered a measure of general intellectual ability.
Tasks
Two structured, verbal tasks were employed in this study: a
knot-tying and a ship-routing task. Both were selected because of
their applicability to a situation involving Navy recruits, and to
assure interaction between the leaders and subordinates in accom
plishing the tasks. They differ largely in the degree to which
verbal skill is required. The knot-tying task was instructional and
emphasized a certain degree of spatial orientation and physical
dexterity. The ship-routing task required the coordination of
information provided only to the subordinates and emphasized a certain
degree of mental agility. Both types of tasks were used by Ruhe
(1972); the ship-routing task is similar to that used by Fiedler
(1967).
The knot-tying task required that group members each perform
satisfactorily the physical task of tying a Double Carrick Bend.
This unusual knot, used in the maritime world for joining two hawsers
together (a hawser is a large rope by which a ship is towed), was
selected in an effort to eliminate the possibility of prior knowledge
by any of the subjects, due perhaps to membership in various youth
groups or an early nautical interest.


Prior to commencement of the task, the leader was given an
instruction sheet (see Appendix M), face down, displaying how to tie
the knot, and each group member was given two lengths of rope. After
receiving directions for task accomplishment (see Appendix N) from
the investigator's assistant, the signal to begin was given. The
leader instructed the subordinates hew to tie the knot and they were
asked to duplicate it. Group members were permitted to give verbal
but not physical help so that group effort and verbal interaction
would be enhanced. After all subordinates had tied the knot, and
upon a signal from the leader, the assistant determined whether or
not the knot had been tied correctly by each subordinate. The per
formance of the group was measured by the total elapsed time for the
instruction by the leader and the duplication of the knot by the
subordinates. If the task was not completed within 25 minutes,
the assistant was instructed to take the leader outside the room
and show him how to properly tie the knot. The leader then would
return and continue instructions.
The ship-routing task has been rated high on cooperation re
quirements, decision verifiability, and intellectual-manipulative
requirements (Shaw, 1963). In this problem each group was asked to
find, in the least amount of time, the shortest route for a ship to
leave one port and touch at each of four other ports.
Each member was given a copy of the instruction sheet (see
Appendix 0) showing a diagram designed to assist in arriving at the
shortest route combination. Pencils were also provided. With the


same intent as Fiedler (1967), i.e., assuring that group members
will have to interact to solve the problem, each subordinate received
only partial information concerning the distances and availability
of the routes between ports. For a five-port problem, there are 10
elements of information (e.g., the distance from A to B is 150 miles
by direct route). Each element was listed on a small index card
(see Appendix P). In addition, two cards with no information were
included where the total number of cards would be divisible by two
and by four. For a three-man group, each squad member was given six
information cards, randomly chosen; for a five-man group, three
cards, also randomly chosen. Cards could not be exchanged; all
information had to be transmitted verbally. A second ship-routing
problem, having information and a solution exactly double that shown
in Appendix P, was used whenever a second group or groups from the
same company performed the task subsequent to a first group or groups
without an intervening time period. This was done in case the
solution to the first problem was compromised when the first group
or groups returned to the barracks. Between company communication
was virtually zero under regular circumstances. However, within
company communication was greater because each company occupied one
large room in the barracks.
After receiving directions for task accomplishment (see
Appendix N) from the assistant, the signal to begin was given.
When the group members were satisfied they had reached a correct
solution, the leader signaled the assistant. The assistant then


determined if the solution was correct. If the correct solution was
not reached in three attempts, the task instructions were repeated
and the group was allowed to continue. If the correct solution was
i
not reached after two more attempts, the squad leader was given a
copy of the available route combinations (see Appendix Q) and the
group was allowed to continue. The performance of the group was
measured by the total elapsed time required to solve the problem.
Observer Training and Reliability
Eight men, four black and four white, were hired to assist the
investigator. All were trained as I PA observers and investigator
assistants. Of the four blacks, two (both 24 years old) held
Bachelor's degrees and were seeking admission to graduate school,
while the other two (both 21 years old) were upper division under
graduate students. All of the four whites were graduate students;
they were 22, 23, 23. and 26 years of age. One of the white ob
servers was familiar with the I PA and provided valuable assistance
during the training period and during the subsequent data collection.
An additional graduate student was hired only to assist in the
training of observers. Chapter 3 and the Appendix of Bales (1950)
were used as the fundamental training materials. Each observer was
provided a personal copy of this material for study and consultation.
After being familiarized with the 12 I PA categories and the
applicable definitions, the observers practiced observing and
recording the types of interactions that could be expected in each


category. Mock knot-tying and ship-routing task sessions and motion
pictures were used. Observer teams of one white and one black were
established and maintained throughout the study. Approximately
17-1/2 hours were devoted to establishing initial observer relia
bility; after training, agreement within each observer team was 80
percent or better. After establishing initial observer reliability,
three pilot sessions using recruits as subjects served to familiarize
all concerned with the tasks, desired procedures, techniques, and
methods, and to seek out and solve operational problems. Originally,
the ship-routing task was planned as a six-port problem. During the
first three sessions it became obvious that this problem was too
difficult and time consuming to be suitable. Thus, the ship-routing
problem was changed to a five-port problem similar to that used by
Ruhe (1972).
When both study rooms were in use, one black/white observer
team observed the tasks in each study room; one black served as an
assistant inside one room, while one white performed the same duties
in the other room; one black and one white served as assistants
outside the study rooms in such things as administering question
naires, coding data for subsequent analysis, and transporting
recruits. The inside assistant conducted the task sessions by means
of a prepared script. He recorded the task performance times and
the individual duration of speech by means of stop watches.
Interrater reliability between black and white observers
(Table 2) was calculated for each team, over both tasks and each


48
TABLE 2
RELIABILITY BETWEEN BLACK AND WITE OBSERVERS
Knot-Tying Task Ship-Routing Task
Observer Team Observer Team
IPA
Category
1
2
2
4
1
2
. _2.
4
1.
Shows sol idarity
86
72
61
93
89
98
86
96
2.
Shews tension release
86
55
54
64
75
84
51
79
3.
Agrees
87
49
78
64
92
64
71
69
4.
Gives suggestion
96
94
87
89
88
87
85
72
5.
Gives opinion
87
64
45
74
78
75
68
82
6.
Gives information
89
53
57
68
90
78
39
46
7.
Asks for information
84
45
23
17
93
87
73
81
8.
Asks for opinion
53
18
40
00
83
57
58
37
9.
Asks for suggestion
87
29
31
50
85
36
68
57
10.
Disagrees
85
76
55
66
92
85
68
30
11.
Shows tension
60
78
74
66
87
81
58
79
12.
Shows antagonism
lit
11
2§
H
8
86
84
Team Average
81
59
57
56
86
77
67
67
No., of subjects
observed
95
74
84
35
95
74
84
35
Weighted observer reliability for knot-tying task 65
Weighted observer reliability for ship-routing task 76
Overall observer reliability 71
NOTE: All numbers are rounded to nearest whole percentage point.


49
I PA category, to obtain the agreement between the observers. For
each task, the average reliability over all I PA categories was
calculated for each team. Then, because the number of subjects
observed was not equal for each team, a weighted observer reliability
was calculated for each task. The overall interrater reliability of
.71 was obtained by averaging the weighted figure reliability for
each task. (All figures are based on the intraclass correlation;
[Snedecor and Cochran, 1967].)
Procedure
Nearly all of the groups participating in the study had to be
transported by private automobile from the Recruit Training Command
section of the Naval Training Center to the Conference Facility, a
distance of approximately one mile. The number, size, and composi
tion of the groups varied depending upon the availability of the
subjects. Two groups could be studied at one time; individual
sessions were conducted during the day and at night. If other groups
were waiting, arriving groups were escorted to an unused area of the
building and not permitted to come within earshot of the proceedings.
The study rooms had closed doors whenever groups were under study
and the observers were stationed at the one-way windows (which could
not be seen by waiting groups). Thus, none of the groups had any
prior knowledge of the study methods.
At the onset of the study, an effort was made to schedule the
same number of black and white leaders with black and white inside


investigator assistants and balance them between the two rooms to
minimize racial experimenter effects (Sattler, 1970). This proved
impossible when it became necessary to schedule groups at night,
since there were too many confl icts between the schedules of the
subjects and the observers. The presence of a visible black at
some time during each of the sessions was designed to mitigate any
racial experimenter effects.
Upon arrival at the Conference Facility, the participants were
escorted either to a study room or to a waiting area. As a group
entered the study room they were greeted by the assistant; the
squad leader was asked to sit at the middle position on one side of
a rectangular table, and the squad members were asked to sit alpha
betically at positions 1 and 2 or l, 2, 3, and k, depending on group
size (see Figure 2). Alphabetical seating was done to randomize
the racial seating arrangement.
The purpose of the study was explained as an analysis of the
problem-solving effectiveness of groups (Katzell et aj_., 1970).
They were told that they would perform two tasks. The participants
were informed that two additional observers besides the assistant
giving the instructions were necessary for the analysis but had to
sit outside and listen by means of a microphone on the table because
of the physical arrangement of the room. The importance of com
pleting the tasks as rapidly as possible was stressed by telling the
group they were in "friendly competition" with other squads. This
phrase has special meaning for the recruits. It means that they
are in competition and should perform as best they can, but no


51
special reward will be forthcoming. To further enhance their desire
to perform effectively, they were told that their company commander
would be informed as to how well they compared with all the squads
participating in the study. The group was told that the squad
leader was in charge due to the way they are organized during recruit
training. This was mentioned in an effort to enhance the leadership
position of the squad leader and stress the idea that the squad
leader was the one to be in charge of the group during the task
performance. The same introduction was made to each group from a
prepared script (see Appendix N).
The group then received instructions for the knot-tying task.
Individual duration of speech for the task for each group member
was recorded on time-accumulating stop watches. When a member of
the group began to talk the assistant started the watch and allowed
it to run until the member stopped talking. Thus, total verbal
participation time was measured for each member of the group.
Another stop watch recorded the total time for task completion.
After completing the first task, instructions were given for
accomplishing the ship-routing task. Again, individual duration of
speech and total task completion time were measured.
Upon completion of the second task, the group was ushered from
the study room to an unused area of the building. No conversing
with a waiting group was allowed. Each subject was given a ques
tionnaire booklet, one type for squad leaders and another type for
squad members. After receiving brief instructions emphasizing
the need to complete every item in the booklet, the participants


52
were encouraged to relax and complete the questionnaire at their own
pace. Each subject was asked to complete his booklet without dis
cussing his responses with fellow recruits. Coffee and donuts (when
available) were offered and smoking was permitted (this was a
privilege for the recruits).
After the questionnaire was completed by the group member,
it was checked by one of the assistants and then double-checked by
the Investigator to assure that the individual responded to every
question and to look for response sets. When found (and this
occurred only about four or five times), the investigator would
first attempt to determine if the responses were genuine and then,
if the individual agreed that he had not been careful in responding,
he was asked to reconsider his answers. They were thanked for
participating in the study and cautioned not to discuss any details
of the study with other recruits back in the barracks. The idea of
the friendly competition was again raised in an effort to solicit
their cooperation.
Questionnaire
Two different questionnaire booklets were prepared: one for
squad leaders and one for squad members. Each booklet consisted
of several separate items arranged in the order indicated by the
following 1ist:


53
I tern
Cover Sheet
Personal Questionnaire
Internal versus External
Control Scale (I EC)
Zil1er Self-Esteem Instru
ment (ZSE)
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSE)
Leadership Opinion Ques
tionnaire (LOQ)
Supervisory Behavior
Description (SBD)
Job Descriptive Index for
Satisfaction
with tasks (JDI-GT)
with squad leader (JDI-SL)
with subordinates (JDI-S)
with fellow subordinates
(JDI-FS)
Final Sheet
Appl ¡cable to
Leader Member
For example of
questionnaire,
see Appendix
X
X
A
X
X
B
X
X
C
X
X
D
X
X
E
X
-
F
-
X
G
X
X
H
-
X
1
X
-
J
-
X
K
X
X
L
The various instruments were headed by the above indicated
letter designations to keep from disclosing what the particular
instrument measured, especially in the case of the two self-esteem
measures and the internal-external control measure, and for ease in
verbal identification whenever recruits were present.


The Personal Questionnaire contained a biographical data sheet
(see Table 1 for results), a short 10-item general satisfaction survey,
and asked for squad members' feelings about the squad leader, the
name of the best squad leader in the company, the rank desired
during first enlistment. and the perceived odds for making the rank.
The biographical data was requested to check on the similarity of
the subjects and to compare these subjects to those used in Ruhe's
(1972) study. The satisfaction survey was intended to assess a
general attitude toward several activities related to recruit train
ing, home life, and life in general. The intent behind asking for a
sociometric rating of the leader by the subordinates was to see if
Hack and white squad members would differ in their personal liking
for their particular leader. Having all of the subjects nominate
the best squad leader in their company was intended to see if sub
ordinates would choose their own leader more or less often than
another squad leader, and to see if leaders would choose themselves
more or less often than another squad leader. Each subject was
asked to indicate the rank he would like to reach during his first
enlistment in an effort to estimate his level of aspiration, and,
similarly, he was asked to indicate his feeling as to the odds of
making this rank in an effort to estimate his expectancy of
success.


CHAPTER I 11
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This chapter is divided into two parts: (a) Methods of
AnaiysIs and (b) Results.
Methods of Analysis
This part of the chapter presents the methods used in analyzing
the data and is subdivided into the following sections: (a) Inter
action Process Analysis Scoring, (b) Between Black and White Leaders,
(c) Between Leaders of the Same Race, (d) Between Black and White
Subordinates. (e) Between Groups and (f) Additional Data.
Interaction Process Analysis Scoring
The behavioral data collected utilizing the I PA is essentially
count data possessing the characteristics of the Poisson distribution.
The basic conditions defining the Poisson distribution (Burford,
1968) are: (l) that the distribution is independent through time or
space (i.e., that the probability of occurrence of an event in any
given interval of time or space is independent of other such inter
vals), (2) that increasing or decreasing the interval of time or
space increases or decreases proportionately the probability of
55


56
occurrence of an event, (3) that if the given interval of time or
space is small the probability of two or more occurrences of the
event within the interval is also very small and (4) that the
probability of X occurrences of the event in the interval increases
or decreases continuously as the interval increases or decreases
continuously.
The raw count data observed by the black and white observers
for each subject in each I PA category was converted to frequency per
unit time for each task and then 1¡nearly transformed into whole
numbers by multiplication by a factor of 10,000 and rounding to the
nearest whole number. The transformed data was then given a square
root transformation in an effort to achieve uniform variance. The
square root of Poisson count data yields a response that will possess
approximately a constant variance independent of its mean (Mendenhall,
1968).
The transformed count data for each of the two observers in
each I PA category were added together (by task) to arrive at a score.
Thus, for each task, every subject had 12 scores, one for each of the
I PA categories. To arrive at a score for positive social-emotional
behavior for each leader, the scores in I PA categories 1 (shows
solidarity), 2 (shows tension release) and 3 (agrees) were summed;
similarly, a score for negative social-emotional behavior was calcu
lated by adding the scores in categories 10 (disagrees), 11 (shows
tension), and 12 (shows antagonism). To arrive at a score for
directive leadership for each leader, the scores in I PA categories


57
4 (giving suggestions), 5 (giving opinion) :and 6 (giving information)
were summed; similarly, a score for non-directive leadership was
calculated by adding the scores in categories 7 (asking for informa
tion) 8 (as king for opinion) and 9 (asking for suggestions).
Between Black and White Leaders
Differences in the various measures between leaders for the
four group types were analyzed using a 2-X-4 analysis of variance
(ANOVA) design with eight observations per cell. An ANOVA was run
for each of the following: (a) group performance for both tasks;
(b) each I PA category for both tasks to analyze interpersonal be
havior; (c) self-esteem (ZSE); (d) self-esteem (RSE) ; (e) internal
control; (f) duration of speech for both tasks; (g) satisfaction with
subordinates; (h) satisfaction with the work during both tasks;
(i) positive social-emotional behavior for both tasks; (j) negative
social-emotional behavior for both tasks; (k) directive leadership
behavior for both tasks and (l) non-directive leadership behavior
for both tasks. While the RSE score is essentially an ordinal
measure and would normally be analyzed using non-parametric tech
niques, the number of data points on the scale (i.e., seven) is
sufficient to allow the data to be analyzed by an ANOVA due to the
robustness of the technique.
Between Leaders of the Same Race
Comparisons between leaders of the same race were analyzed
using the ANOVA method. To understand how these analyses were
accomplished the example of black leader, equal racial composition
group, is presented. The median score for each attribute


58
(e.g., self-rated cons¡deration) of the black leaders for Type 0 and
Type 2 groups was established. A high attribute classification was
given to scores above the median; low, to those below the median.
Ties were broken by random selection. The performance time (for one
task) associated with the black leaders, within a group type and
classified as high versus low in the attribute, became the cell
entries for a 2-X-2 ANOVA, where the two rows represented a high
versus low classification and the two columns represented a Type 0
group versus a Type 2 group. Therefore, for black leaders, equal
racial composition situation, two 2-X-2 ANOVAs were performed:
(a) one for the knot-tying task and (b) one for the ship-routing
task. For the black leader, equal size group situation, high and low
classifications were again established and two 2-X-3 ANOVAs were run
for each attribute, where the rows represented the high versus low
classification and the columns represented Types 1, 2 and 3 groups.
Thus, four ANOVAs (i.e., two 2-X-2 for the equal racial composition
situation and two 2-X-3 for the equal size situation) were performed
for each attribute over each leader type. Specifically, a multi
variance general linear hypothesis program, BMDX63 (Dixon, 1969),
was run for each ANOVA to Investigate the performance of subordinate
groups of equal size and equal racial composition supervised by black
and white leaders, using high and lew classifications of: (a)
consideration (self-rated); (b) initiating structure (self-rated);
(c) considerat ion (subordinate-rated); (d) initiating structure
(subordinate-rated) ; (e) self-esteem, using both the ZSE and RSE


59
scores; (f) internal control and (g) intelligence. The subordinate
rated scores for consideration and initiating structure were means
for the ratings given by all subordinates (black and white) for the
particular group type.
Between Black and White Subordinates
Within each subordinate group type, differences in the various
measures between subordinates were analyzed for each leader type
using the t-statistic. For every individual subordinate measure,
the average black subordinate score was subtracted from the average
white subordinate score to arrive at a "difference between" score
for each group type and leader type. A Z-X-k ANOVA with eight
"difference between" scores per cell was then run. A t-statistic for
each cell of the 2-X-4 matrix was then computed by dividing the
individual cell mean by the square root of the quantity: mean square
error divided by the number of observations in the cell. This was
accomplished for each of the following: (a) each I PA category for
both tasks to analyze interpersonal behavior; (b) duration of speech
for both tasks; (c) self-esteem, using both ZSE and RSE scores; (d)
internal control; (e) satisfaction with fellow subordinates;
(f) satisfaction with the leader and (g) satisfaction with work in
the tasks.
Between Groups
Differences in the various measures between groups were analyzed
using the ANOVA technique. Excepting performance of the group for
both tasks (which was analyzed as a between leader measure), a


60
group score for each measure in question was calculated by taking
the average of the measure for the particular group type. The
average included both leader and subordinates. A 2-X-4 ANOVA with
eight observations per cell was then run for each of the following:
(a) each I PA category for both tasks; (b) duration of speech for
both tasks; and (c) satisfaction with work in the tasks.
Additional Data
The data obtained by means of the Personal Questionnaire was
analyzed by various methods. The general satisfaction survey score
was analyzed in exactly the same manner as the other individual
attributes were analyzed. Analysis of the leader sociometric rating by
group members was accomplished either through the use of the t-statistic
with a pooled variance estimator (Mendenhall, 1971) or with the z-
statistic, as appropriate. Comparisons were made by group type, by
leader type,and by leader for all subordinate types. Analysis of
the nomination made by individual subjects for the best squad
2
leader in their company was accomplished through the use of the X
test statistic for the chi-square distribution. Two-by-two contin
gency tables were used to provide the test statistic for comparing:
(a) both subordinate types under black leaders, (b) both sub
ordinate types under white leaders, (c) black subordinates nominating
their own leader as the best, (d) white subordinates nominating their
own leader as the best and (e) both leader types nominating them-
2
selves as the best. The X test statistic included Yates' correction
for continuity (Champion, 1970). The question concerning the rank
which each subject would like to reach and the question concerning


the odds to make that rank were analyzed through the use of the z-
statistic, with the following comparisons being made: (a) between
leaders, (b) between subordinates, (c) black leader to both sub
ordinate types, (d) white leader to both subordinate types and
(e) black subjects to white subjects.
All significance testing was standardized and performed at the
.05, .01 and .001 levels of significance. If an abbreviated form is
used in presenting results, the following shorthand notation will
be used: (1) black leaders and white leaders will be designated
BL and WL, respectively; (2) black subordinates and white subordi
nates will be designated BS and WS, respectively; (3) group types
0, 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., 2-person, equal racial composition subordinate
groups, and 4-person subordinate groups with 1, 2 or 3 blacks,
respectively) will be designated TO, TI, T2 and T3, respectively;
(4) the high/low classification within leader types will be desig
nated HI and L0, respectively; and (5) the cells of the various two-
way matrices will be designated by the row variable and group type,
separated by a slant (for example, BL/T3 means black leader,
Type 3 group). Figure 4 summarizes both the shorthand notation
and the designs for data testing.
Results
This part of the chapter presents the tests of the various
hypotheses and incidental data. It is divided into the following
sections: (a) Differences Between Black and White Leaders.


62
Figure k
Notation and Designs for Data Testing
Design for testing data between black and white leaders:
Group Type
Leader
7T5T
mi
(A)
(B)
Black
TblT
BL/TO
BL/T1
BL/T2
BL A3
White
(WL)
WL/TO
WL/T1
M-A2
WL A3
ting data
between
leaders
of the same race:
Size Subordinate Groups
Attribute
Group Type
Class ification
TriT"
TilT
High
(HO
Hl/Tl
HI/T2
HI A3
Low
(LO)
L0/T1
L0/T2
L0A3
Racial Composition Subordinate Groups
Attribute
Group Type
Class ification
(TO)
(T2)
High
ThTT
HI/TO
HI/T2
Low
(LO)
LO/TO
L0/T2
ting data
between
black and white subordinates:
Group Type
Leader
Tro)
(Tl)
(T2)
w
Black
TblT
WS-BS
WS-BS
WS-BS
WS-BS
White
(WL)
WS-BS
WS-BS
WS-BS
WS-BS
ting data
between
groups:
Group Type
Leader
TtoT
(Tl)
(T2J
(T?)
Black
TblT
BL/TO
BLA1
BLA2
BLA3
White
(WL)
WL/TO
WL/T1
WLA2
WLA3


63
(b) Differences Between Leaders of the Same Race and (c) Incidental
Results.
Differences Between Black and White Leaders
This section reports the results of the tests run on the Group I
hypotheses.
Group performance. Hypotheses I.A states that groups supervised
by white leaders will outperform groups supervised by black leaders
in accomplishing assigned tasks.
Groups supervised by black leaders took significantly longer to
perform both the knot-tying task (Fj ^^=5-15, p<.05) and the ship
routing task (Fj j-g=6.6l, p<.05), as compared to those supervised by
white leaders. The mean time for groups supervised by black leaders
to perform the knot-tying task was 677.10 seconds; for groups super
vised by white leaders, 489.32 seconds. For the ship-routing task,
the mean times were 1315.47 and 883.13 seconds, respectively.
Hypothesis I .A was supported.
Interpersonal behavior. Hypothesis I.B(a) states that white
leaders will exhibit more interpersonal behavior than black leaders.
During the knot-tying task, black leaders, as compared to
white leaders, exhibited: (a) less showing of solidarity (Fj ^=
9.37, p<.01, (b) less giving of suggestions (Fj ^^=19.01, p<.01),
(c) less asking for information (Fj ^^=16.65, p<.0l), (d) less
asking for opinion (Fj ^=5.72, p<.05) and (e) less disagreeing
(Fj j.g=6. 72, p<.05). (See Table 3 for the mean leader scores for
these categories.) No main effects of group type were observed.


64
TABLE 3
MEAN I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES
Knot-Tvinq Task
Black Leaders
White Leaders
Category 1: Shows solidarity
1.58
6.16
4: Gives suggestion
25.45
40.77
7: Asks for information
2.33
8.75
8: Asks for opinion
0.80
3.76
10: Disagrees
4.57
8.81
Ship-Routing Task
Category 5.' Gives opinion
6.50
9.96
8: Asks for opinion
2.65
6.12


65
A significant interaction effect (F^ p<.05) was found for
category 6 (gives information) showing that: (a) black leaders of
racially balanced groups gave more information as the number of their
subordinates increased from two to four (p<.05); (b) when they super
vised four-man subordinate groups, black leaders gave less informa
tion when the number of black subordinates increased from two to three
(pc.01); (c) white leaders gave less information to their subordinates
in racially balanced dyads than they did in four-man groups whose
composition was 75 percent black (p<.05); (d) white leaders gave
more information in four-man groups when the racial composition
changed from 25 to 75 percent black (p<.05) and (e) black as compared
to white leaders gave less information when supervising four-man
subordinate groups whose composition was 75 percent black (p<.001).
(See Table h for the cell means.)
During the ship-routing task, black leaders, as compared to
white leaders, exhibited: (a) less giving of opinion (Fj ^=6.46,
p<.05), and (b) less asking for opinion (Fj <-£=9.44, p<.01).
(See Table 3 for the mean leader scores for these categories.) Main
effects were found between group types in categories 2 (shows
tension release) (F^ ^^=3.76, p<.05), 11 (shows tension) (F^ ^
4.73, p<.01), and 12 (shows antagonism) (F^ ^=3.6!, p<.05).
Leaders, regardless of race, emitted fewer tension release comments
when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than either 50 percent
black tetrads (p<.0l) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), displayed
less tension when supervising racially balanced dyads than either 50
percent black tetrads (p<.01) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.01),
displayed less tension when supervising 25 percent black tetrads rather 'than


66
TABLE 4
MEAN I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES
Group Type
Knot-Tying Task
Category 6: Gives information
Ship-Routing Task
Category 1: Shows solidarity
10: Disagrees
Leader
21
mi
(T2)
iiaL
BL
2.12
4.95
9.38
0.39
WL
7.05
7.29
8.47
14.64
BL
0.81
9.49
1.00
3.54
WL
2.53
0.83
1.97
3.55
BL
0.81
1.53
4.10
6.88
WL
7.92
3.59
8.26
4.31


67
50 percent black tetrads (p<.05), showed less antagonism when super
vising racially balanced dyads than either 50 percent black
tetrads (p<.05) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), and exhibited
less antagonism when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than either
50 percent black tetrads (p<.05) or 75 percent black tetrads (pc.05).
(See Table 5 for the mean group type scores for categories 2, II and
12.) Significant interaction effects between leader race and group
type were found in categories 1 (shows solidarity) (F^ ^^=3.04,
p<.05) and 10 (disagrees) (F^ j-g=3.32, pc.05). In category 1 the
following differences were found: (a) black leaders emitted fewer
solidarity-type comments when supervising racially balanced dyads
than when supervising 25 percent black tetrads (pc.01), and (b) black
leaders of 25 percent black tetrads emitted more solidarity-type
comments than did black leaders of 50 percent black tetrads (pc.01)
and 75 percent black tetrads (pc.05) and white leaders of 25 percent
black tetrads (p<.01). In category 10 the following differences
were found: (a) black leaders of racially balanced dyads displayed
less disagreeing behavior than did white leaders of the same type
subordinate groups (pc.01) and black leaders of 75 percent black
tetrads (pc.01), (b) black leaders displayed less disagreeing be
havior when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than when super
vising 75 percent black tetrads (pc.05) and (c) white leaders of 25
percent black tetrads displayed less disagreeing behavior than did
white leaders of 50 percent black tetrads (p<.05). (See Table 4
for the cell means for categories 1 and 10.)


68
TABLE 5
MEAN I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES
Group Type
Ship-RoutInq
Task
JI2I
ill!
21
(T3)
Category 2:
Shows
tension release
1.36
0.00
3.36
2.68
11:
Shows
tens ion
1.04
3.11
6.60
5.74
12:
Shows
antagonism
0.50
0.28
3.32
2.84


69
Hypothesis I.B(a) was supported.
Self-esteem. Hypothesis I.B(b) states that white leaders will
score higher in self-esteem than black leaders.
No significant differences were found between black and white
leaders in either the ZSE or RSE measures.
Hypothesis I.B(b) was not supported.
Internal control. Hypothesis I.B(c) states that white leaders
will score higher in internal control than black leaders.
White leaders scored significantly higher (F^ ^^=9.91, p<.01)
in internal control than did black leaders. The mean score for
white leaders was 7.72; for black leaders, 10.51. It should be
noted that a low score signifies more internal control.
Hypothesis I.B(c) was supported.
Duration of speech. Hypothesis I.C(a) states that black leaders
will have a greater speech duration than will white leaders.
No significant differences were found between black and white
leaders in speech duration in either task.
Hypothesis I.C(a) was not supported.
Satisfaction with subordinates. Hypothesis I.C(b) states that
black leaders will indicate more satisfaction with subordinates
than will white leaders.
No significant differences were found between black and white
leaders in their satisfaction with subordinates.
Hypothesis I.C(b) was not supported.


70
Satisfaction with work in the tasks. Hypothesis I.C(c) states
that black leaders will indicate more satisfaction with work in the
tasks than will white leaders.
No significant differences were found between black and white
leaders in their satisfaction with work in the tasks.
Hypothesis I.C(c) was not supported.
Differences Between Leaders of the Same Race
This section reports the results of the tests run on the
Group 11 hypotheses.
Consideration (self-rated). Hypothesis 11(a) states that the
performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition
will be faster when supervised by leaders who perceive themselves
high in cons¡deration compared to those who perceive themselves as
low.
No significant main effects were found for either black or
white leaders; however, a significant interaction effect (F^
5.09, p<.05) occurred in the measure for white leaders supervising
groups of equal racial composition in the performance of the ship
routing task. (See Table 6 for the cell means.) Investigation of
this effect revealed that under white leaders low in self-rated
considerat ion racially balanced dyads completed the problem faster
than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05). This may well be due to
chance. ,
Hypothesis 11(a) was not supported.


71
TABLE 6
MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL RACIAL COMPOSITION -
GROUP I I HYPOTHESES
White Leaders
Ship-Routing Task
Attribute
Consideration (self-rated)
Group Type
Classification (TO) (T2)
(Hi) 1014.25 706.25
(LO) 515.75 1236.25
Knot-Tying Task
Attribute
Initiating structure (self-rated) (HI) 194.20 713.00
(LO) 594.67 445.40
Black Leaders
Knot-Tying Task
Attribute
Consideration (subordinate-rated) (HI) 322.40 919.67
(LO) 875.00 517.80


72
Initiating structure (self-rated). Hypothesis 11(b) states
that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial
composition will be faster when supervised by leaders who perceive
themselves high in initiating structure compared to those who per
ceive themselves as low.
No significant main effects were found for either black or
white leaders. A significant interaction effect (F^ ^g=4.49,
p<.05) occurred for black leaders supervising groups of equal size
in the performance of the ship-routing task: (a) under black
leaders high in self-rated initiating structure, 25 percent black
tetrads completed the problem faster than 75 percent black tetrads
(p<.05); (b) under black leaders high in self-rated initiating struc
ture, racially balanced tetrads completed the problem faster than
75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), and also faster than racially
balanced tetrads supervised by black leaders low in self-rated
initiating structure (pc.Ol) and (c) under black leaders low in
self-rated initiating structure, 25 percent black tetrads completed
the problem faster than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05).
(See Table 7 for the cell means.)
Another significant interaction effect (F^ ^2=5.51, p<.05)
occurred only for white leaders supervising groups of equal racial
composition in the performance of the knot-tying task. Investigation
of this effect revealed that under white leaders high in self-rated
initiating structure racially balanced dyads completed the problem
faster than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05). (See Table 6 for
the cell means.)


73
TABLE 7
MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL SIZE GROUP II HYPOTHESES
Black Leaders
Ship-Routing Task
Attribute
Initiating structure
(self-rated)
Class if¡cation
ThiT
(LO)
Group Type
mi (fsr~
637.00 929.75
1166.67 2*i67.50
2T8p33
12+2*0.00


Hypothesis 11(b) was not supported.
Cons ¡deration (subordinate-rated). Hypothesis 11(c) states
that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial
composition will be faster when supervised by leaders rated by their
subordinates as high in cons¡deration compared to those rated as
low.
Groups of equal size performing the ship-routing task under
white leaders high in cons¡deration, as rated by their subordinates,
took significantly less time (F^ jg=5.00, p<.05) than those under
white leaders low in this measure. Mean task performance time was
706.75 versus 1198.56 seconds. No group type main effects were found
between groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition.
An interaction effect occurred (F^ |2=7-^5, P<05) in this measure
for groups of equal racial composition performing the knot-tying
task under black leaders. Investigation of this effect revealed
that under black leaders high in subordinate-rated cons¡deration
racially balanced dyads completed the problem faster than racially
balanced tetrads (p<.05), and also faster than racially balanced
dyads supervised by black leaders low in subordinate-rated
considerat ion (p<.05). (See Table 6 for the cell means.)
Hypothesis 11(c) was not strongly supported.
Initiating structure (subordinate-rated). Hypothesis 11(d)
states that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal
racial composition will be faster when supervised by leaders rated
by their subordinates as high in initiating structure compared to
those rated as low.


75
No significant differences were found for either black or white
leaders.
Hypothesis 11(d) was not supported.
Self-esteem. Hypothesis 11(e) states that the performance of
groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be faster
when supervised by leaders high in self-esteem compared to those low
in self-esteem.
No significant differences were found for either black or white
leaders in either self-esteem measure.
Hypothesis 11(e) was not supported.
Internal control. Hypothesis 11(f) states that the performance
of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be
faster when supervised by leaders high in internal control compared
to those lew in internal control.
For this measure a reversal occurred. Groups of equal size
performing the knot-tying task under black leaders high in internal
control took significantly longer (Fj jg=4.42, p<.05) than those under
black leaders low in internal control. Mean task performance time
was 850.25 versus 602.25. No group type main effects were found
for groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition
supervised by either black or white leaders.
Hypothesis 11(f) was not supported.
Intel 1igence. Hypothesis 11(g) states that the performance
of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be
faster when supervised by leaders high in intelligence compared to
those low in intelligence.


76
No significant differences were found for either black or white
leaders.
Hypothesis 11(g) was not supported.
Incidental Results
This section reports the results of data analyses involving
differences between black and white subordinates, differences between
groups, differences between leaders in leadership style and social-
emotional behavior, and information derived from the Personal
Questionnaire.
Differences between black and white subordinates.
During the knot-tying task, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates, exhibited behavior as follows:
(a) less giving of suggestions in racially balanced dyads under
black leaders (t=3*24, p<.01; >^=27.33, xBS=9.63) ;
(b) less giving of opinion in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=3.7^. p<-001 ; xws=17.67, xBS=1.5l) ;
(c) more giving of opinion in 75 percent black tetrads under
white leaders (tc2.00, p<.05; xws=1.76, Xrs=5.05) *
(d) less giving of information in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.93, p<.01; xws=9.66, xBS=6.7^) ;
(e) less asking for information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.^6, p<.05; xWB=6.80, xBS=1.58);
(f) more asking for opinion in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=3.56, pc.001; x^=0.66, xBS-3.80) ;
(g) less disagreeing in racially balanced dyads under white
leaders (t3.04, p<.01; xws=11.57, >


77
(h) less showing of tension in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.07, p<.05; *^=4.30, xBS=1.32); and
(i) more showing of antagonism in 75 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.18, pc.05; xws=l*59 xB5=4.76).
Every t-test for differences between subordinates was accomplished
using 56 degrees of freedom.
During the ship-routing task, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates, exhibited behavior as follows:
(a) more showing of solidarity in racially balanced dyads under
black leaders (t=2.42, pc.05; xws=0.00, xBS=l* 73)1
(b) less showing of solidarity in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.54, pc.05; xws=1.82, xBS=0.00);
(c) less giving of suggestions in 25 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.90, p<.01 ; *^=11.75, XBS=2.37) ;
(d) less giving of opinion in racially balanced tetrads under
white leaders (t=2.43, pc.05; xws=6.64,, xBS=2.48) ;
(e) less giving of information in 25 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.13, p<.05; *^s=19*84; xBS=l6.20);
(f) less giving of information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.33, p<.05; xws=l6.90, xBS=l2.91);
(g) less asking for information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.58, pc.05; x^=8.80, XB$=2.97) ;
(h) more asking for suggestions in racially balanced tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.06, pc.05; xW2=2.08, xBg=4.39) ;
(i) less asking for suggestions in racially balanced dyads
under white leaders (tc3.09, p<-01; xws=3.47, xBS=0.00);


78
(j) less asking for suggestions in 25 percent black tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.04, p<.05; x^~3.7S, xBS=l.51) ;
(k) less disagreeing in 25 percent black tetrads under black
leaders (t=2.02, p<.05; xws=2.36, xBS=0.00); and
(l) less disagreeing in racially balanced tetrads under white
leaders (t=3.06, p<. 01 ; x^=b. 78, xBS=l.2l).
In their duration of speech, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates: (a) during the knot-tying task,spoke less in
racially balanced dyads under black leaders (t=2.40, p<.05;
131.13, xB5=62.13) and in racially balanced tetrads under white
leaders (t*2.42, p<. 05; *^=10] ,Sb, xBS=32.38) ; and (b) during the
ship-routing task, spoke more in 75 percent black tetrads under black
leaders (t=2.22, p<.05; x^=175.88, xBB=231.92), and less in racially
balanced dyads (t=3.07, p<.01; 58.00, xBS=80.38) and tetrads
(t=2.56, pc.05; xws=107.94, xbs=^3.25) under white leaders.
In the other measures, black subordinates, as compared to white
subordinates: (a) were higher in self-esteem in racially balanced
dyads under black leaders, as measured by Ziller's instrument
(t=2.21, p<.05; *i£=19.38, xbs=26.38); (b) were not significantly
different in internal control; (c) were higher in satisfaction with
fellow subordinates in racially balanced dyads under black leaders
(t=2.12, p<.05; x^a38.88, xB2=46.50); (d) were higher in satisfac
tion with the leader in racially balanced dyads under black leaders
(t=2.94, pc.01; Xygs>26.63, xBS=36.25) and (e) were lower in satisfac
tion with the work in the tasks in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.30, pc.05; xws=34.00, xBS=25.50).


79
Differences between groups. During the knot-tying task, the
behavioral differences exhibited in groups supervised by black leaders,
as compared to those supervised by white leaders, were as follows:
(a) less agreeing (F^ ,56=6 ,62, p<.05), (b) less asking for informa
tion (Fj j.g=9.08, pc.01), (c) less asking for opinion (Fj
10.98, pc.01) and (d) more showing of antagonism (F^ ^^=4; 13, pc.05).
(See Table 8 for the mean group scores for these I PA categories.)
Main effects of group type were found in category 4 (gives suggestion)
^F3,56=8, 58, p<.01). Irrespective of leader race, three-person
groups, on the average, gave more suggestions when the subordinate
group consisted of racially balanced dyads than when the subordinate
group consisted of 25 percent black tetrads (pc.001), racially
balanced tetrads (pc.001), or 75 percent black tetrads (pc.001).
(See Table 9 for the mean group type scores for category 4.) A
significant interaction effect (F^ ^=3.12, pc.05) was found in
category 6 (gives information): (a) three-person, white-supervised
groups with racially balanced subordinate dyads gave more information
on the average than five-person, white-supervised groups with both
25 percent black subordinate tetrads (pc.05) and racially balanced
subordinate tetrads (pc.01); (b) three-person groups with racially
balanced subordinate dyads gave less information on the average
under black leaders than under white leaders (pc.01) and (c)
five-person groups with 75 percent black subordinate tetrads gave
less information on the average under black leaders than under white
leaders (p<.05). (See Table 10 for the cell means.)


80
TABLE 8
MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS
Groups Supervised Groups Supervised
by Black Leaders
by Wiite Leaders
Knot-Tyinq Task
Category 3: Agrees
8.52
13.46
7: Asks for information
2.36
4.52
8: Asks for opinion
0.65
2.39
12: Shows antagonism
3.35
1.89
Ship-Routinq Task
Category 7: Asks for information
11.50
9.37
8: Asks for opinion
1.18
2. 22


8!
TABLE 9
MEAN GROUP IPA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS
Knot-Tying Task
Category 4: Gives suggestion
Ship-Routing Task
Category 2: Shews tension release
6: Gives information
10: Disagrees
Group Type
iI2L
iILL
JI2L
JllL
24.87
15.83
14.62
15.89
0.77
0.40
1.78
1.95
11.87
17.60
14.78
15.28
1.82
2.53
4.39
3.87
1.00
2.55
4.27
3.85
11: Shows tens ion


82
TABLE 10
MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS
Knot-Tying Task
Category 6: Gives information
Ship-Routing Task
Category 1: Shows solidarity
Group Type
Leader
TtoT~
JJSL
U5T
BL
0.9**
1.88
3.33
0.92
WL
7.81
2.66
2.07
5.25
BL
0.51
2.41
0.78
2.09
WL
0.87
0.23
0.60
0.78


83
During the ship-routing task, the average behavior exhibited in
groups supervised by black leaders, as compared to those supervised
by white leaders, was as follows: (a) more asking for information
(Fj j-g=5.06, p<.05) and (b) less asking for opinion (F^ ^^=7-33,
pc.Ol). (See Table 8 for the mean group scores for these I PA cate
gories.) Main effects of group type were found in category 2 (shows
tension release) (F^ ^^=2.94, p<.05) 6 (gives information) (F^
5.18, p<.0l), 10 (disagrees) (F^ ^=3.84, p<.05) and 11 (shows ten
sion) (F^ 56=5.52, pc.Ol). Irrespective of leader race, groups:
(a) showed less tension release on the average when the subordinate
group was a 25 percent black tetrad than when it was a racially
balanced tetrad (p<.05) or a 75 percent black tetrad (pc.05);
(b) three-person groups gave less information on the average than
five-person groups with 25 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.001)
or 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (pc.05) ; (c) three-person
groups disagreed less than five-person groups having racially balanced
subordinate tetrads (pc.Ol) or 75 percent black subordinate tetrads
(p<.05), and five-person groups with 25 percent black subordinate
tetrads less than those with racially balanced subordinate tetrads
(pc.05) and (d) three-person groups showed less tension than five-
person groups with both racially balanced subordinate tetrads (p<.00l)
and 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (pc.Ol). (See Table 9 for
the mean group type scores for categories 2, 6, 10 and 11.) A
significant interaction effect (F^ ,56=3 .02, pc.05) was found in
category 1 (shows solidarity): (a) three-person, black-supervised
groups with racially balanced dyads showed less solidarity than


84
five-person, black-supervised groups with both 25 percent black
subordinate tetrads (p<.05) and 75 percent black subordinate tetrads
(p<.05) ; (b) five-person, black-supervised groups with 25 percent
black subordinate tetrads showed more solidarity than either five-
person, black-supervised groups with racially balanced subordinate
tetrads (p<.05) or five-person, white-supervised groups with 25 percent
black subordinate tetrads (p<.0l); (c) five-person, black-supervised groups
with racially balanced subordinate tetrads showed less solidarity
than five-person, black-supervised groups with 75 percent black
subordinate tetrads (p<.05) and (d) five-person, black-supervised
groups showed more solidarity than five-person, white-supervised
groups with 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.05). (See
Table 10 for the cell means.)
In average duration of speech, there was no significant differ
ence between black- and white-supervised groups performing the knot-
tying task. However, black-supervised groups talked among themselves
more than white-supervised groups while performing the ship-routing
task (Fj j-£=6.89, pc.05). The mean speech duration for black-
supervised groups was 203.53 seconds; for white-supervised groups,
133.04 seconds.
There were no significant differences between black- and white-
supervised groups in average measures of self-esteem, internal
control.and satisfaction with work in the tasks.
Differences between leaders in leadership style and social-
eniotionaj behavior. During the knot-tying task, black leaders
exhibited less non-directive leadership behavior (Fj ^=15.11,


85
p<.01) and less positive social-emotional behavior (Fj ^=11.24,
p<.01). For non-directive leadership, the mean scores were 5.83
and 15.66; for positive social-emotional behavior, 13.61 and 23.46.
A main effect of group type was found for negative social-emotional
behavior (F^ ^£=3.04, p<.05). Leaders, regardless of race, displayed
more negative social-emotional behavior when supervising racially
balanced groups as the number of subordinates increased from two to
four (p<.01). (See Table 11 for the mean scores for each group
type.) A significant interaction effect (F^ ,56=3 .03, p<.05) was
found for the directive style of leadership: (a) black leaders of
racially balanced dyads used more directive comments than black
leaders of 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05) and (b) black leaders
showed less directiveness as compared to white leaders of 25 percent
black tetrads (p<.05), racially balanced tetrads (p<.05) and 75 percent
black tetrads (p<.001). (See Table 12 for the cell means.)
During the ship-routing task, black leaders exhibited less
directive leadership behavior than did white leaders (Fj ^g=5.14,
p<.05). The mean score for black leaders was 37.76; for white
leaders, 51.02. A main effect was found among group types in
negative soc ial-emot ional behavior (F^ ,.£=6.32, pc.Ol). Leaders,
regardless of race, displayed less negative social-emotional behavior
when supervising racially balanced dyads than when supervising
racially balanced tetrads (px.01) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.0l),
and when supervising 25 percent black tetrads as compared to racially
balanced tetrads (pc.Ol) or 75 percent black tetrads (pc.Ol). (See
Table II for the mean scores for each group type.) There were no
interaction effects.


86
TABLE 11
MEAN LEADER I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS
IN SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
Group Type
W (Tl) (T2) (T3)
Knot-Tying Task
Negative social-emotional behavior 7.71 13.11 21.39 15.^8
Ship-Routing Task
Negative social-emotional behavior 5.91
5.95 16.10 15.13


87
TABLE 12
MEAN LEADER I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTION IN LEADERSHIP STYLE
Group Type
Leader (TO) (TI) (T2) CnT
Knot-Tying Task
Directive style of leadership BL 43.22 36.06 33.64 20.40
WL 50.46 54.12 58.46 64.35


88
General satisfaction survey. There were no significant differ
ences found on this measure between leaders or between black and white
supervised groups. In the analysis of differences between leaders,
a significant difference was found between group types (F^ ^=3.43,
p<.05); leaders, regardless of race, indicated more general satis
faction if they had supervised racially balanced tetrads rather than
25 percent black tetrads (p<.0l) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05).
£ee Table 13 for the mean scores for each group type.) Black subordi
nates, as compared to white subordinates, were higher in general
satisfaction in 75 percent black tetrads under white leaders (t=
2.20, p<.05, df=56; xws=26.38, xBS=30.21).
Sociometric rating of leader by subordinates. White leaders of
racially balanced dyads were rated higher by white subordinates than
by black subordinates (t=2.32, p<.05, df=l4). The mean rating for
white leaders by white subordinates was 3.50 and by black subordinates,
2.50. No other significant differences were found in the comparisons
by group type, by leader type or by leader for both subordinate
types.
Nomination for best squad leader. Black subordinates under
black leaders choose their leader as the best squad leader in their
company more often than did black subordinates under white leaders
O
(X =5.54, P<.05, df=l). Black leaders choose themselves as the best
squad leader in their company more often than did white leaders
(X =6.56, p<.05, df=l). No significant differences were found between
black and white subordinates under black leaders, black and white
subordinates under white leaders, and white subordinates nominating
their own leader regardless of leader race.


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 EDQZMI8KE_AVIRV6 INGEST_TIME 2017-07-13T15:00:01Z PACKAGE AA00003520_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BLACK AND
WHITE LEADERSHIP IN A NATURALISTIC SETTING
By
WILLIAM ROBERT ALLEN
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1975

To Marl íes, my wife,
with love and appreciation

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his appreciation to his Supervisory
Committee for their support and help in completing this dissertation.
The efforts of Jack M. Feldman, H. Joseph Reitz and James F. Burns
have proven invaluable in many ways, particularly in light of the
untimely passing of Walter A. Hill, the original committee chairman.
Walter A. Hill was both mentor and friend, and his support and
influence on this work and others was appreciated and will long be
remembered. Jack M. Feldman, first a committee member, assumed the
chairmanship and helped greatly toward placing this in completed
form. H. Joseph Reitz agreed to serve during the latter stages of
completion and has been very helpful. James F. Burns has been
steadfast in his support and helpful in his comments. The contribu¬
tions and friendship of these gentlemen are gratefully acknowledged.
Several others have also been helpful in many different ways.
Marvin E. Shaw and Robert C. Ziller offered many thoughtful comments
during the formative stages of the present work. Ira Horowitz,
William F. Fox, John H. James and William V. Wilmot have provided
considerable support and encouragement during the doctoral program.
Robert R. Bell and Fred J. Nutt have helped in their comments and
friendship.

A special word of appreciation is in order for John A. Ruhe and
Jerome F. Dederick. John A. Ruhe's generous suggestions, support
and friendship proved extremely helpful and was greatly appreciated.
SMCS Jerome F. Dederick USN, acting in his capacity as liaison with
the Navy during data collection, did much more than required and
contributed considerably with his enthusiasm and friendship. In
addition, the fidelity and friendship of Frankie Hammond, who pre¬
pared the final copy, is sincerely appreciated.
Finally, the author must recognize the many sacrifices made by
his wife, Marlies, and children, William, Robert and Elizabeth.
Their support, love and understanding made the doctoral program
and this study possible.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ¡Ü
LIST OF TABLES vi i
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF THE STUDY, LITERATURE
REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 1
Introduction . 1
Purpose of the Study 3
Literature Review 5
Hypotheses 24
I I METHODOLOGY 26
Subjects 26
Physical Environment 31
Design 33
Tasks 43
Observer Training and Reliability **6
Procedure 49
Questionnaire 52
III ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 55
Methods of Analysis 55
Results 61
IV SUMMARY, DISCUSS ION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH 91
Summary 91
Discussion 94
Implications for Future Research 108
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
REFERENCES 113
APPENDICES
A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SQUAD LEADERS 134
B PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE 135
C I EC 138
D SOCIAL ORIENTATION TASKS l4l
E RSE 145
F LOQ 148
G SBD 152
H JDI-GT 156
I JDI-SL. ....... 157
J JD I-S QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT SUBORDINATES 158
K JDI-FS QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT FELLOW SUBORDINATES. ... 161
L LAST PAGE 164
M INSTRUCTIONS 165
N INSTRUCTIONS 166
0 INSTRUCTIONS 170
P SHIP-ROUTING INFORMATION 171
Q AVAILABLE ROUTE COMBINATIONS 172
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 173
V

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1 PERSONAL PROFILE OF SQUAD LEADERS AND SQUAD MEMBERS. 27
2 RELIABILITY BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE OBSERVERS. ... 48
3 MEAN I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES 64
4 MEAN I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS - GROUP I HYPOTHESES 66
5 MEAN I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES 68
6 MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X
GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL RACIAL
COMPOSITION - GROUP II HYPOTHESES 71
7 MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP
TYPE INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL SIZE -
GROUP II HYPOTHESES 73
8 MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS . 80
9 MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS. . 81
10 MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS 82
11 MEAN LEADER I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS IN
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR 86
12 MEAN LEADER I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTION IN LEADERSHIP STYLE 87
13 MEAN LEADER SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS FOR
THE GENERAL SATISFACTION SURVEY 89
14 RESULTS OF TESTING HYPOTHESES 93
v i I

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
TABLE
15 SUMMARY OF OBSERVED I PA DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
LEADERS 98
16 FREQUENCY COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED I PA
BEHAVIOR BETWEEN LEADERS, SUBORDINATES AND GROUPS
BY TASK TYPE AND BY GROUP TYPE 99

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Recruit Company Organization 29
2 Physical Plan of Experiment - Rooms and Observation
Stations 32
3 Schema of the Basic Research Design 35
4 Notation and Designs for Data Testing 62

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the
University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BLACK AND
WHITE LEADERSHIP IN A NATURALISTIC SETTING
By
Will iam Robert Allen
March, 1975
Chairman: Jack M. Feldman
Major Department: Management
The objective of this study was to investigate differences in
attitudes and behavior between black and white leaders supervising
biracial groups of varying size and composition. In addition, differ¬
ences between subordinates and groups were investigated.
A total of 288 male naval recruits participated, evenly balanced
between blacks and whites. Eight different black and white squad
leaders, 6k in all, supervised groups composed of members from their
own squads in performing a knot-tying task and a ship-routing task,
while a pair of racially mixed observers watched through a one-way
window and recorded group interaction using Bales' Interaction Process
Analysis (lPA). Each leader supervised one of four types of groups:
racially balanced dyads, 25 percent black tetrads, 50 percent black
tetrads and 75 percent black tetrads. The result was fundamentally
a two-by-four factorial design. An assistant in the experimental room
recorded the time to perform each task and each individual's speech
duration.
After performing the tasks each subject completed a series of
questionnaires. Leaders completed the Leadership Opinion Question¬
naire, providing a self-rated measure of the leadership dimensions
x

initiating structure and cons¡deration: subordinates completed the
Supervisory Behavior Description, providing a subordinate-rated
measure of the same dimensions. Individual satisfaction with
subordinates, tasks, leaders and/or subordinates was measured using
selected scales of the Job Descriptive Index. Individuals completed
Rotter's Internal-External Control Scale, Ziller's Self-Esteem
Instrument, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale and answered certain
personal questions.
As hypothesized, white supervised groups performed both tasks
faster than black supervised groups, and black leaders were less
expressive in their behavior and scored lower in internal control
than white leaders. Performance deficiency was explained in terms
of status incongruence, group heterogeneity and experimental stress;
the less expressive behavior, in terms of status characteristic
theory, interracial interaction disability and social stress.
Contrary to the hypotheses, white leaders were not higher in
self-esteem, and black leaders did not have a greater speech duration,
more satisfaction with subordinates, or more satisfaction with the
tasks. Also not supported were hypotheses stating that, for each
task, the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial
composition would be faster when supervised by leaders high in
self- and subordinate-rated initiating structure and cons¡deration,
self-esteem, internal control and intelligence (measured by the Navy
Basic Test Battery), compared to leaders of the same race low in
these attributes.
xi

Comparing black and white leaders' use of the I PA categories
indicated race, group and interaction effects. White leaders were
clearly more active in interpersonal behavior. In every instance
of a significant difference between leader types for both tasks,
black leaders displayed less of the behavior in question than did
white leaders. Although white leaders gave and asked for more opinions
during the ship-routing task, the results were more pronounced
during the knot-tying task where white leaders exhibited more activity
in five of the twelve categories: showing solidarity, giving sugges¬
tions, asking for information and opinions and disagreeing. These
results suggest inhibition on the part of the black leaders. Patterns
of behavior displayed through I PA differences suggest similar results
for black subordinates. During the knot-tying problem, black super¬
vised groups displayed, on the average, less agreeing, less asking
for information, less asking for opinion and more antagonism, suggest¬
ing behavior that hindered performance. During the ship-routing
problem, black supervised groups displayed, on the average, less
asking for opinion but more asking for information, and were greater
in speech duration, which may have hindered performance by detracting
from task demands.
The data suggest that the leaders, regardless of race, experi¬
enced supervision difficulties due to increasing the size of sub¬
ordinate groups and due to increasing the relative number of blacks
xii
in subordinate tetrads.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF THE STUDY, LITERATURE
REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Introduction
The emergence of the "new Negro" or "black" is one of the most
striking phenomena of the latter half of the 19601 s (Miller and Dreger,
1973).^ As these minority-group Americans become assimilated into
social institutions in a manner, and at levels, never before achieved,
the appropriateness of current organizational practices may have to be
questioned. As Miller and Dreger (1973) have pointed out, the
behavioral setting can make a major difference in comparative behaviors.
One important modification in the behavioral setting will be the
emergence of more blacks into positions of leadership and influence.
Not only is this an expectation of society in general, it is, as King
and Bass (1970) point out, natural for blacks to desire managerial
positions when they have already achieved entry into the organization
2
and access to skilled jobs.
When making racial designations, the terms black and white will be
favored over the terms Negro and Caucasian in the belief that they are
the currently preferred social terms.
2
King and Bass (1970) have proposed a hierarchy of concerns about
integration in organizations that is analogous to Maslow's (195*0 postu¬
lation of a hierarchy of needs. Their hierarchy was conceptualized as
a three-tiered, truncated pyramid consisting of: entry into the organization,
access to skilled jobs, and access to managerial positions.
1

The research literature is presently equivocal as to how blacks
might compare to whites in leadership or supervisory roles. We know
very little about racial differences in these areas. The basic problem
is to determine what differences there are and to see if these
differences can be explained. Because blacks do form a significant
ethnic subgroup in our society and because our social institutions are
now dominated by whites, this problem should be considered as openly
and objectively as possible so that as organizational integration
proceeds difficulties can be properly anticipated and effectively
minimized. The need for social psychological research concerning
actual differences between blacks and whites and the nature of the
supervisor-subordinate interaction in job settings has been expressed
by many authors (see, e.g., Dreger and Miller, 1968; King and Bass, 1970;
Moskos, 1967; Triandis and Malpass, 1971).
Racial differences and the psychology of blacks have been discussed
in numerous works (e.g., Allen, 1970; Anastasi and Foley, 1949; Bendix
and Lipset, 1953; Benedict and Weltfish, 1943; Boyd, 1950; Deutsch,
Katz and Jensen, 1968; Dreger and Miller, I960, 1968; Dunn and Dobzhansky,
1946; Frazier, 1939, 1957; Garth, 1925, 1931; Ginzberg, 1956; Harding
et a1.. 1969; Kardiner and Ovesey, 1951, 1962; Katz, 1970; K1 ineberg,
1935, 1944; Knox, 1945, 1949, 1952; Lindzey, 1954; Miller and Dreger,
1973; Montagu, 1952; North, 1957; Pettigrew, 1964; Sarason and Gladwin,
1958; Shuey, 1958; Tyler, 1956; Woodworth, 1916).^ Early comparative
3
WHle the term race will be used for convenience, no meaning is
intended other than that of distinctiveness of appearance and commonality
of experience; the issue of whether there are consequential differences
in the genetic endowment of blacks and whites will not be considered
(cf., Katz, 1964).

3
research was concerned primarily with attempts to measure and describe
interracial differences within a normative framework where the behavior
of whites served as a norm against which black behavior was evaluated.
Social psychological research was concerned primarily with the response
of whites to blacks; thus, attempts to do such things as modify attitudes,
measure social distance, etc., were directed to whites rather than
blacks (cf., Miller and Dreger, 1973).
The relatively recent advances being made by minority-group Americans
into positions of leadership and supervision is a trend deserving further
study, particularly in field and naturalistic settings where blacks and
whites coexist in comparable organizational positions. The experimental
study of black-white relationships is a relatively unexplored field
offering unique research opportunities (Katz, 1970).
Purpose of the Study
The main concern of this study is the development of knowledge and
information concerning differences In leadership qualities between
black and white leaders. This study from its inception was conceived
to follow Ruhe (1972). It is not an exact replication, but several of
the same methodological techniques were employed in an effort tc-
generalize earlier results to natural work groups outside the laboratory,
to enhance the external validity of both studies. The focus i.s on
differential leadership qualities, though certain comparisons o’~ black
and white subordinate behavior were made.
At this point it is appropriate to briefly describe the Ruhe study.
Using 96 male undergraduate students as subjects (^8 black and ¿*8 white),

4
Ruhe randomly assigned each of 12 black and 12 white older students (who
had volunteered to be supervisors) to supervise three different types of
subordinate dyads (one all-black, one all-white, and one racially-mixed).
The remaining 72 students, 36 black and 36 white, were randomly assigned
to one of the three subordinate dyads that participated once with a black
supervisor and once with a white supervisor. Each group performed
three tasks: knot-tying, ship-routing and letter writing. During the
performance of the tasks two trained observers (one black and one white)
coded the group interaction using Bales' (1950) Interaction Process
Analysis (IPA). Other output measures recorded were: duration of speech
for each group member, amount of time needed to complete each task and
cohesiveness. After performing the last of the tasks, both supervisor
and subordinates completed satisfaction rating forms (from Smith, Kendall
and Hulin, 1969) for each other and for the work in the tasks. At the
end of their participation each subject completed a self-esteem form
(from Ziller, 1971).
In designing the present study the desire was to draw from the
Ruhe study and extend the scope of research in this area, using a different
subject population in a more naturalistic setting. In keeping with this
desire, several methodological changes were made: (l) group size and
racial composition were varied; (2) instruments for measuring leader
behavior (the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and Supervisory Behavior
Description, which provide leader dimensions known as initiating structure
and consideration. from Stogdill and Coons, 1957) were included to tie
in with recognized leadership literature; (3) the Internal-External
Control Scale (Rotter, 1966) assessing locus of control was included,
since this quality has been shown to be related to effectiveness in

5
attempts to influence others (Lao, 1970); (4) a second self-esteem
instrument (the Self-Esteem Scale, from Rosenberg, 1965) was included
because it is based on verbal self-report; (5) cohesiveness (defined
to be the proportionate usage of "we" or "I") was eliminated as an
output variable due to the apparent lack of a conceptual base in the
biracia! situation (Ruhe, personal communication); and (6) the letter
writing task was eliminated because it was felt that the manner in which
this was handled by Ruhe was not appropriate in the field setting, since
in the university setting each group was asked to develop a recruiting
letter urging college students to join an all-volunteer Navy.
From the above, therefore, the principal purpose of the present
study can be stated as an investigation of some of the possible differences
between black and white leaders supervising racially heterogeneous
groups, of varying size and racial composition, in the performance of
two tasks.
Literature Review
Synthesizing the literature addressed by this study is a difficult
task due to its scope and diversity. Further, because of the relatively
recent dramatic changes in black-white relations, there is a very real
possibility that much of the research in existence may be partially,
if not totally, irrelevant to the present day black, assuming that
enduring changes in attitudes and behavior have occurred. This should
be borne in mind when the 1 iterature is examined. Notwithstanding the
difficulty of synthesis and the relevancy issue, several highly plausible
general conclusions do emerge. Upon these hypotheses can be advanced and
tested within the limits established by this study.

6
The review of the literature that follows focuses mostly on those
attributes which have been found to differentiate between blacks and
whites and which were addressed by this study, with the exception of the
research involving the leader dimensions initiating structure and
consideration. The review is grouped under the following sub-headings:
B?racial Work Groups. Leadership Studies, Leader Behavior and Task
Performance, Self-Concept, Locus of Control, Intelligence and Aptitude,
Job Satisfaction, Miscellaneous Related Research and Cone1us ion.
Biracial WorkGroups
The behavior displayed in biracial work groups and problem-solving
situations may suggest how blacks and whites compare in leadership
positions. Blacks have displayed marked social inhibition and subordination
to white partners in cooperative problem-solving situations, even when
both races were matched on intelligence and made to display equal
ability at the task; blacks mostly ignored one another, made fewer
proposals, were less willing to argue for their point of view, were
more susceptible to group influence, ranked whites higher on mental
ability, favored whites when talking, favored one another as future
work companions, and expressed less satisfaction with group experiences
than did whites (Cohen, 1972; Katz and Benjamin, I960; Katz, Goldston
and Benjamin, 1958).
Although some studies suggest that blacks alter their behavior in
an unfavorable direction or decrease in performance efficiency when
faced with a white rather than a black frame of reference (Hatton, 1967;
Katz and Cohen, 1962; Katz, Epps and Axelson, 1964; Katz, Roberts and
Robinson, 1965; Preston and Bayton, 1941), others suggest improved
performance in the white norm condition (Epps, Katz and Runyon, 1970;
Katz, Epps and Perry, 1970; Katz et , 1972),

7
Some of the work done by Katz and his colleagues uses the race of
the experimenter as one of the major variables. These provide results
relevant to this study. Under a low stress conditions blacks worked
better in an all-white environment; however, under a high stress
condition black efficiency improved in the all-black environment and
went down in an all-white environment (Katz and Greenbaum, 1963).
These results were interpreted in terms of the hypothesis of an inverted
U-shaped relationship between arousal and performance (cf., Malmo, 1957;
Duffy, 1957), with the low stress, all-black environment considered
insufficiently arousing for optimal performance and the high stress,
all-white environment too arousing, since the blacks worked best in a
low stress, all-white environment. In another study (Katz, Roberts and
Robinson, 1965), relating the most difficult task level to intelligence
reduced black performance under a white experimenter, but when the same
task level was described as a test of eye-hand coordination (i.e., an
ability which blacks are not stereotyped as lacking), black performance
was better with a white experimenter than with a black experimenter.
These results were related to the concept of task motivation as a
joint function of the subjective probability and incentive value of
success (cf., Atkinson, 1964); thus, when the likelihood of winning
approval was equally high, blacks would work harder for a white person
(i.e., a higher status individual) than a black person.
Actual white behavior in the biraciai situation has not been studied
to the same degree as black behavior. Burnstein and McRae (1962)
investigated the attitudinal effect of participation in biraciai
problem-solving groups and found that under conditions of shared threat

8
a reduction in the expression of prejudice occurred, although communication
to the black participants was significantly less by the high prejudiced
white subjects regardless of the presence or absence of shared threat.
Another study (Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958) found that group
reward produced a greater amount of cooperative behavior in both black
and white subjects. Although no more 1ikely to have correct solutions
than blacks in group problem-solving, whites still exercised more social
influence (Katz and Benjamin, I960; Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958).
When talking, whites have favored whites as the target of their inter¬
action (Cohen, 1972; Katz and Benjamin, I960; Katz, Goldston and Benjamiin,
1958). While in one study (Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958) whites
chose blacks as often as they chose one another as future working
companions and ranked blacks as high as themselves on task competence,
in another experiment (Katz and Cohen, 1962), whites downgraded the
problem-solving ability of black partners and expressed less willingness
to continue working with the blacks as compared to a control group of
whites.
From these studies we can reach several plausible conclusions.
Black performance probably depends upon the rae ia 1 -environmental
conditions under which they must work and anticipation of a cross-racial
comparison may have a favorable motivational effect. Members of both
races may favor white recipients when talking, ostensibly because whites
are perceived as having higher social status. Whites are probably more
influential in biracial group decisions and blacks are probably more
susceptible to group influence. The reaction of whites to blacks in the
biracial problem-solving situation remains equivocal.

9
If leadership is viewed as a social exchange process a satisfactory
conceptual base can be provided for predicting group performance on the
basis of the research concerning biracial work groups. The essence of
social exchange is the development of relationships with other persons
such that benefits of mutual value can be "traded" between participants
of both equal and unequal status (Jacobs, 1970). Thus, participants
accrue "assets" which determine their status within the group. Leaders
are afforded or possess the greater assets, allowing them to function
more effectively in their leadership role. Implicit in this exchange or
transactional approach is the understanding that individual, situational
and cultural differences have the potential of impinging upon the
leadership process and influencing or moderating relevant variables.
Therefore, the research concen iracial work groups suggests that
groups supervised by white leaders will outperform groups supervised by
black leaders because white leaders will have more transactional assets
than will black leaders.
Leadership Studies
An important consideration is the functioning of blacks in leadership
positions and their acceptance by whites as leaders. Support for a
proposal that whites in the job setting would be willing to have blacks
over them in a position of leadership and supervision can be found in
Campbell (1971) where 86 percent of the white respondents to a 15-city
survey said they would not mind at all having a qualified black as a
supervisor on their job and Cavanagh (1971), who found that whites
accepted a black supervisor more readily than did many of the blacks.
Using the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (Fleishman,
1953), Glasgow (1970) found no significant differences between the

10
initiating structure and cons¡deration leader behavior scores of a
sample of black public school principals and those of a sample of white
principals taken from a previous study. Glasgow points out that black
principals see themselves as being competent to assume the leadership
role in professionally staffed organizations.
Leadership assumption in a simulated clerical task was investigated
by Fenelon and Megaree (1971). The rate of leadership assumption by
high-dominance white women paired with low-dominance black women was
significantly lower than the rate of leadership assumption by both black
and white high-dominance women in the other groups. Analysis of the
process for deciding who should assume leadership suggested that the
above finding stemmed from the reluctance of the high-dominance white
women to assume leadership over the low-dominance black women, coupled
with the increased assertiveness of low-dominance black women when
paired with a white partner.
Using a business game to investigate interaction difficulties of
black and white coworkers with blacks in a supervisory position, Richards
and Jaffee (1972) found that the performance ratings by white observers
of black supervisors were significantly poorer than those of white
supervisors; that subordinates supervised by blacks gave more suggestions
and opinions and disagreed more than subordinates supervised by whites
whereas subordinates supervised by whites showed more solidarity and were
more accepting than subordinates supervised by blacks and some of these
behaviors (e.g., being less accepting) appeared to hinder the
effectiveness of black supervisors; and that subordinates with negative
racial bias gave poorer ratings to black supervisors than subordinates
with more positive racial attitudes.

11
Investigating the effects of varying racial compositions upon the
attitudes and behavior of black and white supervisors and subordinates,
Ruhe (1972) found no significant differences between black and white
supervisors in style of leadership (defined to be directive or nondirective),
duration of speech, self-esteem and satisfaction with subordinates and
work in three tasks.
Studies relating behavior scored by the I PA to leadership or
interracial leadership behavior (Richards and Cuffee, 1971; Richards and
Jaffee, 1972; Ruhe, 1972; Zdep, 1969) are generally inconsistent. The
only notable commonal ity is the lack of an indicated relation for
categories 2 (showing tension release), 3 (agreeing), 7 (asking for
information), 10 (disagreeing) and 12 (showing antagonism). Richards
and Cuffee (1971) found that leaders (race unspecified) of interacting
groups emitted more behavior in catagories 4 (gives suggestion), 6
(gives information) and 9 (asks for information), and, in general,
emitted more behaviors; in addition, they found in interacting groups
that the effectiveness of leaders correlated with categories 1 (shows
solidarity), 4 (gives suggestion), 5 (gives opinion) and 11 (shows
tension). Richards and Jaffee (1972) found white leaders emitting more
behavior than black leaders in categories 1 (shows solidarity), 4 (gives
suggestion)and 6 (gives information). Ruhe (1972) found that white
leaders emitted more behavior than black leaders in categories 8 (asks
for opinion) and 9 (asks for suggestion). Zdep (1969) relates
leadership to categories 1 (shows solidarity), 4 (gives suggestion) ,5
(gives opinion), 6 (gives information), 8 (asks for opinion) and 9 (asks
for suggestion).

12
Overall, perhaps the best conclusion that can be reached is that
the evidence fails to demonstrate great deficiencies for blacks in
positions of leadership. More specifically, based on the results of the
two studies relating IPA-scored behavior to leadership (Richards and
Jaffee, 1972; Ruhe, 1972) the most plausible general conclusion for
differences in IPA-scored behavior between black and white leaders
appears to be that when differences occur white leaders will emit more
behavior than black leaders.
Leader Behavior and Task Performance
Initiating structure and cons¡deration as dimensions of leader
behavior emerged from studies initiated by the Personnel Research Board
of the Ohio State University (cf., Stogdill and Coons, 1957). These
dimensions resulted from a factor analysis of hypothesized dimensions
of leader behavior (Halpin and Winer, 1957) and were identified as the
smallest number of dimensions which would adequately describe leader
behavior as perceived by the leader's subordinates and as the leader
himself reported his own attitudes toward his role (Korman, 1966). They
are frequently used to account for a leader's behavior and its effects.
They may be defined as follows (cf. , Harris and Fleishman, 1955;
Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Fleishman and Peters, 1962):
Initiating Structure: Includes behavior indicative
of the extent to which an individual is likely to
organize and structure his role and those of his
subordinates toward goal attainment. A high score
characterizes individuals who assume a more active
role in defining and facilitating group activity
through planning, scheduling, task assignment,
establishing ways of getting thigs done, and
establishing desired subordinate roles.
Cons¡deration: Includes behavior indicative of the
extent to which an individual is likely to emphasize
mutual trust, respect for subordinate's ideas,

13
consideration for their feelings, and maintenance
of a certain warmth between himself and his group.
A high score characterizes individuals who emphasize
a deeper concern for subordinate needs and indicates
a climate of good rapport and two-way communication.
A low score is indicative of a more authoritarian and
impersonal relationship between the leader and his
subordinates.
From the literature there is little doubt that the leadership
dimensions initiating structure and cons¡deration and similar behavior
categories describe important leader behaviors, but the lack of
consistent empirical evidence as to how these behaviors predict group
performance poses a major theoretical problem (Anderson, 1966; Campbell
et aK, 1970; Korman, 1966; House, Filley and Kerr, 1971; Lowin,
Hrapchak and Kavanagh, 1969). With regard to structured leadership
behavior, the typical case seems to be that leaders high in initiating
structure or similar measures of instrunental or structuring behavior
have higher performing subordinate groups (Bales, 1953; Bass and Dunteman,
1963; Bass et ., 1963; Dunteman and Bass, 1963; Halpin and Winer,
1957; Katz and Kahn, 1953; Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950; Moore, 1953;
Moore and Smith, 1952; Stouffer et aj.., 1949); however, Korman (1966)
revealed several studies showing no relationship between initiating
structure and performance. Two studies (House, Filley, Gujarati, 1971;
House, Filley and Kerr, 1971) have found a positive relationship between
initiating structure and satisfaction. With regard to supportive
leadership behavior, the typical case seems to be that leaders high in
consideration or expressive behavior have subordinate groups who are high
in measures of satisfaction (Argyle, Gardner and Cioffi, 1958; Baumgartel,
1956, 1957; Comrey, Pfiffner and Wallace, 1954; Danielson and Maier, 1957;
Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Halpin, 1954; Halpin and Winer, 1957;

14
Hemphill, 1957; Indik, Seashore and Georgopoulos, I960; Moore, 1953;
Moore and Smith, 1952; Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964; Patchen, I960;
Seeman, I960; Spector, Clark and Glickman, I960); however, this type
of leadership behavior has also been found to relate positively to
departmental and individual performance (Argyle, Gardner and Cioffi, 1958;
Bláu and Scott, 1962; Indik, Seashore and Georgopoulos, I960; Katz and
Kahn, 1953; Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950; Likert, 1961). Leaders rated
high on both initiating structure and consideration are more likely to
be judged effective by their superiors and to have desirable effects
on productivity and group morale (Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Fleishman
and Simmons, 1970; Halpin, 1954; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Misumi and
Tosaki, 1965; Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964; Shartle, 1956); one study
(Halpin, 1955) has shown that while the effective leaders of air crews
were both structuring and considerate, the same condition was not true
of leaders of educational institutions. Korman (1966) concludes that,
despite the fact that initiating structure and cons{deration have
become almost bywords in American industrial psychology, it seems
apparent that very little is now known as to how these variables
predict work group performance and the conditions which affect such
predictions. Indeed, Lowin, Hrapchak and Kavanagh (1969), after a
thorough reading of the relevant 1 iterature, suggest that there appears
to be much evidence that initiating structure and cons¡deration can each
correlate positively, negatively, both positively and negatively (depending
on other variables) and only weakly if at all with effectiveness and
morale indices. Korman's (1966) review shows a predominance of low to
moderate correlations, almost all of a concurrent nature. There is as
yet almost no evidence on the predictive validity of initiating structure

15
and considerat ion nor on the kinds of situational moderators which might
affect such validity (Korman, 1966).
Given the above results, one cannot reliably predict the relationship
between initiating structure or consideration and task performance.
However, if one must predict the relationship the safer prediction appears
to be that task performance will be better for those leaders who are high
in these dimensions rather than low.
Self-Concept
As Jacobs (1970) has noted, it is important to the individual that
his self-concept be as favorable as possible; the more favorable it is,
the greater will be his assets in social exchange relationships. Although
Coleman .et ah (1966) found no difference in the self-concept of blacks
and whites in the educational setting, many studies of blacks suggest
the presence of an unfavorable self-image (Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969).
Society has fostered a negative self-concept among blacks by nurturing
and rewarding feelings of inferiority and unworthiness (Poussaint and
Atkinson, 1968), and this sort of self-image may account for such behavior
as black parents favoring a 1ight-skinned child (Coles, 1967; Grambs,
1964), dark-skinned men trying to marry wives of a lighter skin color
(Kardiner and Ovesey, 1962), and the tendency of the black child to
identify with the white majority (Clark and Clark, 1947; Goodman, 1952;
Landreth and Johnson, 1953; Morland, 1962; Radke and Trager, 1950;
Stevenson and Stewart, 1958). Considerable research supports the
contention that blacks almost inevitably develop feelings of low self¬
esteem (Ausubel and Ausubel, 1963; Bernard, 1958; Bridgette, 1970; Clark,
1967; Guggenheim, 1969; Jefferson, 1957).
However the "black is beautiful" theme that emerged during the 1960's
raises serious doubts as to the enduring validity of many of these earlier

16
studies. Indeed, recent research does indicate an improved self-image
among blacks, often equalling or exceeding that of whites (Back and
Parmesh, 1969; Carpenter and Busse, 1969; Dennis, 1968; Douglas, 1970;
Greenwald and Oppenheim, 1968; Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969; Hraba and
Grant, 1970; McElroy, 1971; Ogletree, 1969; Ruhe, 1972; White, 1971).
A careful examination of the literature leads one to the conclusion
that variables such as social setting (Ausubel, 1958; Coleman et a1.,
1966; Hodgkins and Strakenas, 1969; Ruhe, 1972), sex (Carpenter and
Busse, 1969) and age (Clark and Clark, 1947; Morland, 1962; Proshansky
and Newton, 1968; Radke and Trager, 1950) are moderating variables in
the determination of self-concepts. Therefore, it is an oversimplication
to generalize and say that black self-concepts are necessarily less
favorable than white self-concepts.
In a recent review concerning self-concept and attitudes, covering
generally the late 1960's, Christmas (1973) found that the research
surveyed fell into three major categories which corroborate the
importance of moderating variables on self-concept:
The first was concerned with the influence of antecedent
factors upon current aspects of self-concept. In these
studies, self-concept was the inferred consequent of familial,
parent-child, or other social interaction; of counseling, guid¬
ance or role modeling; or of variations in learning
experience or educational practice (Allen, 1969; Crovetto,
1968; Crovetto, Fischer and Boudreaux, 1967; Henderson,
1967; Talley, 1968). A number of investigations explored
the possible effects of integrated, desegregated and
segregated schooling on self-attitudes (Bass, 1969;
Bienvenu, 1968; McWhirt, 1967; Strauss, 1967; Taylor, 1968).
The findings were generally inconclusive.
The second major group included studies in which antecedent
self-concept was presumably related to behavior. They
included investigations of self-evaluation and self-esteem
(Guggenheim, 1969; Soares and Soares, 1969; Williams and
Byars, 1969, T970); differences between blacks and whites,
in regard to ethnocentrism and self-acceptance (Freeman et al.,

17
1966; Getter and Satow, 1969; Greenwald and Oppenheim,
1968; Hraba and Grant, 1970); and studies of level-of-
aspiration performance in learning tasks and academic
achievement (Blair, 1972; Caplin, 1966, 1969; Curtis,. 1967;
Freyberg and Shapiro, 1966; Gay, 1966; Greenberg et al/t
1965; Lourenso, Greenberg and Davidson, 1965). Here, too,
results were inconclusive and failed to show a definite
relationship between self-concept, broadly defined, and
behavior.
Finally, a number of research efforts were directed
toward determining possible correlations between self¬
esteem and variables such as occupational level, socio¬
economic status, residence, age, and sex, in blacks and
whites (McDonald and Gynther, 1965; Wendland, 1969; Wylie
and Hutchins, 1967; Yeatts, 1968). Here, at least,
recognition was given to the possibility, for example,
that socioeconomic status might outweigh the factor of
race. Yet, several investigators still compared blacks
of lower socioeconomic status with middle class whites,
while acknowledging this to be a limitation of the study
(Long and Henderson, 1968). The weakness of the design and
the methods of data analysis in these studies contributed
to the resultant lack of solidity in the findings.
Considering these findings on self-concept as a whole and even though
it is evident that black self-concepts are not necessarily less favorable
than white self-concepts, the evidence seems to favor the prediction
that whites will have greater self-esteem than will blacks. Since
leaders high in self-esteem possess a greater transactional asset than
leaders low in self-esteem it is reasonable to expect better task
performance from groups they supervise.
Locus of Control
It is often stated that locus of control is an important determinant
of individual behavior. For example, two review articles (Lefcourt,
1966; Rotter, 1966) have shown that when a person believes that
reinforcements are controlled by internal rather than external forces,
he is likely to make greater attempts at mastering the environment; to
be more resistant to influence attempts by others, yet more effective in

18
attempts to influence others; to prefer high-probability choices in
risk-taking behavior; to be lower in anxiety and higher in achievement
orientation; to act more responsively to probability changes in the
situation; to place higher value on skill determined rewards; and to be
involved in social action (Lao, 1970). Internal-external control is
consistently related to a variety of scales, with internal scorers
describing themselves as more active, striving, achieving, powerful,
independent and effective (Hersch and Scheibe, 1967). Also, internals
are more active in intellectual pursuits and show greater interest in
intellectual activities (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall, 1965;
Crandall, Katkovsky and Preston, 1962).
The research relating to this dimension in groups of blacks and
whites has consistently demonstrated class and racial differences (see,
e.g., Lao, 1970; Lefcourt, 1965; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965b), with a
sense of internal control being stronger in the middle class than in
the working class and stronger in whites than in blacks (Battle and
Rotter, 1963; Coleman est aK, 1966; Crandall, Katovsky and Crandall,
1965; Gurin, 1970; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965a). The interaction of
class and race is such that lower class blacks stand out as having
a particularly external orientation (Battle and Rotter, 1963; Coleman
_et ¿1., 1966; Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965a).
While one study found no racial differences between blacks and
whites in locus of control (Hall, 1969), and even though blacks in one
situation behaved in a more cautious, internal fashion than did
whites (Lefcourt, 1965), blacks as a group seem to feel and behave as
if they have 1imited control of reinforcement. However, as Dreger and
Miller (1968) suggest, this reaction may be a function of the type of

19
situation being studied. Higher achievement scores and grades, greater
academic confidence and higher expectations and aspirations have been
reported on the part of black students with a strong feeling of personal
control (Gur in et aj,., 1969; Lao, 1970). In contrast to studies using
general locus of control measures, those using the Intellectual Achieve¬
ment Responsibility scale (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall, 1965)
report no race effects (Katz, 1967; Solomon, Houlihan and Parelius, 1969)
and only very slight social class effects (Crandall, Katkovsky and Crandall,
1965; Solomon, Houlihan and Parelius, 1969).
Based on the above, it is reasonable to expect that white leaders
will be higher in internal control than black leaders. Further,
regardless of leader race, the performance of groups supervised by
leaders high in internal control should be better than that of groups
supervised by leaders lew in this dimension because they have a
greater transactional asset and because they should be more effective
in influencing others.
Intelligence and Aptitude
The contribution of intelligence to leadership appears to be small
(cf., Shaw, 1971)» but the review by Stogdill (1948) overwhelmingly
indicated that leaders are, on the average, more intelligent than
nonleaders. A low positive correlation between tested intelligence and
leadership behavior is indicated (Bass and Wurster, 1953a, 1953b;
Hollander, 1954). If we can view aptitude for learning as being a
subcategory of intelligence, similar results can be expected.
That blacks, as a group, shew up as deficient in abstract abilities
and score below whites on most measures of academic achievement and
aptitude is well documented (APA, 1969; Baughman and Dahlstrom, 1968;

20
Coleman et _aj_., 1966; Treger and Miller, 1968; Epps, 1969; McFann, 1970;
4
Pettigrew, 1964); however, the significance of this to their performance
as leaders has not been investigated.
With the notable exception above, the ability of tests in general
to distinguish between blacks and whites appears to be subject to
numerous moderating variables; further, their ability to predict per¬
formances for either race appears to be somewhat unreliable. These
conclusions are suggested by evidence such as the following:
(1) On personality-type tests, differences tend to disappear
when black and white subjects are matched on such variables
as intelligence (Thumin and Goldman, 1968) or socioeconomic
status (Flanagan and Lewis, 1969).
(2) Aptitude differences between blacks and whites have remained
even when the subjects were matched on socioeconomic status
(Flanagan and Lewis, 1969).
(3) While some studies strongly confirm that verbal and mathematics
tests predict scholastic performance equally well for blacks and
whites (Boney, 1966;"Cleary, 1966; Cleary and Hilton, 1966;
Munday, 1965; Stanley and Porter, 1967), other studies have
yielded no clear trends in predicting job performance (Gordon,
1955; Kirkpatrick et ¿i., 1967; Tenopyr, 1967), and thus no
firm conclusions are possible (APA, 1969).
(4) Blacks have scored lower than whites on qualification tests
and then have performed equally well on job sample and job
knowledge tests (McFann, 1970).
(5) Blacks have been hired for certain positions for which their
measured intelligence disqualified them and then have gone
ahead and performed satisfactorily ("Merit for Hire," 1958).
(6) The contention that blacks are handicapped on tests of spatial
ability because of an environmental disadvantage has not
always been supported (Osborne and Gregor, 1968).
4
The APA report (1969) offers five possible factors as to why blacks
typically score belcw whites: cultural deprivation, anxiety induced by
the testing situation, unfairness of test content, improper interpretation
of test scores, and lack of content relevance.

21
The positive correlation between tested intelligence and leader
behavior combined with the consideration that a more intelligent person
will have a greater transactional asset than will a less intelligent
person suggests that it is reasonable to expect groups supervised by
leaders high in intelligence to outperform groups supervised by leaders
low in intelligence. This is also suggested by the consideration that
leaders with more intelligence will be able to comprehend and execute
task demands with greater facility.
Job Satisfaction
Depending on the demographic stratum to which they belong, blacks
may have higher, the same or lower job satisfaction that whites
(Feldman, 1972; Kahl and Goering, 1971; Katzel 1, Ewen and Korman, 1970;
Milutinovich, 1971). Although black job attitudes less favorable than
those of whites have been found (Katzel1, Ewen and Korman, 1970), the
evidence heavily favors the conclusion that black workers have job
attitudes as favorable or even more favorable than those of whites
(Feldman, 1972; Katzel1, Ewen and Korman, 1970; Nelson, Achabel and
George, 1971).
Investigating the relationship of race and job satisfaction and
the influence of participative and authoritative supervisory styles on
the job satisfaction of blacks and whites, Milutinovich (1971) found
that race has only limited influence on job satisfaction and that both
blacks and whites had higher job satisfaction under participative than
under authoritative supervision. Black blue- and white-collar workers
had similar job satisfaction, while white blue-collar workers were lower
than white-collar workers. Blacks, regardless of job type, had higher
job satisfaction than white blue-collar workers, but had lower satisfaction
than white white-collar workers.

22
In an extensive exploratory study of hardcore unemployed and
working-class blacks and whites, Feldman (1972) found that black subjects
evaluated several material and social job outcomes more highly than
whites and black working-class subjects rated a variety of outcomes,
including some higher order ones (Maslow, 1954), more highly than any
other group. He summarized his general pattern of results as suggesting
that the black subjects, particularly the working-class, perceive work
as a source of valued rewards, while the white working-class does not.
If differences in satisfaction between black and white leaders are
predicted the more plausible prediction seems to be that black leaders
will indicate greater satisfaction with work and subordinates than
will white leaders. This is suggested by the fact that in this study
the subjects (i.e., Navy enlisted personnel) should typically have
their origins in predominately working-class/blue-col lar environments.
The data suggests that blacks from these origins probably have greater
work-related satisfaction than whites with similar backgrounds.
Miscellaneous Related Research
Much of the available research, while not falling into any of
the previous categories, suggests important differences between blacks
and whites. Although in one study (Veroff et ak, I960) blacks and
whites were shown to be similar, it appears that blacks are less
achievement oriented than whites (Lott and Lott, 1963; Merbaum, 1962;
Mingione, 1965; Rosen, 1959). Consistent with recent studies of black
consciousness and black politics where power is the central theme
(Dizard, 1970; Kelman, 1970; Tomlinson, 1970), blacks have been shown to
have a higher need for power (Greene and Winter, 1971; Veroff et a]^., I960).

23
Further, blacks, relative to whites, (a) generally score lower on need
for dominance and autonomy (Brazziel, 196*0 and self-liking (Clark,
1967), (b) are similar on need for affiliation (Veroff et al., i960) or
high in affiliation (Ferman, Kornbuk, and Miller, 1968), (c) have a
higher degree of self-doubt (Deutsch, I960) and social conformity
(S istrunk, 1971), (d) exhibit essentially the same creative talent
(Doyle, 1970) and (e) place a greater emphasis on verbal interaction
(Kochman, 1969).
Results presented by two studies (Broom and Glenn, 1966; Cameron,
1971) weaken the notion of a separate subculture insofar as such a
culture is indicated by opinion and personality differences. Indeed,
based on these studies, blacks and whites appear far more similar
psychologically than different. Analyzing responses to questions asked
on national public opinion surveys, Broom and Glenn (1966) found, in
general, that black and white differences in attitudes were smaller
than the differences between Southern and non-Southern whites and
between low- and high-education whites. In the other study, Cameron
(1971), using various instruments, found that blacks tested the same as
whites on mascul inity-femininity, extraversión, ego-strength and liking
of the generalized other; higher than whites on religiosity and "claimed
judged liking of the generalized other"; lower than whites on neuroticism
and hostility; and, on a lie scale, there was a slight tendency for
blacks to be more candid. Parallel sex and developmental differences
suggested to Cameron that the differential social influences are much
the same and are handled psychologically £he same for either race.
From these results we can conclude that blacks have stronger power
orientations, are less achievement oriented, emphasize verbal interaction
more and are probably psychologically similar to whites.

24
Relating the above now to the present study, black leaders can be
predicted to have a longer speech duration than white leaders when
directing groups in task accomplishment because of the greater emphasis
blacks place on verbal interaction.
Conclusion
The studies reviewed, particularly those concerning black-white
differences, represent many research designs, populations, situations
and methodologies. Although their results can be considered as suggestive
of enduring differences and thus helpful in understanding black-white
interaction in the work environment, additional research is necessary
to better establish these relationships, particularly in view of the
apparent change in the attitudes and behaviors of blacks since the
mid-1960's. The relative scarcity of blacks in positions of leadership
and supervision has seriously limited the knowledge in this area.
Hypotheses
Based on the literature review, hypotheses relevant to this study
can now be formally advanced. For ease of reference, they have been
categorized into two groups: group I deals with differences between
black and white leaders; group II with differences in task performance
depending upon specific leader attributes.
Group I: BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE LEADERS
A. Groups supervised by white leaders will outperform groups
supervised by black leaders in accomplishing assigned tasks
(where the shortest time for task accomplishment is the
performance criterion).
B. White leaders, as compared to black leaders, will; (a) exhibit
more interpersonal behavior, (b) score higher in self-esteem,
and (c) score higher in internal control.

25
C. Black leaders, as compared to white leaders, will: (a) have
a greater duration of speech, (b) indicate more satisfaction
with subordinates, and (c) indicate more satisfaction with work
in the tasks.
Group II: BETWEEN LEADERS OF THE SAME RACE
For each task, the performance of groups of equal size and of
equal racial composition will be faster when supervised by leaders
who: (a) perceive themselves high in consideration, (b) perceive
themselves high in initiating structure, (c) are rated by their
subordinates as high in consideration, (d) are rated by their subordinates
as high in initiating structure, (e) are high in self-esteem, (f) are
high in internal control, (g) are high in intelligence, compared to
other leaders of the same race who, respectively, are low in these
leader attributes.
Considering the findings and evidence presented in Chapter I as a
whole, it is evident that research and intuition are not clear as to
just what enduring differences exist between blacks and whites in
instances of leadership. This problem has been exacerbated by the
paucity of systematic, empirical information on the subject of black-
white leadership differences. Thus, this area is rather fertile for
study and an investigation focused here is most timely and relevant.
In Chapter II the methodology is presented in detail. Chapter III
presents the analysis and results. Chapter IV contains a summary,
discussion and implications for future research.

CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this study is presented in this chapter
in the following order: (a) subjects, (b) physical environment, (c)
design, (d) tasks, (e) observer training and reliability, (f) procedure
and (g) questionnaire. The study was carried out on the following
dates: August 28-31; September 1, 4-8, 11, 14, 1972. Training for
investigator assistants was conducted on August 28 and 29; data
collection was accomplished during the other days.
Sub jects
The cooperation of the Commanding Officer of a large U. S. Naval
Training Center located in the Southeastern United States was obtained
so that recruits attached to the Recruit Training Command could serve
as subjects. A total of 288 male recruits, 144 black and 144 white,
participated in the study. Sixty-four of these were squad leaders, 32
black and 32 white. A profile of the black and white squad leaders
and members obtained from a biographical questionnaire is shown in
Table 1.
All of the subjects were engaged in the seven week basic training
program prescribed by the Curriculum for Recruit Training (NAV-PERS 92353B,
26

27
TABLE 1
PERSONAL PROFILE OF SQUAD LEADERS AND SQUAD MEMBERS.
Squad Leaders ., Squad Members
Black White Black White
(N=3 2) (N=32) TÑR7T2) (N=112)
Average
19.21
19.00
19.17
18.:
Marital Status (Percent)
Married
3
13
7
4
Single
91
81
92
94
Divorced
6
3
0
1
Separated
0
3
1
0
Average number of Dependents
.34
.37
.48
Region of Birth (Percent)
Southern
94
41
88
56
Non-Southern
6
59
13
44
Region where Raised (Percent)
Southern
94
56
87
62
Non-Southern
6
44
13
38
Type of Community where Raised percent)
Farm Community 9
16
13
11
Small Town
22
28
26
26
Medium/Large City
69
44
55
48
Moved often
0
13
6
15
Perception of Family Income (Percent!
Higher than Average
)
0
13
1
10
About Average
59
84
46
73
Less than Average
28
3
40
13
Very Much Below Average
9
0
8
3
Mostly on Welfare
3
0
5
2
Raised by (Percent)
Mother and Father
56
91
48
78
Mother Only
31
6
36
13
Father Only
0
0
2
4
Others
13
3
14
6
Average Number of Siblings
4.50
2.78
4.87
3.41
Perception of Social Class (Percent)
Upper Class
6
0
6
2
Middle Class
38
66
35
61
Working Class
53
34
57
37
Poverty Class
3
0
1
1
Father's Occupation (Percent)
Unskilled
13
6
20
8
Semi-skilled
44
16
34
18
Skilled
38
44
31
48
Clerical/White Collar
0
25
4
13
Professional
3
9
5
11
Unknown
3
0
6
2
aA11 percentages are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.
In some classifications the percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

28
1968). Recruit training companies were organized as shown in Figure 1.
Squad leaders and occupants of other company positions are selected by
the company commander (who is usually a chief or first-class petty
officer) during the first few days of recruit training, usually on the
basis of the recruits' vita and initial Interviews. The position of
squad leader was selected as the level of leadership comparison in order
to obtain a large enough sample for statistical reliability. According
to the Company Commander's Guide (CRU ITRACOMORL INST 5*+00.1C, 1972),
squad leaders during recruit training have the following as their formal
duties and responsibilities:
(a) Be in charge of and responsible for the men in their squads.
(b) Assist and supervise the men in their squads in attaining high
standards of personal cleanliness, military appearance, conduct
and academic achievement.
(c) Assume responsibility, under the duty platoon leader, for the
performance of their squad on cleaning details.
(d) Insure that the yeoman is kept informed of personnel changes
within their squads.
Random sampling for the selection of participants was not possible
due to the rigor of their training schedule and the uneven distribution
of blacks in some companies. Altogether, thirty companies representing
approximately 2,150 men were canvassed to arrive at the final set of
subjects. To reduce variability in the length of time the squad leaders
and members had been in training as much as possible, selection of the
sample was further restricted to those companies engaged in the fifth day,
fourth week and in the first, second and fourth days, fifth week of
training. These days corresponded to the latest availability possible
for the recruits before entering the latter portion of their training,
during which no periods of availability could be scheduled.

Figure 1
Recruit Company Organization
29
Company Commander
Recruit Chief Petty Officer
Leader Leader Leader
Guide
L Right
Guide
Squad Squad Squad
Leader Leader Leader
-'•Squad *Squad -'Squad
Members:Members Members
-’Squad -Squad -Squad
Members Members Members
*Note: Approximately 8 squad members made up the typical squad.

30
The Navy provided a coordinator as Tiaison between the company
commanders and the researchers. The coordinator, SMCS Jerome F.
Dederick USN, scheduled groups from the appropriate companies on a
day-by-day and as-avaHable basis. He had recently been a company
commander himself and was held in high esteem by his colleagues. Because
of this, all 30 company commanders providing squads for the study were
cooperative and harmonious relations prevailed throughout the duration
of the study.
In selecting groups for study on a particular day, the coordinator
would, during the previous afternoon or evening, ascertain (by
consulting the daily master training schedule) which companies would be
available for possible participation (i.e., to find out those engaged
In the fifth day, fourth week and in the first, second and fourth days,
fifth week of their training and not scheduled for any special activity).
The coordinator, after checking with the investigator to find out what
additional types of groups were needed at that point, would then
contact the commanders of the available companies to solicit their
cooperation. Then the company commander was asked for the racial
distribution of squad leaders and members, and if or when those squads
meeting racial composition needs were available. The company commanders
were told only that the squads were needed for a study concerning the
problem-solving effectiveness of small groups; no mention was made of
leadership or race (although the interracial aspects were undoubtedly
guessed). The company commanders in turn decided which squad leaders
and squad members were to participate. Selection depended upon the
personal availability of the individual subject, not *n the sense of
their volunteering to participate but more in the sense of whether or

31
not they were individually scheduled for some other activity. No known
consistent biasing occurred because the company comnanders were not
told how to select the participants.
This particular setting for the experimental study offered several
advantages:
(1) the population from which the subjects were drawn represented
a fairly wide cross-section of young males, both black and
white (although nearly all of the blacks turned out to be born
and raised in the South; see Table l).
(2) the leaders of the groups studied were, in fact, squad leaders,
who would have been appointed to their position in the same
manner whether or not a study was being conducted;
(3) similarly, the subordinates were, in fact, members of the
squad led by the squad leader who was the leader during the
study;
(4) the phenomena under investigation were studied as they existed,
providing a "natural experiment" as described by Shaw (1971).
Physical Environment
The study was conducted in the Conference Facility at the U.S.
Naval Training Center. Two rooms, each with a one-way window, were
utilized (see Figure 2). Trained observers were able to observe the
participants without disturbing or distracting them. Each room was
equipped with:
(a) a rectangular table and five chairs for the participants,
(b) a desk and chair for the investigator's inside assistant,

Figure 2
Physical Plan of Experiment - Rooms and Observation Stations
0 = squad leader
1 = squad member (3- and 5-man groups)
2 = squad member (3- and 5-man groups)
3 = squad member (5 man group)
4 = squad member (5 man group)
A = investigator's inside assistant
B = black observer
D = desk with stop watches
M = microphone
S = speaker/amplifier
T = table
W = white observer
VjO
N>

33
(c) lengths of rope for knot-tying,
(d) a microphone, on the rectangular table, connected to a
speaker/amplifier operated by the observers on the other
side of the one-way mirror,
(e) stop watches mounted in a specially fabricated rack for
manipulation by the investigator assistant,
(f) a suitable supply of necessary forms and instruction cards.
The observation station outside for each room was provided with:
(a) suitable seating for the observers near the one-way window,
(b) a speaker/ampl ifier located at the observation station,
(c) recording forms and two large clipboards for the observers.
Design
There were 64 subordinate groups in the study:
(1) 16 two member subordinate groups, one black and one
white (designated a Type 0 group);
(2) 16 four member subordinate groups, one black and three
white (designated a Type 1 group);
(3) 16 four member subordinate groups, two black and two
white (designated a Type 2 group);
(4) 16 four member subordinate groups, three black and one
white (designated a Type 3 group).
Eight different black and eight different white squad leaders supervised
one of the four types of subordinate groups shown above, allowing 64
leaders in all to participate. In way of clarification, the term
group denotes a group that includes the leader plus the subordinates;
the term subordinate group denotes a group consisting of subordinates
only.
The study addressed itself to the effects of three factors: (l)
leader race, (2) group size and (3) group racial composition. Leader

race was varied by having equal numbers of black and white squad leaders
in charge of groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition.
Group size was varied by holding racial composition constant at 50
percent and varying the number in the subordinate group from two to four.
Group racial composition was varied by holding subordinate group size
constant at four and varying the number of members of each race from
one to three (and thus racial composition was 25 percent, 50 percent and
75 percent black or white). The four-member size and 50 percent racial
composition subordinate group is common to both the analysis of data
with subordinate group size varying and the analysis of data with
subordinate group racial composition varying. Otherwise, size and racial
composition would be confounding variables. Data analysis between
subordinate groups of varying size but equal racial composition was
accomplished by utilizing Type 0 and Type 2 groups, and between
subordinate groups of varying racial composition but equal size,
Types 1, 2 and 3. Basically, the result was a 2-X-4 factorial design
as shown in Figure 3.
Within the framework of the 2-X-4 design, the following were
stud ied:
(1) interpersonal behavior (defined to be the group interaction
processes),
(2) leader's style of leadership (directive versus non-directive),
(3) leader's social-emotional behavior (positive versus negative),
(4) group performance for two tasks (i.e,, the time for completing
each task) ,
(5) leader's and subordinate's duration of speech during each of the
tasks,
(6) leader's and subordinate's self-esteem,
(7) leader's satisfaction with the subordinates and the tasks,

Figure 3
Schema of the Basic Research Design
Group Type
0
2
3
Leader
B
B
B
B
Subordinates
BW
BWWW
BBWW
BBBW
Number of Groups
8
8
8
8
Leader
W
w.
w
W
Subordinates
BW
BWWW
BBWW
BBBW
Number of Groups
8
8
8
8
B = black subject
W = white subject

36
(8) subordinate's satisfaction with the leader, the tasks and
fellow subordinates,
(9) leader's perception of his initiating structure and consideration.
(10) subordinate's perception of the leader's initiating structure
and consideration,
(11) leader's and subordinate's generalized expectancies for
internal versus external control,
(12) leader's general intelligence.
The Bales (1950) interaction Process Analysis was used to measure
the group interaction processes (cf., Zdep, 1969; Richards and Jaffee,
1972; Katzell et al.. 1970; Ruhe, 1972). Initiations of interaction
in each of the 12 I PA categories by all leaders and subordinates were
recorded by trained observers while the tasks were being performed.
Two observers were used in scoring the I PA to establish reliability for
the observation process. In this situation one black and one white male
observer were used to observe each group session in an effort to
compensate for possible perceptual differences. No female observers were
used.
Certain categories of the IPA have been interpreted as reflecting
directive and non-directive leadership (Katzell et-al#., 1970). IPA
categories 4 (giving suggestions), 5 (giving opinion) and 6 (giving
information) were interpreted as directive, while categories 7 (asking
for information), 8 (asking for opinion) and 9 (asking for suggestions)
were interpreted as non-directive. Style of leadership was assumed to
be measured by these categories.
In a similar way IPA categories l (shows solidarity), 2 (shows
tension release) and 3 (agrees) were interpreted as positive social-
emotional behavior in the same sense as presented by Bales (1950), while
categories 10 (disagrees), 11 (shows tension) and 12 (shows antagonism)
were interpreted as negative social-emotional behavior.

37
The time required to complete each of the two tasks was used as a
measure of the group performance under the direction of the squad leader.
The time required was recorded, with the assumption that the less the
time needed for task accomplishment, the better the performance. No
quality considerations were given to group performance.
Speech duration for each group member during both tasks was
recorded on time-accumulating stop watches activated by the investigator's
inside assistant. This method has been shown to be a reliable technique
for recording absolute duration of speech (Bass, I960; Jaffee, Cohen
and Cherry, 1972). This measure was assumed to reflect the degree of
participation by the individual group members.
Self-esteem of each group member was measured by two instruments;
(l) the self-esteem portion (adult and student form) of the Self-Other
Orientation Tasks of Ziller (1971) (see Appendix D) and (2) the Self-
Esteem Scale of Rosenberg (1965) (see Appendix E).
Self-esteem, according to Ziller (1968), is the component of the self
system concerning the individual's perception of his worth within a
social context. The stem presents a horizontal array of six circles and
a list of significant other people such as a friend, a selfish person,
grandmother, someone you hope to be like, a principal and yourself.
The task requires the subject to assign each person to a circle. The
score is the weighted position of the self. In accordance with the
cultural norm, positions to the left are associated with higher self¬
esteem (Ziller, 1971). This assumption has been examined and validated
in a series of separate studies (cf., Ziller, Megas and DeCencio, 1964;
Henderson, Long and Ziller, 1965; Mossman and Ziller, 1968; Z iller et al.,
1969).

38
In contrast to Ziller's instrument, Rosenberg's 10*item
Guttman scale is designed to measure attitude toward the self along
a favorable-to-unfavorable dimension. Rosenberg designed the scale
with several criteria in mind, one being his conception of Self-
esteem (Rosenberg, 1965):
When we speak of high self-esteem, then, we
shall simply mean that the individual respects himself,
considers himself worthy; he does.not necessarily con¬
sider himself better than others, but he definitely does
not consider himself worse; he does not feel that he is
the ultimate in perfection but, on the contrary, recog¬
nizes his limitations and expects to grow and improve.
Low self-esteem, on the other hand, implies self¬
rejection, self-dissatisfaction, self-contempt. The
individual lacks respect for the self he observes. The
self-picture is disagreeable, and he wishes it were
otherwise.
The 10 Items, all of the Likert type, are scored through the use of
contrived items (Stouffer et jal ., 1952) to yield a seven point scale.
Rosenberg (1965), before the larger study reported therein, pretested
the instrument and found a significant association between the
individual's self-esteem and the likelihood that he would appear
depressed to others. Not only were people with low self-esteem
scores more likely to appear depressed to others but they were also
more likely to express feelings of unhappiness and discouragement .
A pilot sociometric investigation of 272 high school seniors (also
reported in Rosenberg, 1965) found that individuals rated low in
self-esteem by the instrument: (1) were less likely to be selected
as a leader by two or more classmates; (2) were judged as less
likely to be chosen by others if an election were held; (3) were
less likely to be described as active participants in classroom

39
discussions; and (4) were more likely to be described as relatively
subdued and inactive in classroom discussions. In the larger study
of slightly over 5,000 high school juniors and seniors (Rosenberg,
1965), he found that students with low self-esteem were léss likely
than those with high self-esteem to be active participants in
formal groups, to be active and frequent participants in informal
discussions, to be informal opinion leaders, and to be formal group
leaders. He also mentions in a footnote (p. 30) that a study by
E. Silber and J. S. Tippett showed a test-retest reliability of .85
for a group of college students retested after two weeks. The Rosen»-
berg instrument was included in addition to the Ziller instrument
because it is based upon verbal self-report rather than spatial
abstraction.
individual satisfaction with subordinates, tasks, leader,
and/or fellow subordinates was measured using selected scales of
the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) described by Smith (1967) and
Smith, Kendall, and Hul in (1969). The JDI in its complete form
measures satisfaction in five areas: type of work, pay, oppor¬
tunities for promotion, supervision and co-workers. For each area
there is a list of adjectives or short phrases, and the respondent
is nstructed to indicate whether or not each word or phrase applies
to the facet in question (e.g., the supervision) by circling Y
for yes or N for no. If he cannot decide if a word or phrase
applies, he is asked to circle a question mark. All group members
completed the work scale (see Appendix H) as a measure of satisfaction
with the tasks. Only the squad members completed the supervision

scale (see Appendix I) as a measure of satisfaction with the squad
leader. Both the squad leaders and the squad members completed
the co-workers scale; the leaders rated their subordinates indi¬
vidually (see Appendix J), while the squad members rated their
fellow subordinates (see Appendix K). Smith, Kendall and Hulin feel
that the JDI has several advantages as a measure of satisfaction:
it is directed toward specific areas of satisfaction rather than
global or general satisfaction, the verbal level required to answer
the JDI is quite low, and the responses are not self-referent.
There is a deliberate attempt to avoid the use of a self-referent,
since the basic needs or drives of the organism or their relevance
to satisfaction are not clearly established.
Assessment of the squad leader's perception of his own initi¬
ating structure and consideration was acccmplished through the use
of the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (see Appendix F), described
by Fleishman (1957b). This 40-item instrument was designed to
provide independent measures of initiating structure and cons¡dera¬
tion in 1eadership-group situations where primary concern is in the
assessment of leadership attitudes. Internal consistency as well
as test-retest reliability has been assessed (DiVesta, 1954; Fleish¬
man, Harris, and Burtt, 1955; Harris and Fleishman, 1955); reliability
for initiating structure was .67-.74, and for consideration. .77-
.80. Validity has been evaluated through correlations with inde¬
pendent leadership measures, such as merit rating by supervisors,
peer ratings, forced-choice performance reports by management and
leaderless group situation tests (Fleishman, 1957b).

41
Assessment of the leader's initiating structure and considerat ion
by subordinates was acccmplished through the use of the Supervisory
Behavior Description (see Appendix G), described by Fleishman
(1957a). This 48-item instrument is meant to parallel the Leadership
Opinion Questionnaire in scope and purpose. Reliability has been
assessed in terms of internal consistency, inter-rater agreement,
and stability of repeated measures over time (Fleishman, Harris, and
Burtt, 1955; Harris and Fleishman, 1955); reliability for initiating
structure was .46-.53, and for consideration, .55-.58. Its validity
has also been assessed through correlations with independent leadership
measures, such as objective group indices (absenteeism, turnover),
productivity ratings, peer ratings, and leadership group situation
tests (Fleishman, 1957a).
Both the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire and Supervisory
Behavior Description are considered independent of the general
intelligence of respondents (Fleishman, 1957a, 1957b). While both
initiating structure and cons¡deration were found to be orthogonal
in factor analyses by Fleishman (1953) and Halpin and Winer (1957),
which has been interpreted as suggesting that the two are independent
(Fleishman, 1953, 1957a; Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Stanton, I960),
recent evidence (Lowin, Hrapchak. and Kavanagh, 1969) suggests a
relationship between them.
Expectancy for internal versus external control was measured
by Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Control Scale (see Appendix C).
The instrument and its developmental history is documented in
Rotter's (1966) monograph. In Rotter's theory, the control construct

42
is considered a generalized expectancy, operating across a large
number of situations, which relates to whether or not the indi4
vidual possesses or lacks power over what happens to him.
Individuals are conceived to vary along a "locus of control"
dimension, with the end points labeled internal and external. The
29-item, forced-choice scale has a test-retest reliability that is
consistent and acceptable. Little relationship has been found
between intelligence and control measures (Hersch and Scheibe,
1967; Lefcourt, 1966; Rotter, 1966). There is, however, some evi¬
dence that intelligence is positively related to perceived internal
control (Bialer, 1961; Crandall, Katkovsky, and Preston, 1962).
The general intelligence of leaders was measured by the U.S.
Navy Basic Test Battery (BTB) given to all recruits upon entering
the recruit training program. This battery consists of four
peneil-and-paper examinations: (1) the general classification test
(GCT), (2) an arithmetic test (AR1) , (3) a mechanical ability test
(MECH), (4) a clerical ability test (CLER). The class ificatJon
tests are primarily designed to measure an individual's aptitude
or capability for learning, rather than his achievement. For the
BTB, the raw score is converted to a Navy Standard Score (NSS) .
According to the Manual of Enlisted Classification Procedures
(NAVPERS 15812B, 1970), the NSS is designed to provide standardiza¬
tion in test score recording and is meant to ease the function of
score comprehension, comparison, and interpretation; it is distributed
normally, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The
BTB is designed primarily to determine minimum eligibility for
service schools.

43
These scores were extracted from recruit records. The sum of
the four individual scores on the GCT, ARI, MECH. and CLER tests
was considered a measure of general intellectual ability.
Tasks
Two structured, verbal tasks were employed in this study: a
knot-tying and a ship-routing task. Both were selected because of
their applicability to a situation involving Navy recruits, and to
assure interaction between the leaders and subordinates in accom¬
plishing the tasks. They differ largely in the degree to which
verbal skill is required. The knot-tying task was instructional and
emphasized a certain degree of spatial orientation and physical
dexterity. The ship-routing task required the coordination of
information provided only to the subordinates and emphasized a certain
degree of mental agility. Both types of tasks were used by Ruhe
(1972); the ship-routing task is similar to that used by Fiedler
(1967).
The knot-tying task required that group members each perform
satisfactorily the physical task of tying a Double Carrick Bend.
This unusual knot, used in the maritime world for joining two hawsers
together (a hawser is a large rope by which a ship is towed), was
selected in an effort to eliminate the possibility of prior knowledge
by any of the subjects, due perhaps to membership in various youth
groups or an early nautical interest.

Prior to commencement of the task, the leader was given an
instruction sheet (see Appendix M), face down, displaying how to tie
the knot, and each group member was given two lengths of rope. After
receiving directions for task accomplishment (see Appendix N) from
the investigator's assistant, the signal to begin was given. The
leader instructed the subordinates hew to tie the knot and they were
asked to duplicate it. Group members were permitted to give verbal
but not physical help so that group effort and verbal interaction
would be enhanced. After all subordinates had tied the knot, and
upon a signal from the leader, the assistant determined whether or
not the knot had been tied correctly by each subordinate. The per¬
formance of the group was measured by the total elapsed time for the
instruction by the leader and the duplication of the knot by the
subordinates. If the task was not completed within 25 minutes,
the assistant was instructed to take the leader outside the room
and show him how to properly tie the knot. The leader then would
return and continue instructions.
The ship-routing task has been rated high on cooperation re¬
quirements, decision verifiability, and intellectual-manipulative
requirements (Shaw, 1963). In this problem each group was asked to
find, in the least amount of time, the shortest route for a ship to
leave one port and touch at each of four other ports.
Each member was given a copy of the instruction sheet (see
Appendix 0) showing a diagram designed to assist in arriving at the
shortest route combination. Pencils were also provided. With the

*6
same intent as Fiedler (1967), i.e., assuring that group members
will have to interact to solve the problem, each subordinate received
only partial information concerning the distances and availability
of the routes between ports. For a five-port problem, there are 10
elements of information (e.g., the distance from A to B is 150 miles
by direct route). Each element was listed on a small index card
(see Appendix P). In addition, two cards with no information were
included where the total number of cards would be divisible by two
and by four. For a three-man group, each squad member was given six
information cards, randomly chosen; for a five-man group, three
cards, also randomly chosen. Cards could not be exchanged; all
information had to be transmitted verbally. A second ship-routing
problem, having information and a solution exactly double that shown
in Appendix P, was used whenever a second group or groups from the
same company performed the task subsequent to a first group or groups
without an intervening time period. This was done in case the
solution to the first problem was compromised when the first group
or groups returned to the barracks. Between company communication
was virtually zero under regular circumstances. However, within
company communication was greater because each company occupied one
large room in the barracks.
After receiving directions for task accomplishment (see
Appendix N) from the assistant, the signal to begin was given.
When the group members were satisfied they had reached a correct
solution, the leader signaled the assistant. The assistant then

determined if the solution was correct. If the correct solution was
not reached in three attempts, the task instructions were repeated
and the group was allowed to continue. If the correct solution was
i
not reached after two more attempts, the squad leader was given a
copy of the available route combinations (see Appendix Q) and the
group was allowed to continue. The performance of the group was
measured by the total elapsed time required to solve the problem.
Observer Training and Reliability
Eight men, four black and four white, were hired to assist the
investigator. All were trained as I PA observers and investigator
assistants. Of the four blacks, two (both 24 years old) held
Bachelor's degrees and were seeking admission to graduate school,
while the other two (both 21 years old) were upper division under¬
graduate students. All of the four whites were graduate students;
they were 22, 23, 23. and 26 years of age. One of the white ob¬
servers was familiar with the I PA and provided valuable assistance
during the training period and during the subsequent data collection.
An additional graduate student was hired only to assist in the
training of observers. Chapter 3 and the Appendix of Bales (1950)
were used as the fundamental training materials. Each observer was
provided a personal copy of this material for study and consultation.
After being familiarized with the 12 I PA categories and the
applicable definitions, the observers practiced observing and
recording the types of interactions that could be expected in each

category. Mock knot-tying and ship-routing task sessions and motion
pictures were used. Observer teams of one white and one black were
established and maintained throughout the study. Approximately
17-1/2 hours were devoted to establishing initial observer relia¬
bility; after training, agreement within each observer team was 80
percent or better. After establishing initial observer reliability,
three pilot sessions using recruits as subjects served to familiarize
all concerned with the tasks, desired procedures, techniques, and
methods, and to seek out and solve operational problems. Originally,
the ship-routing task was planned as a six-port problem. During the
first three sessions it became obvious that this problem was too
difficult and time consuming to be suitable. Thus, the ship-routing
problem was changed to a five-port problem similar to that used by
Ruhe (1972).
When both study rooms were in use, one black/white observer
team observed the tasks in each study room; one black served as an
assistant inside one room, while one white performed the same duties
in the other room; one black and one white served as assistants
outside the study rooms in such things as administering question¬
naires, coding data for subsequent analysis, and transporting
recruits. The inside assistant conducted the task sessions by means
of a prepared script. He recorded the task performance times and
the individual duration of speech by means of stop watches.
Interrater reliability between black and white observers
(Table 2) was calculated for each team, over both tasks and each

48
TABLE 2
RELIABILITY BETWEEN BLACK AND WITE OBSERVERS
Knot-Tying Task Ship-Routing Task
Observer Team Observer Team
IPA
Category
1
2
Jl
4
1
2
. _1
4
1.
Shows sol idarity
86
72
61
93
89
98
86
96
2.
Shews tension release
86
55
54
64
75
84
51
79
3.
Agrees
87
49
78
64
92
64
71
69
4.
Gives suggestion
96
94
87
89
88
87
85
72
5.
Gives opinion
87
64
45
74
78
75
68
82
6.
Gives information
89
53
57
68
90
78
39
46
7.
Asks for information
84
45
23
17
93
87
73
81
8.
Asks for opinion
53
18
40
00
83
57
58
37
9.
Asks for suggestion
87
29
31
50
85
36
68
57
10.
Disagrees
85
76
55
66
92
85
68
30
11.
Shows tension
60
78
74
66
87
81
58
79
12.
Shows antagonism
lit
11
H
8¿
86
84
Team Average
81
59
57
56
86
77
67
67
No., of subjects
observed
95
74
84
35
95
74
84
35
Weighted observer reliability for knot-tying task 65
Weighted observer reliability for ship-routing task 76
Overall observer reliability 71
NOTE: All numbers are rounded to nearest whole percentage point.

49
I PA category, to obtain the agreement between the observers. For
each task, the average reliability over all I PA categories was
calculated for each team. Then, because the number of subjects
observed was not equal for each team, a weighted observer reliability
was calculated for each task. The overall interrater reliability of
.71 was obtained by averaging the weighted figure reliability for
each task. (All figures are based on the intraclass correlation;
[Snedecor and Cochran, 1967].)
Procedure
Nearly all of the groups participating in the study had to be
transported by private automobile from the Recruit Training Command
section of the Naval Training Center to the Conference Facility, a
distance of approximately one mile. The number, size, and composi¬
tion of the groups varied depending upon the availability of the
subjects. Two groups could be studied at one time; individual
sessions were conducted during the day and at night. If other groups
were waiting, arriving groups were escorted to an unused area of the
building and not permitted to come within earshot of the proceedings.
The study rooms had closed doors whenever groups were under study
and the observers were stationed at the one-way windows (which could
not be seen by waiting groups). Thus, none of the groups had any
prior knowledge of the study methods.
At the onset of the study, an effort was made to schedule the
same number of black and white leaders with black and white inside

investigator assistants and balance them between the two rooms to
minimize racial experimenter effects (Sattler, 1970). This proved
impossible when it became necessary to schedule groups at night,
since there were too many conflicts between the schedules of the
subjects and the observers. The presence of a visible black at
some time during each of the sessions was designed to mitigate any
racial experimenter effects.
Upon arrival at the Conference Facility, the participants were
escorted either to a study room or to a waiting area. As a group
entered the study room they were greeted by the assistant; the
squad leader was asked to sit at the middle position on one side of
a rectangular table, and the squad members were asked to sit alpha¬
betically at positions 1 and 2 or 1, 2, 3, and k, depending on group
size (see Figure 2). Alphabetical seating was done to randomize
the racial seating arrangement.
The purpose of the study was explained as an analysis of the
problem-solving effectiveness of groups (Katzell et al_., 1970).
They were told that they would perform two tasks. The participants
were informed that two additional observers besides the assistant
giving the instructions were necessary for the analysis but had to
sit outside and listen by means of a microphone on the table because
of the physical arrangement of the room. The importance of com¬
pleting the tasks as rapidly as possible was stressed by telling the
group they were in "friendly competition" with other squads. This
phrase has special meaning for the recruits. It means that they
are in competition and should perform as best they can, but no

51
special reward will be forthcoming. To further enhance their desire
to perform effectively, they were told that their company commander
would be informed as to how well they compared with all the squads
participating in the study. The group was told that the squad
leader was in charge due to the way they are organized during recruit
training. This was mentioned in an effort to enhance the leadership
position of the squad leader and stress the idea that the squad
leader was the one to be in charge of the group during the task
performance. The same introduction was made to each group from a
prepared script (see Appendix N).
The group then received instructions for the knot-tying task.
Individual duration of speech for the task for each group member
was recorded on time-accumulating stop watches. When a member of
the group began to talk the assistant started the watch and allowed
it to run until the member stopped talking. Thus, total verbal
participation time was measured for each member of the group.
Another stop watch recorded the total time for task completion.
After completing the first task, instructions were given for
accomplishing the ship-routing task. Again, individual duration of
speech and total task completion time were measured.
Upon completion of the second task, the group was ushered from
the study room to an unused area of the building. No conversing
with a waiting group was allowed. Each subject was given a ques¬
tionnaire booklet, one type for squad leaders and another type for
squad members. After receiving brief instructions emphasizing
the need to complete every item in the booklet, the participants

52
were encouraged to relax and complete the questionnaire at their own
pace. Each subject was asked to complete his booklet without dis¬
cussing his responses with fellow recruits. Coffee and donuts (when
available) were offered and smoking was permitted (this was a
privilege for the recruits).
After the questionnaire was completed by the group member,
it was checked by one of the assistants and then double-checked by
the Investigator to assure that the individual responded to every
question and to look for response sets. When found (and this
occurred only about four or five times), the investigator would
first attempt to determine if the responses were genuine and then,
if the individual agreed that he had not been careful in responding,
he was asked to reconsider his answers. They were thanked for
participating in the study and cautioned not to discuss any details
of the study with other recruits back in the barracks. The idea of
the friendly competition was again raised in an effort to solicit
their cooperation.
Questionnaire
Two different questionnaire booklets were prepared: one for
squad leaders and one for squad members. Each booklet consisted
of several separate items arranged in the order indicated by the
following 1ist:

53
I tern
Cover Sheet
Personal Questionnaire
Internal versus External
Control Scale (I EC)
Zil1er Self-Esteem Instru¬
ment (ZSE)
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSE)
Leadership Opinion Ques¬
tionnaire (LOQ)
Supervisory Behavior
Description (SBD)
Job Descriptive Index for
Satisfaction
with tasks (JDI-GT)
with squad leader (JDI-SL)
with subordinates (JDI-S)
with fellow subordinates
(JDI-FS)
Final Sheet
Appl ¡cable to
Leader Member
For example of
questionnaire,
see Appendix
X
X
A
X
X
B
X
X
C
X
X
D
X
X
E
X
-
F
-
X
G
X
X
H
-
X
1
X
-
J
-
X
K
X
X
L
The various instruments were headed by the above indicated
letter designations to keep from disclosing what the particular
instrument measured, especially in the case of the two self-esteem
measures and the internal-external control measure, and for ease in
verbal identification whenever recruits were present.

The Personal Questionnaire contained a biographical data sheet
(see Table 1 for results), a short 10-item general satisfaction survey,
and asked for squad members' feelings about the squad leader, the
name of the best squad leader in the company, the rank desired
during first enlistment. and the perceived odds for making the rank.
The biographical data was requested to check on the similarity of
the subjects and to compare these subjects to those used in Ruhe's
(1972) study. The satisfaction survey was intended to assess a
general attitude toward several activities related to recruit train¬
ing, home life, and life in general. The intent behind asking for a
sociometric rating of the leader by the subordinates was to see if
Hack and white squad members would differ in their personal liking
for their particular leader. Having all of the subjects nominate
the best squad leader in their company was intended to see if sub¬
ordinates would choose their own leader more or less often than
another squad leader, and to see if leaders would choose themselves
more or less often than another squad leader. Each subject was
asked to indicate the rank he would like to reach during his first
enlistment in an effort to estimate his level of aspiration, and,
similarly, he was asked to indicate his feeling as to the odds of
making this rank in an effort to estimate his expectancy of
success.

CHAPTER I 11
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This chapter is divided into two parts: (a) Methods of
AnaiysIs and (b) Results.
Methods of Analysis
This part of the chapter presents the methods used in analyzing
the data and is subdivided into the following sections: (a) Inter¬
action Process Analysis Scoring, (b) Between Black and White Leaders,
(c) Between Leaders of the Same Race, (d) Between Black and White
Subordinates. (e) Between Groups and (f) Additional Data.
Interaction Process Analysis Scoring
The behavioral data collected utilizing the I PA is essentially
count data possessing the characteristics of the Poisson distribution.
The basic conditions defining the Poisson distribution (Burford,
1968) are: (l) that the distribution is independent through time or
space (i.e., that the probability of occurrence of an event in any
given interval of time or space is independent of other such inter¬
vals), (2) that increasing or decreasing the interval of time or
space increases or decreases proportionately the probability of
55

56
occurrence of an event, (3) that if the given interval of time or
space is small the probability of two or more occurrences of the
event within the interval is also very small and (4) that the
probability of X occurrences of the event in the interval increases
or decreases continuously as the interval increases or decreases
continuously.
The raw count data observed by the black and white observers
for each subject in each I PA category was converted to frequency per
unit time for each task and then 1¡nearly transformed into whole
numbers by multiplication by a factor of 10,000 and rounding to the
nearest whole number. The transformed data was then given a square
root transformation in an effort to achieve uniform variance. The
square root of Poisson count data yields a response that will possess
approximately a constant variance independent of its mean (Mendenhall,
1968).
The transformed count data for each of the two observers in
each I PA category were added together (by task) to arrive at a score.
Thus, for each task, every subject had 12 scores, one for each of the
I PA categories. To arrive at a score for positive social-emotional
behavior for each leader, the scores in I PA categories 1 (shows
solidarity), 2 (shows tension release) and 3 (agrees) were summed;
similarly, a score for negative social-emotional behavior was calcu¬
lated by adding the scores in categories 10 (disagrees), 11 (shows
tension), and 12 (shows antagonism). To arrive at a score for
directive leadership for each leader, the scores in I PA categories

57
4 (giving suggestions), 5 (giving opinion) :and 6 (giving information)
were summed; similarly, a score for non-directive leadership was
calculated by adding the scores in categories 7 (asking for informa¬
tion) , 8 (as king for opinion) and 9 (asking for suggestions).
Between Black and White Leaders
Differences in the various measures between leaders for the
four group types were analyzed using a 2-X-4 analysis of variance
(ANOVA) design with eight observations per cell. An ANOVA was run
for each of the following: (a) group performance for both tasks;
(b) each I PA category for both tasks to analyze interpersonal be¬
havior; (c) self-esteem (ZSE); (d) self-esteem (RSE) ; (e) internal
control; (f) duration of speech for both tasks; (g) satisfaction with
subordinates; (h) satisfaction with the work during both tasks;
(i) positive social-emotional behavior for both tasks; (j) negative
social-emotional behavior for both tasks; (k) directive leadership
behavior for both tasks and (l) non-directive leadership behavior
for both tasks. While the RSE score is essentially an ordinal
measure and would normally be analyzed using non-parametric tech¬
niques, the number of data points on the scale (i.e., seven) is
sufficient to allow the data to be analyzed by an ANOVA due to the
robustness of the technique.
Between Leaders of the Same Race
Comparisons between leaders of the same race were analyzed
using the ANOVA method. To understand how these analyses were
accomplished the example of black leader, equal racial composition
group, is presented. The median score for each attribute

58
(e.g., self-rated cons¡deration) of the black leaders for Type 0 and
Type 2 groups was established. A high attribute classification was
given to scores above the median; low, to those below the median.
Ties were broken by random selection. The performance time (for one
task) associated with the black leaders, within a group type and
classified as high versus low in the attribute, became the cell
entries for a 2-X-2 ANOVA, where the two rows represented a high
versus low classification and the two columns represented a Type 0
group versus a Type 2 group. Therefore, for black leaders, equal
racial composition situation, two 2-X-2 ANOVAs were performed:
(a) one for the knot-tying task and (b) one for the ship-routing
task. For the black leader, equal size group situation, high and low
classifications were again established and two 2-X-3 ANOVAs were run
for each attribute, where the rows represented the high versus low
classification and the columns represented Types 1, 2 and 3 groups.
Thus, four ANOVAs (i.e., two 2-X-2 for the equal racial composition
situation and two 2-X-3 for the equal size situation) were performed
for each attribute over each leader type. Specifically, a multi¬
variance general linear hypothesis program, BMDX63 (Dixon, 1969),
was run for each ANOVA to Investigate the performance of subordinate
groups of equal size and equal racial composition supervised by black
and white leaders, using high and lew classifications of: (a)
consideration (self-rated); (b) initiating structure (self-rated);
(c) considerat ion (subordinate-rated); (d) initiating structure
(subordinate-rated) ; (e) self-esteem, using both the ZSE and RSE

59
scores; (f) internal control and (g) intelligence. The subordinate¬
rated scores for consideration and initiating structure were means
for the ratings given by all subordinates (black and white) for the
particular group type.
Between Black and White Subordinates
Within each subordinate group type, differences in the various
measures between subordinates were analyzed for each leader type
using the t-statistic. For every individual subordinate measure,
the average black subordinate score was subtracted from the average
white subordinate score to arrive at a "difference between" score
for each group type and leader type. A Z-X-k ANOVA with eight
"difference between" scores per cell was then run. A t-statistic for
each cell of the 2-X-4 matrix was then computed by dividing the
individual cell mean by the square root of the quantity: mean square
error divided by the number of observations in the cell. This was
accomplished for each of the following: (a) each I PA category for
both tasks to analyze interpersonal behavior; (b) duration of speech
for both tasks; (c) self-esteem, using both ZSE and RSE scores; (d)
internal control; (e) satisfaction with fellow subordinates;
(f) satisfaction with the leader and (g) satisfaction with work in
the tasks.
Between Groups
Differences in the various measures between groups were analyzed
using the ANOVA technique. Excepting performance of the group for
both tasks (which was analyzed as a between leader measure), a

60
group score for each measure in question was calculated by taking
the average of the measure for the particular group type. The
average included both leader and subordinates. A 2-X-4 ANOVA with
eight observations per cell was then run for each of the following:
(a) each I PA category for both tasks; (b) duration of speech for
both tasks; and (c) satisfaction with work in the tasks.
Additional Data
The data obtained by means of the Personal Questionnaire was
analyzed by various methods. The general satisfaction survey score
was analyzed in exactly the same manner as the other individual
attributes were analyzed. Analysis of the leader sociometric rating by
group members was accomplished either through the use of the t-statistic
with a pooled variance estimator (Mendenhall, 1971) or with the z-
statistic, as appropriate. Comparisons were made by group type, by
leader type,and by leader for all subordinate types. Analysis of
the nomination made by individual subjects for the best squad
2
leader in their company was accomplished through the use of the X
test statistic for the chi-square distribution. Two-by-two contin¬
gency tables were used to provide the test statistic for comparing:
(a) both subordinate types under black leaders, (b) both sub¬
ordinate types under white leaders, (c) black subordinates nominating
their own leader as the best, (d) white subordinates nominating their
own leader as the best and (e) both leader types nominating them-
2
selves as the best. The X test statistic included Yates' correction
for continuity (Champion, 1970). The question concerning the rank
which each subject would like to reach and the question concerning

the odds to make that rank were analyzed through the use of the z-
statistic, with the following comparisons being made: (a) between
leaders, (b) between subordinates, (c) black leader to both sub¬
ordinate types, (d) white leader to both subordinate types and
(e) black subjects to white subjects.
All significance testing was standardized and performed at the
.05, .01 and .001 levels of significance. If an abbreviated form is
used in presenting results, the following shorthand notation will
be used: (1) black leaders and white leaders will be designated
BL and WL, respectively; (2) black subordinates and white subordi¬
nates will be designated BS and WS, respectively; (3) group types
0, 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., 2-person, equal racial composition subordinate
groups, and 4-person subordinate groups with 1, 2 or 3 blacks,
respectively) will be designated TO, TI, T2 and T3, respectively;
(4) the high/low classification within leader types will be desig¬
nated HI and L0, respectively; and (5) the cells of the various two-
way matrices will be designated by the row variable and group type,
separated by a slant (for example, BL/T3 means black leader,
Type 3 group). Figure 4 summarizes both the shorthand notation
and the designs for data testing.
Results
This part of the chapter presents the tests of the various
hypotheses and incidental data. It is divided into the following
sections: (a) Differences Between Black and White Leaders.

62
Figure k
Notation and Designs for Data Testing
Design for testing data between black and white leaders:
Group Type
Leader
7T5T
mz
(A)
(B)
Black
TblT
BL/TO
BL/T1
BL/T2
BL A3
White
(WL)
WL/TO
WL/T1
M-A2
WL A3
ting data
between
leaders
of the same race:
Size Subordinate Groups
Attribute
Group Type
Class ification
TnT”
Tf!T
High
m
Hl/Tl
HI/T2
HI A3
Low
(LO)
L0/T1
L0/T2
L0A3
Racial Composition Subordinate Groups
Attribute
Group Type
Class ification
(TO)
(T2)
High
thtt
HI/TO
HI/T2
Low
(LO)
LO/TO
L0/T2
ting data
between
black and white subordinates:
Group Type
Leader
Tro)
(Tl)
(T2)
w
Black
"TblT
WS-BS
WS-BS
WS-BS
WS-BS
White
(WL)
WS-BS
WS-BS
WS-BS
WS-BS
ting data
between
groups:
Group Type
Leader
TfoT“
(Tl)
(T2J
(T?)
Black
TblT
BL/TO
BLA1
BLA2
BLA3
White
(WL)
WL/TO
WL/T1
WLA2
WLA3

63
(b) Differences Between Leaders of the Same Race and (c) Incidental
Results.
Differences Between Black and White Leaders
This section reports the results of the tests run on the Group I
hypotheses.
Group performance. Hypotheses I.A states that groups supervised
by white leaders will outperform groups supervised by black leaders
in accomplishing assigned tasks.
Groups supervised by black leaders took significantly longer to
perform both the knot-tying task (Fj ^^=5-15, p<.05) and the ship¬
routing task (Fj ,-g=6.6l, p<.05), as compared to those supervised by
white leaders. The mean time for groups supervised by black leaders
to perform the knot-tying task was 677.10 seconds; for groups super¬
vised by white leaders, 489.32 seconds. For the ship-routing task,
the mean times were 1315.47 and 883.13 seconds, respectively.
Hypothesis I .A was supported.
Interpersonal behavior. Hypothesis I.B(a) states that white
leaders will exhibit more interpersonal behavior than black leaders.
During the knot-tying task, black leaders, as compared to
white leaders, exhibited: (a) less showing of solidarity (Fj ,.£=
9.37, p<.01, (b) less giving of suggestions (Fj ,.£=19.01, p<.01),
(c) less asking for information (Fj ,.£=16.65, p<.0l), (d) less
asking for opinion (Fj ^£=5.72, p<.05) and (e) less disagreeing
(Fj ,.£=6.72, p<.05). (See Table 3 for the mean leader scores for
these categories.) No main effects of group type were observed.

64
TABLE 3
MEAN I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES
Knot-Tvinq Task
Black Leaders
White Leaders
Category 1: Shows solidarity
1.58
6.16
4: Gives suggestion
25.45
40.77
7: Asks for information
2.33
8.75
8: Asks for opinion
0.80
3.76
10: Disagrees
4.57
8.81
Ship-Routing Task
Category 5: Gives opinion
6.50
9.96
8: Asks for opinion
2.65
6.12

65
A significant interaction effect (F^ p<.05) was found for
category 6 (gives information) showing that: (a) black leaders of
racially balanced groups gave more information as the number of their
subordinates increased from two to four (p<.05); (b) when they super¬
vised four-man subordinate groups, black leaders gave less informa¬
tion when the number of black subordinates increased from two to three
(pc.01); (c) white leaders gave less information to their subordinates
in racially balanced dyads than they did in four-man groups whose
composition was 75 percent black (p<.05); (d) white leaders gave
more information in four-man groups when the racial composition
changed from 25 to 75 percent black (p<.05) and (e) black as compared
to white leaders gave less information when supervising four-man
subordinate groups whose composition was 75 percent black (p<.001).
(See Table h for the cell means.)
During the ship-routing task, black leaders, as compared to
white leaders, exhibited: (a) less giving of opinion (Fj ^=6.46,
p<.05), and (b) less asking for opinion (Fj j-£=9.44, p<.01).
(See Table 3 for the mean leader scores for these categories.) Main
effects were found between group types in categories 2 (shows
tension release) (F^ ^^=3.76, p<.05), 11 (shows tension) (F^ ^
4.73, p<.01), and 12 (shows antagonism) (F^ ^=3.61, p<.05).
Leaders, regardless of race, emitted fewer tension release comments
when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than either 50 percent
black tetrads (p<.0l) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), displayed
less tension when supervising racially balanced dyads than either 50
percent black tetrads (p<.01) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.01),
displayed less tension when supervising 25 percent black tetrads rather 'than

66
TABLE 4
MEAN I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES
Group Type
Knot-Tying Task
Category 6: Gives information
Ship-Routing Task
Category 1: Shows solidarity
10: Disagrees
Leader
Ü21
mi
(T2)
ÍI3I
BL
2.12
4.95
9.38
0.39
WL
7.05
7.29
8.47
14.64
BL
0.81
9.49
1.00
3.54
WL
2.53
0.83
1.97
3.55
BL
0.81
1.53
4.10
6.88
WL
7.92
3.59
8.26
4.31

67
50 percent black tetrads (p<.05), showed less antagonism when super¬
vising racially balanced dyads than either 50 percent black
tetrads (p<.05) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), and exhibited
less antagonism when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than either
50 percent black tetrads (p<.05) or 75 percent black tetrads (pc.05).
(See Table 5 for the mean group type scores for categories 2, II and
12.) Significant interaction effects between leader race and group
type were found in categories 1 (shows solidarity) (F^ ^^=3.04,
p<.05) and 10 (disagrees) (F^ j-g=3.32, pc.05). In category 1 the
following differences were found: (a) black leaders emitted fewer
solidarity-type comments when supervising racially balanced dyads
than when supervising 25 percent black tetrads (pc.01) , and (b) black
leaders of 25 percent black tetrads emitted more solidarity-type
comments than did black leaders of 50 percent black tetrads (pc.01)
and 75 percent black tetrads (pc.05) and white leaders of 25 percent
black tetrads (p<.01). In category 10 the following differences
were found: (a) black leaders of racially balanced dyads displayed
less disagreeing behavior than did white leaders of the same type
subordinate groups (pc.01) and black leaders of 75 percent black
tetrads (pc.01), (b) black leaders displayed less disagreeing be¬
havior when supervising 25 percent black tetrads than when super¬
vising 75 percent black tetrads (pc.05) and (c) white leaders of 25
percent black tetrads displayed less disagreeing behavior than did
white leaders of 50 percent black tetrads (p<.05). (See Table 4
for the cell means for categories 1 and 10.)

68
TABLE 5
MEAN I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS -
GROUP I HYPOTHESES
Group Type
Ship-Routlnq
Task
JI2I
ill!
Ü21
(T3)
Category 2:
Shows
tension release
1.36
0.00
3.36
2.68
11:
Shows
tens ion
1.04
3.11
6.60
5.74
12:
Shows
antagonism
0.50
0.28
3.32
2.84

69
Hypothesis I.B(a) was supported.
Self-esteem. Hypothesis I.B(b) states that white leaders will
score higher in self-esteem than black leaders.
No significant differences were found between black and white
leaders in either the ZSE or RSE measures.
Hypothesis I.B(b) was not supported.
Internal control. Hypothesis I.B(c) states that white leaders
will score higher in internal control than black leaders.
White leaders scored significantly higher (F^ ,-g=9.91, -01)
in internal control than did black leaders. The mean score for
white leaders was 7.72; for black leaders, 10.51. It should be
noted that a low score signifies more internal control.
Hypothesis I.B(c) was supported.
Duration of speech. Hypothesis I.C(a) states that black leaders
will have a greater speech duration than will white leaders.
No significant differences were found between black and white
leaders in speech duration in either task.
Hypothesis I.C(a) was not supported.
Satisfaction with subordinates. Hypothesis I.C(b) states that
black leaders will indicate more satisfaction with subordinates
than will white leaders.
No significant differences were found between black and white
leaders in their satisfaction with subordinates.
Hypothesis I.C(b) was not supported.

70
Satisfaction with work in the tasks. Hypothesis I.C(c) states
that black leaders will indicate more satisfaction with work in the
tasks than will white leaders.
No significant differences were found between black and white
leaders in their satisfaction with work in the tasks.
Hypothesis I.C(c) was not supported.
Differences Between Leaders of the Same Race
This section reports the results of the tests run on the
Group 11 hypotheses.
Consideration (self-rated). Hypothesis 11(a) states that the
performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition
will be faster when supervised by leaders who perceive themselves
high in cons¡deration compared to those who perceive themselves as
low.
No significant main effects were found for either black or
white leaders; however, a significant interaction effect (F^
5.09, p<.05) occurred in the measure for white leaders supervising
groups of equal racial composition in the performance of the ship¬
routing task. (See Table 6 for the cell means.) Investigation of
this effect revealed that under white leaders low in self-rated
considerat ion racially balanced dyads completed the problem faster
than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05). This may well be due to
chance. ,
Hypothesis 11(a) was not supported.

71
TABLE 6
MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL RACIAL COMPOSITION -
GROUP I I HYPOTHESES
White Leaders
Ship-Routing Task
Attribute
Consideration (self-rated)
Group Type
Class ificat ion (TO) (T2)
(Hi) 1014.25 706.25
(LO) 515.75 1236.25
Knot-Tying Task
Attribute
Initiating structure (self-rated) (HI) 194.20 713.00
(LO) 594.67 445.40
Black Leaders
Knot-Tying Task
Attribute
Consideration (subordinate-rated) (HI) 322.40 919.67
(LO) 875.00 517.80

72
Initiating structure (self-rated). Hypothesis 11(b) states
that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial
composition will be faster when supervised by leaders who perceive
themselves high in initiating structure compared to those who per¬
ceive themselves as low.
No significant main effects were found for either black or
white leaders. A significant interaction effect (F^ ^g=4.49,
p<.05) occurred for black leaders supervising groups of equal size
in the performance of the ship-routing task: (a) under black
leaders high in self-rated initiating structure, 25 percent black
tetrads completed the problem faster than 75 percent black tetrads
(p<.05); (b) under black leaders high in self-rated initiating struc¬
ture, racially balanced tetrads completed the problem faster than
75 percent black tetrads (p<.05), and also faster than racially
balanced tetrads supervised by black leaders low in self-rated
initiating structure (pc.Ol) and (c) under black leaders low in
self-rated initiating structure, 25 percent black tetrads completed
the problem faster than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05).
(See Table 7 for the cell means.)
Another significant interaction effect (F^ ^2=5.51, p<.05)
occurred only for white leaders supervising groups of equal racial
composition in the performance of the knot-tying task. Investigation
of this effect revealed that under white leaders high in self-rated
initiating structure racially balanced dyads completed the problem
faster than racially balanced tetrads (p<.05). (See Table 6 for
the cell means.)

73
TABLE 7
MEAN PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR LEADER ATTRIBUTE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTIONS FOR GROUPS OF EQUAL SIZE - GROUP II HYPOTHESES
Black Leaders
Ship-Routing Task
Attribute
Initiating structure
(self-rated)
Class if¡cation
ThiT
(LO)
Group Type
mi (fsr~
637.00 929.75
1166.67 2*i67.50
2T8p33
12+2*0.00

Hypothesis 11(b) was not supported.
Cons ¡deration (subordinate-rated). Hypothesis 11(c) states
that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal racial
composition will be faster when supervised by leaders rated by their
subordinates as high in cons¡deration compared to those rated as
low.
Groups of equal size performing the ship-routing task under
white leaders high in cons¡deration, as rated by their subordinates,
took significantly less time (F^ jg=5.00, p<.05) than those under
white leaders low in this measure. Mean task performance time was
706.75 versus 1198.56 seconds. No group type main effects were found
between groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition.
An interaction effect occurred (F^ |2=7-^5, P<«05) in this measure
for groups of equal racial composition performing the knot-tying
task under black leaders. Investigation of this effect revealed
that under black leaders high in subordinate-rated cons¡deration
racially balanced dyads completed the problem faster than racially
balanced tetrads (p<.05), and also faster than racially balanced
dyads supervised by black leaders low in subordinate-rated
considerat ion (p<.05). (See Table 6 for the cell means.)
Hypothesis 11(c) was not strongly supported.
Initiating structure (subordinate-rated). Hypothesis 11(d)
states that the performance of groups of equal size and of equal
racial composition will be faster when supervised by leaders rated
by their subordinates as high in initiating structure compared to
those rated as low.

75
No significant differences were found for either black or white
leaders.
Hypothesis 11(d) was not supported.
Self-esteem. Hypothesis 11(e) states that the performance of
groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be faster
when supervised by leaders high in self-esteem compared to those low
in self-esteem.
No significant differences were found for either black or white
leaders in either self-esteem measure.
Hypothesis 11(e) was not supported.
Internal control. Hypothesis 11(f) states that the performance
of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be
faster when supervised by leaders high in internal control compared
to those low in internal control.
For this measure a reversal occurred. Groups of equal size
performing the knot-tying task under black leaders high in internal
control took significantly longer (F^ jg=4.*t2, p<.05) than those under
black leaders low in internal control. Mean task performance time
was 850.25 versus 602.25. No group type main effects were found
for groups of equal size and groups of equal racial composition
supervised by either black or white leaders.
Hypothesis 11(f) was not supported.
Intel1igence. Hypothesis 11(g) states that the performance
of groups of equal size and of equal racial composition will be
faster when supervised by leaders high in intelligence compared to
those low in intelligence.

76
No significant differences were found for either black or white
leaders.
Hypothesis 11(g) was not supported.
Incidental Results
This section reports the results of data analyses involving
differences between black and white subordinates, differences between
groups, differences between leaders in leadership style and social-
emotional behavior, and information derived from the Personal
Questionnaire.
Differences between black and white subordinates.
During the knot-tying task, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates, exhibited behavior as follows:
(a) less giving of suggestions in racially balanced dyads under
black leaders (t=3*24, p<.01; >^=27.33, xBS=9.63) ;
(b) less giving of opinion in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=3.7^» p<-001 ; xws=17.67, xBS=1.5l) ;
(c) more giving of opinion in 75 percent black tetrads under
white leaders (tc2.00, p<.05; xws=1.76, Xrs=5.05);
(d) less giving of information in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.93, p<.01; xws=9.66, xBS=6.7^) ;
(e) less asking for information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.^6, p<.05; x^=6.80, xBS=1.58);
(f) more asking for opinion in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=3.56, pc.001; x^=0.66, xBS-3.80) ;
(g) less disagreeing in racially balanced dyads under white
leaders (t“3.04, p<.01; xws=11.57, >

77
(h) less showing of tension in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.07, p<.05; *^=4.30, xBS=1.32); and
(i) more showing of antagonism in 75 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.18, pc.05; x^B\.59, x^=k.76).
Every t-test for differences between subordinates was accomplished
using 56 degrees of freedom.
During the ship-routing task, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates, exhibited behavior as follows:
(a) more showing of solidarity in racially balanced dyads under
black leaders (t=2.42, pc.05; xws=0.00, xBS=l* 73)1
(b) less showing of solidarity in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.54, pc.05; xws=1.82, xBS=0.00);
(c) less giving of suggestions in 25 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.90, p<.01 ; *^=11.75, XBS=2.37) ;
(d) less giving of opinion in racially balanced tetrads under
white leaders (t=2.43, pc.05; xws=6.64,, xBS=2.48) ;
(e) less giving of information in 25 percent black tetrads
under black leaders (1=2.13, p<.05; *^s=19*84; xBS=l6.20);
(f) less giving of information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.33, p<.05; xws=l6.90, xBS=l2.91);
(g) less asking for information in racially balanced tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.58, pc.05; x^=8.80, XB$=2.97) ;
(h) more asking for suggestions in racially balanced tetrads
under black leaders (t=2.06, pc.05; xW2=2.08, xBg=4.39) ;
(i) less asking for suggestions in racially balanced dyads
under white leaders (t=3.09, p<-01; xws=3.47, xBS=0.00);

78
(j) less asking for suggestions in 25 percent black tetrads
under white leaders (t=2.04, p<.05; x^~3.7S, xBS=1.5l) ;
(k) less disagreeing in 25 percent black tetrads under black
leaders (t=2.02, p<.05; xws=2.36, xBS=0.00); and
(l) less disagreeing in racially balanced tetrads under white
leaders (t=3.06, p<.01 ; 78, xBS=l.2l).
In their duration of speech, black subordinates, as compared to
white subordinates: (a) during the knot-tying task,spoke less in
racially balanced dyads under black leaders (t=2.40, p<.05;
131.13, xB5=62.13) and in racially balanced tetrads under white
leaders (t=2.42, p<.05; x^^lOl.S)4, xbs=32.38) ; and (b) during the
ship-routing task, spoke more in 75 percent black tetrads under black
leaders (t=2.22, p<.05; x^=175.88, xBB=231.92), and less in racially
balanced dyads (t=3.07, p<.01; x^/g5^ 58.00, xBS=80.38) and tetrads
(t=2.56, pc.05; xws=107.94, xbs=^3.25) under white leaders.
In the other measures, black subordinates, as compared to white
subordinates: (a) were higher in self-esteem in racially balanced
dyads under black leaders, as measured by Ziller's instrument
(t=2.21, p<.05; *^=19.38, xbs=26.38); (b) were not significantly
different in internal control; (c) were higher in satisfaction with
fellow subordinates in racially balanced dyads under black leaders
(1=2.12, p<.05; x^=38.88, xB2=46.50); (d) were higher in satisfac¬
tion with the leader in racially balanced dyads under black leaders
(t=2.94, pc.01; xws=26.63, xbs=36.25) and (e) were lower in satisfac¬
tion with the work in the tasks in racially balanced dyads under
white leaders (t=2.30, pc.05; xws=34.00, xBS=25.50).

79
Differences between groups. During the knot-tying task, the
behavioral differences exhibited in groups supervised by black leaders,
as compared to those supervised by white leaders, were as follows:
(a) less agreeing (F^ ,56=6 ,62, p<.05), (b) less asking for informa¬
tion (Fj j.g=9.08, pc.01), (c) less asking for opinion (Fj
10.98, pc.01) and (d) more showing of antagonism (F^ ^^«=4; 13, pc.05).
(See Table 8 for the mean group scores for these I PA categories.)
Main effects of group type were found in category 4 (gives suggestion)
^F3,56=8, 58, p<.01). Irrespective of leader race, three-person
groups, on the average, gave more suggestions when the subordinate
group consisted of racially balanced dyads than when the subordinate
group consisted of 25 percent black tetrads (pc.001), racially
balanced tetrads (pc.001), or 75 percent black tetrads (pc.001).
(See Table 9 for the mean group type scores for category 4.) A
significant interaction effect (F^ ^=3.12, pc.05) was found in
category 6 (gives information): (a) three-person, white-supervised
groups with racially balanced subordinate dyads gave more information
on the average than five-person, white-supervised groups with both
25 percent black subordinate tetrads (pc.05) and racially balanced
subordinate tetrads (pc.01); (b) three-person groups with racially
balanced subordinate dyads gave less information on the average
under black leaders than under white leaders (pc.01) and (c)
five-person groups with 75 percent black subordinate tetrads gave
less information on the average under black leaders than under white
leaders (p<.05). (See Table 10 for the cell means.)

80
TABLE 8
MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE MAIN EFFECTS
Groups Supervised Groups Supervised
by Black Leaders
by Wiite Leaders
Knot-Tyinq Task
Category 3: Agrees
8.52
13.46
7: Asks for information
2.36
4.52
8: Asks for opinion
0.65
2.39
12: Shows antagonism
3.35
1.89
Ship-Routinq Task
Category 7: Asks for information
11.50
9.37
8: Asks for opinion
1.18
2. 22

8!
TABLE 9
MEAN GROUP IPA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS
Knot-Tying Task
Category 4: Gives suggestion
Ship-Routing Task
Category 2: Shews tension release
6: Gives information
10: Disagrees
Group Type
il°L
iILL
JeL
24.87
15.83
14.62
15.89
0.77
0.40
1.78
1.95
11.87
17.60
14.78
15.28
1.82
2.53
4.39
3.87
1.00
2.55
4.27
3.85
11: Shows tens ion

82
TABLE 10
MEAN GROUP I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE INTERACTIONS
Knot-Tying Task
Category 6: Gives information
Ship-Routing Task
Category 1: Shows solidarity
Group Type
Leader
TtqT~
JJSL
U5T
BL
0.9**
1.88
3.33
0.92
WL
7.81
2.66
2.07
5.25
BL
0.51
2.41
0.78
2.09
WL
0.87
0.23
0.60
0.78

83
During the ship-routing task, the average behavior exhibited in
groups supervised by black leaders, as compared to those supervised
by white leaders, was as follows: (a) more asking for information
(Fj j-g=5.06, p<.05) and (b) less asking for opinion (F^ ^^=7-33,
pc.Ol). (See Table 8 for the mean group scores for these I PA cate¬
gories.) Main effects of group type were found in category 2 (shows
tension release) (F^ ^=2.94, p<.05) , 6 (gives information) (F^
5.18, p<.0l), 10 (disagrees) (F^ ^g=3.84, p<.05)and 11 (shows ten¬
sion) (F^ 56=5.52, p<.01). Irrespective of leader race, groups:
(a) showed less tension release on the average when the subordinate
group was a 25 percent black tetrad than when it was a racially
balanced tetrad (p<.05) or a 75 percent black tetrad (p<.05);
(b) three-person groups gave less information on the average than
five-person groups with 25 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.001)
or 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (pc.05) ; (c) three-person
groups disagreed less than five-person groups having racially balanced
subordinate tetrads (p<.01) or 75 percent black subordinate tetrads
(p<.05), and five-person groups with 25 percent black subordinate
tetrads less than those with racially balanced subordinate tetrads
(p<.05) and (d) three-person groups showed less tension than five-
person groups with both racially balanced subordinate tetrads (p<.00l)
and 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (pc.Ol). (See Table 9 for
the mean group type scores for categories 2, 6, 10 and 11.) A
significant interaction effect (F^ ,56=3 .02, p<.05) was found in
category 1 (shows solidarity): (a) three-person, black-supervised
groups with racially balanced dyads showed less solidarity than

84
five-person, black-supervised groups with both 25 percent black
subordinate tetrads (p<.05) and 75 percent black subordinate tetrads
(p<.05) ; (b) five-person, black-supervised groups with 25 percent
black subordinate tetrads showed more solidarity than either five-
person, black-supervised groups with racially balanced subordinate
tetrads (p<.05) or five-person, white-supervised groups with 25 percent
black subordinate tetrads (p<.0l); (c) five-person, black-supervised groups
with racially balanced subordinate tetrads showed less solidarity
than five-person, black-supervised groups with 75 percent black
subordinate tetrads (p<.05) and (d) five-person, black-supervised
groups showed more solidarity than five-person, white-supervised
groups with 75 percent black subordinate tetrads (p<.05). (See
Table 10 for the cell means.)
In average duration of speech, there was no significant differ¬
ence between black- and white-supervised groups performing the knot-
tying task. However, black-supervised groups talked among themselves
more than white-supervised groups while performing the ship-routing
task (Fj j-£=6.89, pc.05). The mean speech duration for black-
supervised groups was 203.53 seconds; for white-supervised groups,
133.04 seconds.
There were no significant differences between black- and white-
supervised groups in average measures of self-esteem, internal
control.and satisfaction with work in the tasks.
Differences between leaders in leadership style and social-
eniotionaj behavior. During the knot-tying task, black leaders
exhibited less non-directive leadership behavior (Fj ^^=15-11,

85
p<.01) and less positive social-emotional behavior (Fj ^=11.24,
p<.01). For non-directive leadership, the mean scores were 5.83
and 15.66; for positive social-emotional behavior, 13.61 and 23.46.
A main effect of group type was found for negative social-emotional
behavior (F^ ^£=3.04, p<.05). Leaders, regardless of race, displayed
more negative social-emotional behavior when supervising racially
balanced groups as the number of subordinates increased from two to
four (p<.01). (See Table 11 for the mean scores for each group
type.) A significant interaction effect (F^ ,56=3 .03, p<.05) was
found for the directive style of leadership: (a) black leaders of
racially balanced dyads used more directive comments than black
leaders of 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05) and (b) black leaders
showed less directiveness as compared to white leaders of 25 percent
black tetrads (p<.05), racially balanced tetrads (p<.05) and 75 percent
black tetrads (p<.001). (See Table 12 for the cell means.)
During the ship-routing task, black leaders exhibited less
directive leadership behavior than did white leaders (Fj ^^=5.14,
p<.05). The mean score for black leaders was 37.76; for white
leaders, 51.02. A main effect was found among group types in
negative soc ial-emot ional behavior (F^ ,.£=6.32, pc.Ol). Leaders,
regardless of race, displayed less negative social-emotional behavior
when supervising racially balanced dyads than when supervising
racially balanced tetrads (px.01) or 75 percent black tetrads (pc.Ol),
and when supervising 25 percent black tetrads as compared to racially
balanced tetrads (pc.Ol) or 75 percent black tetrads (pc.Ol). (See
Table II for the mean scores for each group type.) There were no
interaction effects.

86
TABLE 11
MEAN LEADER I PA SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS
IN SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR
Group Type
W (Tl) (T2) (T3)
Knot-Tying Task
Negative social-emotional behavior 7.71 13.11 21.39 15.^8
Ship-Routing Task
Negative social-emot¡onal behavior 5.91
5.95 16.10 15.13

87
TABLE 12
MEAN LEADER I PA SCORES FOR LEADER RACE X GROUP TYPE
INTERACTION IN LEADERSHIP STYLE
Group Type
Leader (TO^ (TI) (T2) CnT
Knot-Tying Task
Directive style of leadership BL 43.22 36.06 33.64 20.40
WL 50.46 54.12 58.46 64.35

88
General satisfaction survey. There were no significant differ¬
ences found on this measure between leaders or between black and white
supervised groups. In the analysis of differences between leaders,
a significant difference was found between group types (F^ ^=3.43,
p<.05); leaders, regardless of race, indicated more general satis¬
faction if they had supervised racially balanced tetrads rather than
25 percent black tetrads (p<.0l) or 75 percent black tetrads (p<.05).
£ee Table 13 for the mean scores for each group type.) Black subordi¬
nates, as compared to white subordinates, were higher in general
satisfaction in 75 percent black tetrads under white leaders (t=
2.20, p<.05, df=56; xws=26.38, xBS=30.21).
Sociometric rating of leader by subordinates. White leaders of
racially balanced dyads were rated higher by white subordinates than
by black subordinates (t=2.32, p<.05, df=l4). The mean rating for
white leaders by white subordinates was 3.50 and by black subordinates,
2.50. No other significant differences were found in the comparisons
by group type, by leader type or by leader for both subordinate
types.
Nomination for best squad leader. Black subordinates under
black leaders choose their leader as the best squad leader in their
company more often than did black subordinates under white leaders
O
(X =5.54, P<.05, df=l). Black leaders choose themselves as the best
squad leader in their company more often than did white leaders
(X =6.56, p<.05, df=l). No significant differences were found between
black and white subordinates under black leaders, black and white
subordinates under white leaders, and white subordinates nominating
their own leader regardless of leader race.

89
TABLE 13
MEAN LEADER SCORES FOR GROUP TYPE MAIN EFFECTS
FOR THE GENERAL SATISFACTION SURVEY
Group Type
mil jZE
HE
General satisfaction between leaders 31.^
30.13
33.88
HE
31.25

90
Level of aspiration. Black leaders had a higher level of aspira¬
tion than did white subordinates (z=2.83, pc.01), with the mean
values being 5.34 and 4.58, respectively. No significant differ¬
ences were found in comparing black leaders to white leaders, black
subordinates to white subordinates, black leaders to black subordinates,
white leaders to black subordinates, white leaders to white subordi¬
nates and black subjects to white subjects.
Expectancy of success. In their expectancy of success, white
subordinates were higher than black subordinates (z=3.31, pc.001)
with mean values of 5.79 and 4.59, respectively; white leaders were
higher than black subordinates (z=4.01, pc.OOl) with mean values of
6.46 and 4.59, respectively; and white subjects were higher than black
subjects (z=3.79, p<.00l) with mean values of 5.94 and 4.76, respec¬
tively. No significant differences were found in comparing black
leaders to white leaders, black leaders to black subordinates, black
leaders to white subordinates, and white leaders to white subordinates.

CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This final chapter is presented in three sections as follows:
(a) a summary of the study, (b) a discussion of the results and
(c) the implications for future research.
Summary
The principle purpose of this exploratory study was to investi¬
gate differences in attitudes and interaction behavior between black
and white leaders supervising racially heterogeneous subordinate
groups of varying size and racial composition in the performance of
two tasks. In addition, certain contrasts were made between black
and white subordinates and between the various types of groups.
The specific hypotheses tested were:
Group I: BETWEEN BLACK AND VtilTE LEADERS
A. Groups supervised by white leaders will outperform groups
supervised by black leaders in accomplishing assigned tasks.
B. White leaders, as compared to black leaders, will: (a)
exhibit more interpersonal behavior, (b) score higher in
self-esteem and (c) score higher in internal control.
C. Black leaders, as compared to white leaders, will:
(a) have a greater duration of speech, (b) indicate more
satisfaction with subordinates.and (c) indicate more
satisfaction with work in the tasks.
91

92
Group II: BETWEEN LEADERS OF THE SAME RACE
For each task, the performance of groups of equal size and
of equal racial composition will be faster when supervised by
leaders who: (a) perceive themselves high in consideration,
(b) perceive themselves high in initiating structure, (c) are
rated by their subordinates as high in consideration, (d) are
rated by their subordinates as high in initiating structure,
(e) are high in self-esteem, (f) are high in internal control,
(g) are high in intelligence, compared to leaders of the same
race who, respectively, are low in these leader attributes.
The results of testing these hypotheses are shown in Table 14.
A total of 288 male, naval recruits, 144 black and 144 white,
participated in the study; 64 of these were squad leaders, 32 black
and 32 white. Eight different black and eight different white squad
leaders supervised one of four types of subordinate groups: (1)
one type consisting of one black and one white subordinate, (2) one
type consisting of one black and three white subordinates, (3) one
type consisting of two black and two white subordinates and (4) one
type consisting of three black and one white subordinates. All
subordinates performed under the supervision of a leader who was,
in fact, their regularly appointed squad leader. Each group ac¬
complished two structured, problem-solving tasks: a knot-tying task
and a ship-routing task. A trained observer team consisting of one
white and one black observer observed through a one-way window and
recorded group interaction. Other output measures recorded were:
(1) group performance for each task, defined to be the time required
for task accomplishment and (2) individual duration of speech.
After performing the tasks, each participant, depending upon
his position as leader or subordinate, completed questionnaires

93
TABLE 14
RESULTS OF TESTING HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis
Number
Relatinq to
Supported or
Not Supported
I .A.
Group performance
Supported
I.B(a)
Interpersonal behavior
Supported
I.B(b)
Self-esteem
Not Supported
I.B(c)
Internal control
Supported
t.C(a)
Duration of speech
Not Supported
I.C(b)
Satisfaction with subordinates
Not Supported
I.C(c)
Satisfaction with work in the tasks
Not Supported
H(a)
Consideration (self-rated)
Not Supported
II (b)
Initiating structure (self-rated)
Not Supported
M(c)
Cons¡deration (subordinate-rated)
Not Supported
M(d)
Initiating structure (subordinate-rated)
Not Supported
M (e)
Self-esteem
Not Supported
M(f)
Internal control
Not Supported
H(g)
1ntel 1 igence
Not Supported

Sh
providing: (a) the leader's perception of his own initiating struc¬
ture and cons¡deration, (b) the subordinate's perception of the
leader's initiating structure and consideration, (c) the leader's
satisfaction with his subordinates, (d) the subordinate's satisfaction
with his leader and fellow subordinates and (e) for each subject,
his locus of control, two measures of self-esteem, his satisfaction
with the tasks, and certain personal questions.
Discussion
Groups supervised by white leaders performed both tasks signifi¬
cantly faster than groups supervised by black leaders. This suggests
that white leaders engaged in leadership behavior that facilitated
the accomplishment of the tasks within the framework specified by
this study. Another possibility is that the subordinates worked
harder at accomplishing the tasks for the white leaders. Even though
all subjects were of equal status as naval recruits, the squad
leaders did have some slight degree of additional status because
they were one level higher in the hierarchy of the recruit company
command structure and were responsible for assuring that their sub¬
ordinates accomplished certain functions. Having blacks in the higher
status position of leader (particularly over whites) is, at this
time, relatively incongruous with society at large (cf., Berger,
Cohen:and Zelditch, 1966; Cohen, 1972), thus this condition may have
been perceived as being "status incongruent" and may have influenced
the performance of groups supervised by black leaders. Further,

95
since the black leaders had such a high level of aspiration, they
may have engaged in behaviors (e.g., assertiveness) considered by
white subordinates (and possibly black subordinates as well) as even
more incongruent. Status incongruence and group heterogeneity have
been shown to interfere with group problem-solving effectiveness
because some of the efforts of group members are diverted from task
demands to attempts by the members to establ ish status congruence
(Ziller, 1972) or to attempts by the members to cope with interactive
pressures generated by group composition effects (Haythorn, 1968).
Another explanation may lie in the fact that while the white subjects
were born and raised more or less equally in the Southern and non-
Southern regions of the U.S. nearly all of the black subjects were
born and raised in the South. Whether the general degree of racial
prejudice is greater in the South can be questioned, but, since there
does exist a clear historical definition of the status of blacks
relative to whites, it seems reasonable to conclude that working with
whites is stressful for Southern blacks (cf., Katz and Cohen, 1962).
The stress of the biracial situation could also account for the
performance deficiency of the black supervised groups. In addition,
experimental stress (Back and Bogdonoff, 1967), which has been shown
to be particularly acute for blacks in biracial situations (Back et al.,
1969; Katz and Greenbaum, 1963), may have been a factor. Subjects who
for any reason may have been especially overwhelmed by the intrinsically
stressful features of the experimental situation may not have behaved
in the same way that other subjects did. Further, since the black
leaders in this study knew they were being observed and evaluated

96
somehow, they may even have felt that they were proving not only
their own personal adequacy but the adequacy of blacks in general
(cf., Back et aj,., 1969). If so, this would be an additional stress-
inducing element acting to the detriment of the black leaders.
Under both black and white leaders, groups of equal size took
progressively longer to perform each task as the proportion of
black subordinates increased from 25 to 75 percent. For the knot-
tying task the times were 626.38, 668,50 and 883.88 seconds under
black leaders; and 474.88, 545.75 and 592.25 for white leaders.
Groups supervised by black leaders displayed, on the average, less
agreeing, less asking for information, less asking for opinion
and more antagonism than did groups supervised by white leaders;
all of these categories suggest behavior that hinders performance.
For the ship-routing task the times were 835.63, 1698.63 and 1720.63
under black leaders; and 805.38, 971.25 and 990.88 for white leaders.
In this task, groups supervised by black leaders displayed, on the
average, less asking for opinion but more asking for information, and,
in addition, were significantly greater in average speech duration
than groups supervised by white leaders. This last result could
probably be predicted because of the greater emphasis placed on verbal
interaction and "rapping" skills by blacks (Kochman, 1969) combined
with the information sharing nature of the task; engaging in more
dialogue was natural for the black subordinates as they found them¬
selves in a progressively more comfortable social situation. This
can be interpreted as detracting from task demands and therefore
reducing performance. Additionally, since blacks have been shown

97
to be more failure avoidant (Lefcourt and Ladwig, 1965a) and lack
interest in achievement-related pursuits (Rose, 1956), these qual¡ties
may have combined to produce the longer performance times for groups
having a greater percentage of blacks.
Comparing black and white leaders' use of the I PA categories.,
indicates race, group and interaction effects. (Table 15 was de¬
veloped to more clearly present the I PA behavior differences between
leaders.) The outstanding finding is that white leaders were
clearly more active in interpersonal behavior. In every instance of
a significant difference between leader types for both tasks, black
leaders displayed less of the behavior in question than did white
leaders. Although white leaders gave and asked for more opinion
during the ship-routing task, the results were more pronounced during
the knot-tying task where white leaders exhibited more activity in
five of the twelve categories: showing solidarity, giving suggestions,
asking for information and opinions, and disagreeing. These results
showing less expressive behavior suggest inhibition on the part of
the black leaders.
Additional analyses can contribute further to the explanation
of the above finding. The parametric techniques employed to analyze
the I PA data have provided valuable information concerning the
magnitude of the differences but in some cases fail to provide infor¬
mation involving patterns of differences. In an effort to seek out
important patterns of behavior displayed through I PA differences,
Table 16 was developed. In each case, the number of times that mean
I PA scores of black subjects exceeded those of whites was used as

TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF OBSERVED I PA DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADERS
IPA Cateqorv
Knot-Tying
Ship-Routing
Refer to
Table No.
1. Shows solidarity
(WL>BL)**
(BL/T0BL/T2)**;
(BL/T1>BL/T3'V; (BL/T1>WL/Tl)**
3,4
2. Shows tension release
NS
(T1 5
3. Agrees
NS
NS
mm
4. Gives suggestion
(WL>BL)**
NS
3
5. Gives opinion
NS
(WL>BL)*
3
6. Gives information
(BL/T0BL/T3)**;
(WL/T0 (BL /T3< WL /T3) ***
NS
4
7. Asks for information
(WL>BL)**
NS
3
8. Asks for opinion
(WL>BL)*
(WL>BL)*
3
9. Asks for suggestion
NS
NS
-
10. Disagrees
(WL>BL)*
(BL/T0 (M./T1 3,4
11. Shows tension
NS
(T0 5
12. Shows antagonism
NS
(T0 5
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001
NS = no significant difference
BL = black leader
WL = white leader
TO = subordinate group with one
and one white
T1 = one black and three whites
T2 = two blacks and two whites
T3 = three blacks and one white
black

TABLE 16
FREQUENCY COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES IN OBSERVED I PA BEHAVIOR BETWEEN
LEADERS, SUBORDINATES.AND GROUPS BY TASK TYPE AND BY GROUP TYPE
I PA Behavior by Group Type
Task
Comparison
Total IPA Behavior
Group Type 0
Group Type 1
Group Type 2
Group Type
Knot-Tying
Leaders
(8/48)***
(2/12)*
(1/12)**
(3/12)
(2/12)*
Subordinates
(44/94)
04
S
(8/24)
(11/24)
(18/23)*
Groups
(11/48)***
(3/12)
(1/12)**
(4/12)
(3/12)
Ship-Routing
Leaders
(16/47)*
(3/12)
(8/11)
(2/12)*
(3/12)
Subordinates
(38/96)1
(10/24)
(4/24) **
(8/24)
(16/24)
Groups
(24/48)
(5/12)
(4/12)
(7/12)
(8/12)
1 p<. 10
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001
o
NOTES: (a) All tests used the X test statistic for the chi-square distribution
with df=l, Yates' continuity correction included.
(b) The numerator of the fraction in the parenthesis is the number of times
black leaders or subordinates displayed more behavior than whites, or, in
the case of groups, the number of times the black-led group average was
more than the white-led group average.
(c) The denominator is the number of times there was a difference between
the two classes being compared.
(d) The expected numerator is one-half the denominator.
vo
vo

100
the criterion for counting the differences; this table also permits
the determination of effects due to group size and racial composi¬
tion. '
Four important patterns of behavior emerge from Table 16. First,
black leaders are shown in still another way to be less expressive
in their behavior than white leaders during both tasks. This is
evidenced by the significantly lower frequency of black leaders
exceeding whites in all I PA categories combined during both tasks.
No effects due to group size or composition occur. Second, black
subordinates appear to have been less expressive only during the ship¬
routing task, since no differences were found for the knot-tying task.
For neither task did an effect on subordinate behavior due to group
size occur, but one due to the change in racial composition is very
much in evidence. This leads to the third important pattern of
behavior: black subordinates appear to be more inclined to talk when
there are more of them. For both tasks, the number of instances of
black subordinate behavior exceeding white subordinate behavior
increases as the number of black subordinates increases (with group
size held constant). For the knot-tying task, 75 percent black
subordinate tetrad, the number of instances where black subordinate
behavior exceeds that of white subordinates is significantly greater
than chance; conversely, for the ship-routing task, 25 percent black
subordinate tetrad, black subordinate behavior exceeded that of
^To check for an effect due to change in size we compare the data
shown for group types 0 and 2 (i.e., those of equal composition but of
different size); to check for an effect due to a change in racial com¬
position we compare the data shown for group types 1, 2 and 3 (i.e.,
those of equal size but of varying racial composition).

101
white subordinates significantly less than chance. Increasing the
number of whites In subordinate groups of equal size, therefore,
appears to have had an inhibiting effect on the blacks. The last
important Inference that can be drawn from Table 16 Is that the
black-led groups engaged in the knot-tying task displayed significantly
less behavior, on the average, than did white-led groups. This is
evidenced by significantly fewer instances of average I PA behavior
under black leaders exceeding average I PA behavior under white
leaders during the knot-tying task.
Looking more closely at differences between subordinates also
indicates behavioral differences. Where black subord inates displayed
significantly less behavior, 12 of 16 instances occurred under white
leaders, suggestive of an effect due to leader race. Chi-square
tests of the number of instances where black subordinates displayed
less behavior than whites, under each leader type and for both
tasks, reveal no significant differences in frequency.
The finding of more inhibited behavior on the part of black
leaders and subordinates, as compared to white leaders and subordi¬
nates, is in keeping with earlier research (Katz and Benjamin, I960;
Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958; Cohen, 1972) in which blacks
displayed social inhibition relative to white partners in cooperative
problem-solving situations, even when matched on intelligence and
ability. This result may be explained in terms of status characteris¬
tic theory (Berger, Cohen and Zelditch, 1966) which suggests that
the relations between the races will be biased in the same direction
as in the outer society (i.e., whites will be more active and

102
influential than blacks). Along the same lines, Cohen (1972) calls
this interracial interaction disability, the condition where both
races have built-in expectations for superior performance and greater
participation on the part of whites. (This attitude might also
account for the performance deficiencies of the black-supervised
groups, as previously discussed.) Again recognizing the geographic
origins of the subjects, the social stress experienced by the black
subjects may have been a factor contributing to the inhibition they
displayed, although social inhibition by blacks has also been observed
among students at a Northern university (Katz and Benjamin, I960;
Katz, Goldston and Benjamin, 1958). Nevertheless, we see that the
black subordinates in this study displayed more behavior as their
number increased in the subordinate tetrads, which seems to indicate
that they were responding to a more comfortable social situation.
Both black and white leaders appear to have experienced more
difficulty supervising the larger subordinate groups. Leaders,
regardless of race, showed more tension and antagonism during the
ship-routing problem with racially balanced tetrads than with
racially balanced dyads. A similar effect can be seen when I PA
categories 10, 11 and 12 are collapsed into what has been defined as
negative social-emotional behavior. An increase in this type of
behavior occurs in both the ship-routing and knot-tying tasks. This
suggests that both black and white leaders behaved in a more negative
manner because the size of the group increased. This finding is in
keeping with previous research indicating that smaller groups
inhibit the expression of disagreements and dissatisfactions more

103
than larger groups (Thomas and Fink, 1963). Another explanation is
that the smaller groups may have been easier to direct toward task
completion. Because the leaders in this study were relatively
inexperienced, one can readily understand how they might react with
more negative behavior in their attempts to control and direct the
efforts of the larger group toward task completion, particularly
since they were told that they were in competition with other groups.
Increasing the relative number of blacks in the subordinate
groups also appears to have caused supervision difficulties for both
black and white leaders. During the ship-routing problem, leaders
also showed more tension and antagonism when supervising 75 percent
black tetrads compared to racially balanced dyads and when super¬
vising racially balanced tetrads compared to 25 percent black tetrads.
Although this does not replicate for the knot-tying task, this still
suggests that both black and white leaders found it necessary to
behave in a more negative manner because the number of black subordi¬
nates increased. It also suggests an interaction with task require¬
ments. Whether or not this was necessary due to the increased
behavior on the part of black subordinates as their number increased
in the tetrads is not clear.
In looking at the I PA categories collapsed into the broader
categories of directive and non-directive leadership behavior and
positive and negative social-emotional behavior we see basically the
same results discussed in connection with the individual categories.
White leaders exhibited more non-directive leadership behavior and
positive social-emotional behavior during the knot-tying task and more

104
directive leadership behavior during the ship-routing task. In
negative social-emotional behavior the group type effects for the
ship-routing task reflect previous conclusions, i.e., increased
behavior of this type due to the larger group size and the greater
number of black subordinates. During the knot-tying task white
leaders displayed more directive leader behavior in each of the
equal size group types. The only result emerging from the collapsing
of the IPA categories which appears totally unexpected from the
individual categories was the finding, previously discussed, that
leaders, regardless of race, exhibited more negative social-emotional
behavior as the racially balanced subordinate groups increased in
size from two to four.
The fact that black leaders were significantly lower in internal
control at first appears to do no more than confirm substantial
prior research (cf., Lefcourt, 1966; Rotter, 1966); however, contrary
to what would be expected from earlier research, no significant
differences were found between black and white subordinates when
compared by leader and group type, although in seven out of eight
possible comparisons black subordinates did score lower in internal
control. Relating internal control to performance, we see that equal
size groups supervised by black leaders high in internal control
took significantly longer to perform the knot-tying task than did
similar groups with black leaders low in internal control. This is
a reversal of what one might expect, since a person high in internal
control has been shown to be effective in attempts to influence
others (Lao, 1970). One explanation, in keeping with previous

105
research, may be that black leaders high in internal control did
indeed vigorously attempt to direct their subordinates toward task
completion (more direction was called for during the knot-tying task
compared to the ship-routing task, since the former was instructional
in nature whereas the latter was more information sharing in nature).
Therefore, the black leaders may have been perceived as engaging in
status incongruent behavior, while the white leaders were not so
perceived, and some of the group efforts may have been diverted from
the task and directed toward establishing status congruence.
In general, the performance results for both tasks, using both
leader- and subordinate-rated measures of initiating structure and
considerat ion, were inconclusive. The only situation where a
significant difference occurred as hypothesized was for equal-sized
groups performing the ship-routing problem under white leaders, where
the task was performed significantly faster by those groups super¬
vised by a leader high in subordinate-rated cons ideration. Since a
significant difference was not found in the identical situation using
the leader-rated measure, this particular result indicates some
support for the work of Lowin, Hrapchak and Kavanagh (1969) who
suggest that it is better to use subordinate-rated measures of
initiating structure and consideration. Of course, this may also
be a chance finding since there were no other differences. The
interactions found in these leadership measures offer no consistent
support for initiating structure or consideration as rel iable pre¬
dictors of group performance. Overall then, these leadership
dimensions, as rated by both leaders and subordinates, do not appear

106
to reliably account for either black or white leader behavior as
related to group performance (cf., Anderson, 1966; Korman, 1966;
Low in, Hrapchak and Kavanagh, 1969). One possible explanation of
the lack of a relationship between initiating structure and per¬
formance is offered by Lcwin (1968). He lists four intervening vari¬
ables which affect this relationship: (a) task complexity, (b) sub¬
ordinate expertise, (c) supervisor expertise and (d) the need for
coordination in the interest of overall effectiveness. In the
present study, the tasks were relatively elementary, the subordinates
were of approximately equal skill, the leaders were no more competent
in the tasks than the subordinates, and there was not an extremely
pressing need for group cooperation (i.e., since this was an experi¬
mental and not a real, on-the-job situation), thus these variables
may not have allowed initiating structure to affect performance.
The number of times racially balanced tetrads took longer than
racially balanced dyads to perform both tasks under black and white
leaders was not significantly different from chance (chi-square
test); therefore, we can say that group size effects were not
operative. Also, differential patterns for the performance times
of equal-sized groups under both black and white leaders were not
in evidence. The comparisons of performance on both tasks relative
to leader self-esteem and intelligence do not indicate any relation¬
ship between these attributes and performance.
By and large the results of contrasting the performance of
groups supervised by leaders high in the various attributes with that
of groups supervised by leaders low in the same attribute were

107
inconclusive for both groups of equal size and of equal racial
composition. No special relationships or patterns of relationships
emerged for either black or white leaders. Perhaps the best state¬
ment that can be made is that the results were equally inconclusive
for both black and white leaders.
The results of comparing black and white subordinates' use of
the individual I PA categories while working on the two problems
indicate several significant differences in subordinate behavior as
a function of leader race and group type; however, no direct, con¬
sistent relationships emerged. Although black subordinates showed
more solidarity in racially balanced dyads under black leaders during
the ship-routing task and white subordinates more under white leaders
in the same situation, there is a noticeable lack of significant
differences in both tasks in the three categories classified as
positive social-emotional behavior. From this it appears that black
and white subordinates were more or less equal in their display of
positive behavior during the study.
Conclusion
The overall results of this study point to the conclusion that
the white leaders were more effective in their leadership of sub¬
ordinate groups than were the black leaders, since the groups super¬
vised by the white leaders excelled in the performance of both
tasks. Both the black leaders and subordinates emitted less behavior
during task performance which indicates an inhibiting effect of
biracial interaction

Implications for Future Research
The performance deficiency of the black supervised groups in
this study was explained in terms of status incongruence, group
heterogenity and experimental stress. Just as having blacks in
positions of leadership or supervision is, at this time, infrequent
and relatively incongruent with théir position in society at large,
this may also be said of other large classifications of individuals
occupying minority positions in the typical work situation that are
of "lower" status relative to the white norm. Examples include
females, American Indians, and Spanish Americans. Members of these
groups may also be perceived as being in a "status incongruent"
condition when attempting to direct subordinates in problem-solving
tasks and, therefore, effectiveness may be hindered by efforts to
establish status congruence (Ziller, 1972). Indeed, if status
incongruence does exert an influence on the problem-solving effective¬
ness of groups, performance indices of groups supervised by leaders
selected from the above classifications should be lower than groups
supervised by white males. Ziller (1972) suggests that other be¬
havioral consequences may derive from conditions of status incongru¬
ence. The ability of group members to predict their own behavior
in relation to that of other members is less reliable, their self¬
esteem is threatened, and the members' behavior may be more self-
centered, all of which have the potential of being detrimental to
group performance. On the other hand, if status incongruence as a
factor detrimental to group effectiveness is peculiar to black-white
interaction it should be expected to apply only to blacks. Just

109
as the problem-solving effectiveness of groups may be hindered by
perceived status incongruence when supervised by members of lower
status, effectiveness may also be affected by the attempts of
members to cope with interactive pressures generated by composition
effects (Haythorn, 1968).
With the possible exception of white females, members of
minorities acting as experimental subjects may also experience a
greater degree of experimental stress (Back and Bogdonoff, 1967)
than white males, just as the black subjects in this study may have.
Since reactions to the experimental situation itself may affect the
results, an appreciation of this as a possible source of difficulty
is necessary when comparing persons of differing status. To reduce
experimental stress it may only be necessary to habituate the indi¬
viduals to being experimental subjects (Back et j_[., 1969). If
stress from this source did indeed contribute to a significant
degree, a similar loss of effectiveness due to other stress inducing
experimental manipulations should be observed.
Race was identified as a diffuse status characteristic by
Cohen (1972) for the following reasons derived from status charac¬
teristic theory: (a) there are different states of the status
characteristic (black and white), and associated with these states
is a system of beliefs involving valued and disvalued characteristics
and (b) a state of diffuse status characteristics also involves
expectations or beliefs about how well actors of a given state will
perform in a wide range of situations. This theory explains the way
in which prior status factors determine the emergent power-prestige

no
order in task-oriented groups and developing in the group should show
the same ordering as the values of the diffuse status characteristic.
These conditions are: (a) the task must have differing outcomes; (b)
the task must require the actors to take each other's behavior into
account; (c) participants must feel emotionally conmitted to successful
completion; (d) there must be some element of competence involved
which is perceived as instrumental for a successful outcome; (e) the
competence involved must not have been previously specifically associated
or dissociated from the diffuse status characteristic; and (f) there
must be no basis for discriminating between the participants other than
this diffuse status characteristic (Berger et aK, 1966). Not only
does this theory adequately explain the lower frequency of expressive
behavior on the part of blacks, it also suggests a similar effect
from members of the previously mentioned groups when they are compared
to white males.
The present study has several limitations which might be
addressed by future research to increase the generality of the
results. The subjects used in this study were drawn from a relatively
homogeneous population (except for race, which was planned, and
geographic origin, which was not planned) functioning within a
highly structured environment on an essentially equal status basis.
As stated earlier, the tasks employed were relatively elementary,
the leaders were no more competent in the tasks than the subordinates,
the subordinates were of approximately equal skill, and there was not
an extremely pressing need for group cooperation. Unlike many small-
group laboratory studies using ad hoc groups, the subjects of this

in
study were members of meaningful, longer-term, natural groups,
which insured some commitment by the members to the group; further,
established leader-subordinate relationships existed. Nevertheless,
the commitment and relationships probably did not have the substance
and enduring qualities typically found in work situations. Further,
the status difference between the leaders and subordinates was
hardly substantial, and the leaders possessed minimal power and
authority. Also, the significance of the groups to individual members
was probably small. In normal work situations groups must function
in a considerably different manner; for example, assignments may be
more complex and there may be a more pressing need for cooperation,
relationships are relatively more enduring, significant status
differentials may be perceived, the leaders may exercise a fair
measure of power and authority over group members, and the group
may be of considerable importance in the lives of the members.
Experimental approaches addressing variables such as these should be
fruitful for obtaining a better understanding of differences between
black and white leaders and subordinates in on-going work groups.
Obviously, interactions with race should be expected.
Inquiries are suggested concerning group size and various facets
of group heterogeneity. For example, it may be proposed that minority
as opposed to majority group members (i.e., blacks and whites in the
U.S.) report different preferences for various ratios of black and
white members in a group (Ziller, 1972). This may also be true of
the other minority group classifications previously mentioned. The
present study was limited to two- and four-person subordinate groups,

112
and all-white or all-black subordinate groups were not investigated.
Since both size and composition effects on group performance are
suggested by the present study the investigation of other sizes of
b¡racial subordinate groups (e.g., three- and five-person subordinate
groups), under both black and white leaders and with varying racial
composition from all-white to all-black, would be helpful to better
understand the effects on group behavior and performance due to the
relative racial heterogeneity of the subordinate groups and the
race of the leader.
Also suggested by the present study is the need to investigate
the effect of race as a moderator variable on the leadership dimen¬
sions initiating structure and consideration, which in turn suggests
the need to investigate the effect of race as a moderator variable on
the relationships of other instruments (e.g., Fiedler's 1967 least-
preferred co-worker measure) to leadership behavior and performance.

REFERENCES
Allen, E.G. An investigation of change in reading, achievement, self-
concept, and creativity of disadvantaged elementary school
children experiencing three methods of training. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 1969, 29, 3032-A.
Allen, V.L. (Ed.). Psychological factors in poverty. Chicago:
Markham, 1970.
American Psychological Association, Task Force on Employment Testing
of Minority Groups. Job testing and the disadvantaged.
American Psychologist. 1969, J24, 637-650.
Anastas i, A. and Foley, J.P., Jr. Differential psychology, individual
and group differences in behavior. (Rev. Ed.) New York:
Macmillan, 1949.
Anderson, L.R. Leader behavior, member attitudes, and task performance
of intercultural discussion groups. Journal of Social Psy¬
chology, 1966. 69. 305-319.
Argyle, M., Gardner, G. and Cioffi, F. Supervisory methods related
to productivity, absenteeism and labor turnover. Human
Relations. 1958, 23-40.
Atkinson, J.W. An introduction to motiyation. Princeton, New Jersey:
Van Nostrand, 1964.
Ausubel, D.P. Ego development among segregated Negro children.
Mental Hygiene. 1958, 42, 362-369.
Ausubel, D. and Ausubel, P. Ego development among segregated Negro
children. In Passow, H.A. (Ed.) Education in depressed areas.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Bureau of
Publications, 1963.
Back, K.W. and Bogdonoff, M.D. Buffer conditions in experimental
stress. Behavioral Science. 1967, J_2, 384.
Back, K.W. and Parmesh, C.R. Self-image, information exchange and
social character. International Journal of Psychology. 1969,
4, 109-117.
113

114
Back, K.W., Wilson, S.R., Bogdonoff, M.D. and Troyer, W.G. Racial
environment, cohesion, conformity and stress. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research. 1969, 27-36.
Bales, R.F. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley, 1950.
Bales, R.F. The equilibrium problem in small groups. In Parsons, T.,
Bales, R.F. and Shils, E.A. (Eds.) Working papers in the theory
of .9ction. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1953.
Bass, B.M. Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior.
New York: Harper 6- Raw, I960.
Bass, B.M. and Dunteman, E.A. Behavior in groups as a function of
seif, interaction, and task orientation. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology. 1963, 66, 419-428.
Bass, B.M. and Wurster, C.R. Effects of company rank on LGD performance
of oil refinery supervisors. Journal of Appl ied Psychology. 1953,
¿2, 100-104. (a)
Bass, B.M. and Mjrster, C.R. Effects of the nature of the problem
on LGD performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1953, 22>
96-99. (b)
Bass, B.M., Dunteman, E.A., Vidulich, R. and Wambach, H. Staff
interaction and task orientation inventory scores associated
with overt behavior and personal ity factors. Educational
Psychology Measurements. 1963 , 22,, 101-106.
Bass, E.J. An investigation of changes in selected ninth grade
students' concepts of self and of others after interaction
with selected materials taught in integrated and segregated
groups. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969, 29,
2991-A.
Battle, E. and Rotter, J.B. Children's feeling of personal control
as related to social class and ethnic group. Journal of
Personal ity. 1963, ¿1., 482-490.
Baughman, E.E. and Dahlstrom, W.G. Negro and white children: A
psychological study in the rural South. New York: Academic
Press, 1968.
Baumgartel, H. Leadership, motivations, and attitudes in research
laboratories. Journal of Social Issues. 1956, .12, 24-31.
Baumgartel, H. Leadership style as a variable in research administra¬
tion. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1957, 2, 3**4-360.

115
Bendix, R. and Lipset, S.M. Class, status, and power: A reader in
social stratification. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1953.
Benedict, R. and Weltfish, G, The races of mankind. (Public Affairs
Pamphlet No. 85) New York: Public Affairs Committee, 1943.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. and Zelditch, M. Status characteristics and
expectation states. In Berger, J., Zelditch, M. and Anderson B.
(Eds.) Sociological theories in progress. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1966.
Berger, J., Cohen, B., Conner, J. and Zelditch, M. Status characteris¬
tics and expectation states: A process model. In Berger, J.,
Zelditch, M. and Anderson, B. (Eds.) Sociological theories in
progress. Boston: Houghton Miff1 in, 196b.
Bernard V.W. School desegregation - Some psychiatric implications.
Psychiatry. 1958, 21, 149-158.
Bialer, I. Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally
retarded children and normal children. Journal of Personality.
1961,29,303-320.
Bienvenu, M.J. Effects of school integration of the self-concept
and anxiety of lower-class Negro adolescent males. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 1968, 23, 692.
Blair, G.E. The relationship of selected ego functions and academic
achievement of Negro students. Dissertation Abstracts Inter¬
national. 1972, 28, 3013-A.
Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. Formal organizations. San Francisco:
Chandler, 1962.
Boney, J.D. Predicting the academic achievement of secondary school
Negro students. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1966, 44,
700-703.
Boyd, W.C. Genetics and the races of man: An introduction to modern
physical anthropology. Boston: Little, Brown, 1950.
Brazziel, W.F. Correlations of Southern Negro personality. Journal
of Social Issues. 1964, _20, 45-53.
Bridgette, R.E. Self-esteem in Negro and white Southern adolescents.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 1970, 31(5-B) . 2977-2978.
Broom, L. and Glenn, N.D. Negro-white differences in reported
attitudes and behavior. Sociology and Social Research. 1966,
¿0, 187-200.

116
Burford, R.L. Statistics: A computer approach. Columbus, Ohio:
Merrill, 1968.
Burnstein, E. and McRae, A.V. Some effects of shared threat and
prejudice in racially mixed groups. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology. 1962, 64, 257-263.
Cameron, P. Personality differences between typical urban Negroes
and whites. Journal of Negro Education. 1971» 40, 66-75.
Campbell, A. White attitudes toward black people. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1971.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. and Weick, K.E. Mana¬
gerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Campbell, J.D. and Yarrow, M.R. Personal and situational variables in
adaptation to change. Journal of Social Issues. 1958, 14.
29-46.
Caplin, M.D. The relationship between self-concept and academic
achievement and between level of aspiration and academic
achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International. 1966, 27.
979-980.
Caplin, M.D. The relationship between self-concept and academic
achievement. Journal of Experimental Education. 1969, 37.
13-16.
Carpenter, T.R. and Busse, T.V. Development of self-concept in
Negro and white welfare children. Child Development. 1969,
40, 935-939.
Cavanagh, G.F. Black and white workers' attitudes in three industrial
plants: View from the grassroots. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1971, 32(1-A). 10-11.
Champion, D.J. Basic statistics for social research. Scranton,
Pennsylvania: Chandler, 1970.
Christmas, J.J. Self-concept and attitudes. In Miller, K.S. and
Dreger, R.M. (Eds.) Comparative studies of blacks and whites
in the United States. New York: Seminar Press, 1973.
Clark, K.B. Explos ion in the, ghetto. Psychology Today. 1967,2» 30-39.
Clark, K.B. and Clark, M.P. Racial identification and preference
in Negro children. In Newcomb, T.M. and Hartley, E.L, (Eds.)
Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1947.

117
Cleary, T.A. Test bias: Validity of the scholastic aptitude test
for Negro and white students in integrated colleges. Research
Bulletin 66-31. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing
Service, 1966.
Cleary, T.A. and Hilton, T.L. An investigation of item bias. Research
Bulletin 66-17. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing
Service, 1966.
Cohen, E.G. Interracial interaction disability. Human Relations.
1972, 2£, 9-24.
Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood,
A.M., Weinfeld, F.D. and York, R.L. Equality of educational
opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1966.
Coles, R. Children of crisis: A study of courage and fear. Boston:
Atlantic-Little, Brown, 1967.
Comrey, A.L., Pfiffner, J. and Wallace, H. Factors influencing
organizational effectiveness. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California, 1954.
Crandall, V.C., Katkovsky, W. and Crandall, V.J. Children's beliefs
in their own control of reinforcements in intel1ectual-
academic achievement situations. Child Development. 1965,
16, 91-109.
Crandall, V.J., Katkovsky, W. and Preston, A. Motivational and
ability determinants of young children's intellectual achieve¬
ment behaviors. Child Development. 1962, H, 643-661.
Crovetto, L. How he sees himself. New Orleans, Louisiana: New
Orleans Public Schools, 1968.
Crovetto, L., Fischer, A.M. and Boudreaux, J.L. The pre-school child
and his self-image. New Orleans, Louisiana: New Orleans
Public Schools, 1967.
CRUITRAC0M0RLINST 5400.1C Company Commander's Guide. Enclosure (l),
change 2, dated 12 May 1972.
Curtis, L. Digest of research studies on self-concept. Graduate
Research in Education and Related Disciplines. 1967, J, 82-88.
Danielson, L.E. and Maier, N.R.F. Supervisory problems in decision¬
making. Personnel Psychology. 1957, JO, 169-180.
Dennis, W. Racial change in Negro drawings. Journal of Psychology.
1968, 69, 129-130.

118
Deutsch, M. Minority group and class status as related to social
and personality factors in scholastic achievement. Society
for Applied Anthropology Monographers. I960, No. 2, 32pp.
Deutsch, M., Katz, I. and Jensen, A.R. (Eds.) Social class, race, and
psychological development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1968.
DiVesta, F.J. Instructor-centered and student-centered approaches
to teaching a human relations course. Journal of Appl ied
Psychology. 1954, ¿8, 329-335.
Dixon, W.J. (Ed.).. BMP Biomedical computer programs, X-series
supplement. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1969.
Dizard, J.E. Black identity, social class, and black power.
Psychiatry. 1970, ¿2, 195-207.
Douglas, L. A comparative analysis of the relationships between
self-esteem and certain selected variables among youth from
diverse racial groups. Dissertation Abstracts International.
1970, 31 (2-A). 641-642.
Doyle, M. A comparative study of creativity in Negroes and Cauca¬
sians. Child Study Journal. 1970, _1_, 25-27.
Dreger, R.M. and Miller, K.S. Comparative psychological studies of
Negroes and whites in the United States. Psychological Bulle¬
tin. 1960, ¿2, 361-402.
Dreger, R.M. and Miller, K.S. Comparative psychological studies of
Negroes and whites in the United States: 1959-1965. Psycho¬
logical Bulletin Monograph Supplement. 1968, Part 2,
1-58.
Duffy, E. The psychological significance of the concept of "arousal"
or "activation." Psychological Review. 1957, .64, 265-275.
Dunn, L.C. and Dobzhansky, T.G. Heredity, race, and society. New
York: Penguin, 1946.
Dunteman, E.A. and Bass, B.M. Supervisory and engineering success
associated with self, interaction, and task orientation scores.
Personnel Psychology, 1963, JJ5, 13-21.
Epps, E.G. Negro academic motivation and performance: An overview.
Journal of Social Issues. 1969, 2£, 5-11.

119
Epps, E.G., Katz, I. and Runyon, E. Effect of race of comparison
referent and motives on Negro performance: A Northern replica-
tion. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, 1970.
Feldman, J. Race, economic class, and job-seeking behavior: An
exploratory study. Technical Report No. 15, SRS No. 15-P-
55175/5. Champaign: University of Illinois, 1972.
Fenelon, J.R. and Megargee, E.l. Influence of race on the manifesta¬
tion of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1971,
5¿, 353-358. ‘ "
Ferman, L.A., Kornbuk, J. and Miller, J.A. Negroes and jobs. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 19o8.
Fiedler, F.E. A theory-of leadership effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Flanagan, J. and Lewis, G. Comparison of Negro and white lower-class
men on the General Aptitude Test Battery and the Minnesota
Multi phasic Personality Inventory. Journal of Social Psychology.
1969, I§, 289-291. ^
Fleishman, E.A. The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of ,
Applied Psychology. 1953, 2], 1-6.
Fleishman, E.A. A leader behavior description for industry. In
Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds.) Leader behavior: Its
description and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: College of
Administrative Science, The Ohio State University, 1957. (a)
Fleishman, E.A. The leadership opinion questionnaire. In Stogdill,
R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds.) Leader behavior: Its description
and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: College of Administrative
Science, The Ohio State University, 1957. (b)
Fleishman, E.A. and Harris, E.F. Patterns of leadership behavior
related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psy¬
chology. 1962,15, 43-55.
Fleishman, E.A and Peters, O.R. Interpersonal values, leadership
attitudes, and managerial "success." Personnel Psychology.
1962, 15, 127-143. ‘
Fleishman, E.A. and Simmons, J. Relationship between leadership
patterns and effectiveness ratings among Israeli foremen.
Personnel Psychology. 1970 , 2£, 169-172.

120
Fleishman, E.A., Harris, E.F. and Burtt, H.E. Leadership and super¬
vision in industry. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Educational
Research , Ohio State University, 1955.
Frazier, E.F. The Negro family in the United States. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1939.
Frazier, E.F. The Negro in the United States. New York: Macmillan,
1957.
Freeman, H.F., Armor, D., Ross, M.J. and Pettigrew, T.F. Color
gradation and attitudes among middle-income Negroes. American
Sociological Review. 1966, ¿1_» 365-374.
Freyberg, J. and Shapiro, N. Digest of research studies on the
relation of socio-economic status to personality variables
(1962-1965). Graduate Research in Education and Related
Disciplines. 1966, 2, 102-107.
Garth, T.A. A review of racial psychology. Psychological Bulletin.
1925, 22, 343-364.
Garth, T.A. Race psychology: A study of racial mental differences.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931.
Gay, C.J. Academic achievement and intelligence among Negro eighth
grade students as a function of self-concept. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 1966, 1I2-A.
Getter, A.B. and Satow, Y. Color and physiognomy as variables in
racial mis identification among children. Proceedings of
American Psychological Association. 77th, 1969, 4, ¿77-678.
Ginzberg, E. The Negro potential. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1956.
Glasgow, A.D. The self-perceptions of leadership behavior of the
black secondary school principal. Dissertation Abstracts
international. 1970, 31 (5-A). 2050.
Goodman, M.E. Race awareness in young children. Reading, Massa¬
chusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1952.
Gordon, M.A. Influence of background factors upon the prediction of
success in Air Force Training Schools: A review of the
literature. Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. Air Force
Personnel and Training Research Center, June, 1955, Research
Report AFPTRC-TN-55-4.

121
Grambs, J.D. The self-concept: Basis for reeducation of Negro
youth. In Kvaraceus, W. C., Gibson, J.S., Patterson, F.,
Seasholes, B. and Grambs, J.D. Negro self-concept: Implica¬
tions for school and citizenship. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Greenberg, J.W., Genver, J.M., Chali, J. and Davidson, H.H. Attitudes
of children from a deprived environment toward achievement
related concepts. Journal of Educational Research. 1965, 59,
57-62.
Greene, D.L. and Winter, D.G. Motives, involvements, and leadership
among black college students. Journal of Personality. 1971,
19, 319-332.
Greenwald, H.J. and Oppenheim, D.B. Reported magnitude of self-
mis ¡dent ificat ion among Negro children: Artifact? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 1968, 8, 49-52.
Guggenheim, F. Self-esteem and achievement for white and Negro
children. Journal of Projective Technigues and Personality
Assessment. 1969, H, 63-71.
Gurin, G. An expectancy approach to job training programs. In
Allen, V.L. (Ed.) Psychological factors in poverty. Chicago:
Markham Publishing Company, 1970.
Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R. and Beattie, M. Internal-external
control in tFemotivational dynamics of Negro youth. Journal
of Social Issues, 1969, 2£, 29-53.
Hall, W.S. Two variables associated with differential productive
cultural involvement among lower-class Negro and Caucasian
young men. Research Bulletin RB-69-7. Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service, January, 1969.
Halpin, A.W. The leadership behavior and combat performance of air¬
craft commanders. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1954, 49, 19-22.
Halpin, A.W. The leader behavior and leadership ideology of educa¬
tional administrators and aircraft commanders. Harvard
Educational Review. 1955 , 20.» 18-32.
Halpin, A. and Winer, B.J. A factorial study of the leader behavior
description. InStogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds.) Leader
Behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, Ohio:
College of Administrative Science, The Ohio State University,
1957.

122
Harding, J., Proshansky, H.f Kutner, B. and Chain, I. Prejudice
and ethnic relations. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.)
The handbook of Social psychology. Reading, Massachusetts:1
Add is on-Wes ley, 1969.
Harris, E.F. and Fleishman, E.A. Human relations training and the
stability of leadership patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology.
1955, 22, 20-25. ""
Hatton, J.M. Reactions of Negroes in a biracial bargaining situation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1967, 2» 301-306.
Haythorn, W.W. The composition of groups: A review of the literature.
Acta Psychologica. 1968, 28, 97-128.
Hemphill, J.K. Leader behavior associated with the administrative
reputations of college departments. In Stogdill.,. R..M. and
Coons, A.E. (Eds.) Leader behavior: Its description and
measurement. Columbus, Ohio: College of Administrative
Science, The Ohio State University, 1957.
Henderson, E.H., Long, B.H. and Ziller, R.C. Self-social constructs
of achieving and non-achieving readers. The Reading Teacher.
1965, 12, 114-118.
Henderson, G. Role models for lower class Negro boys. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1967, 46, 6-10.
Hersch, P.D. and Scheibe, K.E. Reliability and validity of internal-
external control as a personality dimension. Journal of
Consulting Psychology. 1967, ¿1, 609-613.
Hodgkins, B.J. and Stakenas, R.G. A study of self-concepts of Negro
and white youth in segregated environments. Journal of Negro
Education. 1969, ¿8, 370-377.
Hollander, E.P. Authoritarianism and leadership choice in a military
setting. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954,
42, 365-37*27
House, R.J., Filley, A.C. and Gujarati, D.N. Leadership style,
hierarchical influence and the satisfaction of subordinate role
expectations: A test of Likerts influence proposition.
Journal of Appl ied Psychology. 1971, 5¿, 422-432.
House, R.J., Filley, A.C. and Kerr, S. Relation of leader considera¬
tion and initiating structure to R and D subordinates* satis¬
faction. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1971, JJ5, 19-30.

123
Hraba, J. and Grant, G. Black is beautiful: A re-examination of
racial preference and identification. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 1970, J6, 398-^402.
Indik, P.P., Seashore, S.E. and Georgopoulos, B.S. Relationships
among criteria of job performance. Journal of Applied Psy¬
chology. I960, 44, 195-202.
Jacobs, T.0. Leadership and exchange in formal organizations.
Alexandria, Virginia: Human Resources Research Organization,
1970.
Jaffee, C.L., Cohen, S.L. and Cherry, R. Supervisory selection program
for disadvantaged or minority employees. Training and Develop¬
ment Journal. 1972, 26, 22-27.
Jefferson, R. Some obstacles to racial integration. Journal of
Negro Education. 1957, 26, 145-154.
Kahl, J.A. and Goering, J.M. Stable workers, black and white. Socia 1
Problems. 1971, J8, 306-318.
Kardiner, A. and Ovesey, L. The mark of oppression: A psychosocial
study of the American Negro. New York: Norton, 1951.
Kardiner, A. and Ovesey, L. The mark of oppression: Explorations in the
personal ity of the American Negrol New York: Meridian, 1962.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. Leadership practices in relation to produc¬
tivity and morale. In Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (Eds.)
Group dynamics: Research and theory. Evanston, Illinois:
Row and Peterson, 1953.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N.M. and Morse, N.C. Productivity, supervision,
and morale in an office situation. Ann Arbor: Survey Research
Center, University of Michigan, 1950.
Katz, 1. Review of evidence relating to effects of desegregation on
the intellectual performance of Negroes. American Psychologist,
1964, J9, 381-399.
Katz, I. The socialization of academic motivation in minority group
children. In Levine, D. Nebraska symposium on motivation. 1967.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967'.'
Katz, l¿ Experimental studies of Negro-white relationships. In
Berkowitz, L. (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology.
New York: Academic Press, 1970.
Katz, I. and Benjamin, L. Effects of white authoritarianism in
biracial work groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
I960, 61, 448-456.

124
Katz, I. and Cohen, M. The effects of training Negroes upon coopera¬
tive problem solving in biracial teams. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology. 1962, 64, 319-325.
Katz, I. and Greenbaum, C. Effects of anxiety, threat, and racial
environment on task performance of Negro college students.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963, 66, 562-567.
Katz, I., Epps, E.G. and Axelson, L.J. Effect upon Negro digit-
symbol performance of anticipated comparison with whites and
with other Negroes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1964, 69, 77-83.
Katz, I., Epps, E.G. and Perry, A. Effect of race of comparison
referent and achievement motive on Negro cognitive performance.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, 1970.
Katz, I., Goldston, J. and Benjamin, L. Behavior and productivity in
biracial work groups. Human Relations. 1958, _M, 123-141.
Katz, I., Roberts, S.O. and Robinson, J.M. Effects of task difficulty,
race of administrator, and instructions on digit symbol per¬
formance of Negroes. Journal of Personality and Social Psy¬
chology. 1965, 2, 53-59.
Katz, I., Atchison, C.O., Epps, E.G. and Roberts, S.O. Race of
evaluator, race of norm, and expectancy as determinants of
black performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
1972, 8, 1-15.
Katzel1, R.A., Ewen, R.B. and Korman, A.K. The job attitudes of
workers from different ethnic backgrounds. U.S. Department of
Labor Contract 41-8-006-34. New York University, 1970.
Katzel1, R.A., Miller, C.E., Rotter, N.G. and Venet, T.G. Effects of
leadership and other inputs on group processes and outputs.
Journal of Social Psychology. 1970, 80, 157-169.
Kelman, H.C. A socio-psychological model of political legitimacy and
its relevance to black and white protest movements. Psychiatrv.
1970, ¿J, 224-246.
King, D. and Bass, B. Leadership, power, and influence. Lafayette,
Indiana: Institute for Research In the Behavioral, Economic,
and Management Sciences, Herman C. Krannert Graduate School of
Industrial Administration, Purdue University, 1970 (Paper No.
280).

125
Kirkpatrick, J.J., Ewen, R.B., Barrett, R.S. and Katzel1, R.A.
Differential selection among applicants from different socio¬
economic or ethnic backgrounds. Final Report to Ford Foundation.
New York University, 1967.
K1ineberg, 0. Race differences. New York: Harper, 1935.
K1 ineberg, 0. (Ed.). Characteristics of the American Negro. New
York: Harper, 1944.
Knox, E.O. The Negro as a subject of university research in 1944.
Journal of Negro Education. 1945, J4, 182-196.
Knox, E.O. The Negro as a subject of university research in 1948.
Journal of Negro Education. 1949, J8, 489-497.
Knox, E.O. The Negro as a subject of university research in 1951.
Journal of Negro Education. 1952, _21_, 484-491.
Kochman, T. Rapping in the black ghetto. Transaction. 1969, 6,
29-34.
Korman, A.K. "Consideration," "initiating structure," and organiza¬
tional criteria - a review. Personnel Psychology. 1966, 19.
349-361.
Landreth, C. and Johnson, B.C. Young children's responses to a
picture and inset test designed to reveal reactions to persons
of different skin color. Child Development. 1953, 24, 63-79.
Lao, R.C. Internal-external control and competent and innovative
behavior among Negro college students. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 1970, .14, 263-270.
Lefcourt, H.M. Risk taking in Negro and white adults. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1965, 2, 765-770.
Lefcourt, H.M. Internal versus external control of reinforcement:
A review. Psychological Bulletin. 3966, 6¿, 206-220.
Lefcourt, H.M. and Ladwig, G. The American Negro: A problem in
expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
1965, 1, 377-3807155
Lefcourt, H.M. and Ladwig, G. The effect of reference group upon
Negroes' task persistence in a biracial competitive game.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965, 1, 668-
671. (b)
Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

126
Lindzey, G. (Ed.). Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 195h.
Long, G.H. and Henderson, E.H. Self-social concepts of disadvantaged
school beginners. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1968, 113.
41-51.
Lott, A.J. and Lott, B.E. Negro and white youth: A psychological study
in a border state community. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1963.
Lourenso, S.V., Greenberg, J.W. and Davidson, H.H. Personality charac¬
teristics revealed in drawings of deprived children who differ
in scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational Research.
1965, ¿9, 63-67.
Lowin, A. Participative decision making: A model, literature
critique, and prescriptions for research. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance. 1968, ¿, 68-106.
Lowin, A., Hrapchak, W.J. and Kavanagh, M.J. Consideration and
initiating structure: An experimental investigation of leader¬
ship traits. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1969, J_2, 238-
253. '
Malmo, R.B. Anxiety and behavioral arousal. Psychological Review.
1957, 64» 276-287.
Maslow, A.H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row,
1954.
McDonald, R.L. and Gynther, M.D. Relationship of self and ideal-
self descriptions with sex, race, and class in Southern adolescents.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965, J., 85-88.
McElroy, J.L. A study of the relationships among stability of social-
class position, race, and self-esteem. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 1971, 32(4-A). 1859-1860.
McFann, H.H. HumRRO research and project 100,000. HumRRO Professional
Paper. 1970, No. 33-70, 4p.
McWhirt, R.A. The effects of desegregation on prejudice, academic
aspiration and the self-concept of tenth grade students.
Dissertation Abstracts International. Í967, 28, 2610-B.
Mendenhall, W. Introduction to linear models and the design and
analysis of experiments. Belmont, California: Wadsworth,
1968.

127
Mendenhall, W. Introduction to probability and statistics. (3rd Ed.).
Belmont, California: Duxbury Press, 1971.
Merbaum, A.D. Need for achievement in Negro and white children.
Dissertation Abstracts. 1962, 2J, 693-694.
Merit for hire. Supervisory Management. 1958, ¿, 8-14.
Miller, K.S. and Dreger, R.M. (Eds.) Comparative studies of blacks and
whites in the United States. New York: Seminar Press, 1973.
Milutinovich, J.S. A comparative study of job satisfaction of Negro
and white employees under participative and authoritative super¬
visory styles. Dissertation Abstracts International. 1971,
32(3-B), 1892.
Mingione, A.D. Need for achievement in Negro and white children.
Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1965, 29, 108-111.
Misumi, J. and Tosaki, T. A study of effectiveness of supervisory
patterns with Japanese hierarchial organization. Japanese
Psychological Research. 1965, 1, 151-162.
Montagu, M.F.A. Man's most dangerous myth: The fallacy of race.
(3rd Ed.). New York: Harper, 1952.
Moore, J.V. Factor analytic comparisons of superior and subordinate
ratings of same NCO supervisors. Technical Report, U.S. Air
Force Human Resources Research Center, 1953.
Moore, J.V. and Smith, R.G., Jr. Aspects of non-commissioned officer
leadership. Technical Report No. 52-53, U.S. Air Force Human
Resources Research Center, 1952.
Mori and, J.K. Racial acceptance and preference of nursery school
children in a Southern city. Merrill Palmer Quarterly. 1962,
8, 271-280.
Moskos, C.C., Jr. Racial integration in the armed forces. American
Journal of Sociology. 1967, ¿2, 132-148.
Mossman, B.M. and Ziller, R.C. Self-esteem and consistency of social
behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1968, Q, 363-367.
Munday, L. Predicting college grades in predominantly Negro colleges.
Journal of Educational Measurement. 1965, 2, 157-160.
NAVPERS 15812B Manual of Enlisted Classification Procedures. Washing¬
ton, D.C.:U.S. Navy, Bureau of Naval Personnel, October,
1970.

128
NAVPERS 92353B Curriculum for Recruit Training. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Navy, Bureau of Naval Personnel, June, 1968.
Nelson, R., Achabel, D. and George, W. The black salesman: How is
he doing? Personnel Journal. 1971, j>0, 705-712.
North, R.D. The intelligence of American Negroes. In Turmin, M.M.
(Ed.) Segregation and desegregation: A digest of recent research.
New York: Anti-defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1957.
Oaklander, H. and Fleishman, E.A. Patterns of leadership related to
organizational stress in hospital settings. Administrative
Science Quarterly. 1964, J3, 520-53 2.
Ogletree, E. Skin color preference of the Negro child. Journal of
Psychology. 1969, J3, 143-144.
Osborne, R.T. and Gregor, A.J. Racial differences in heritability
estimates for tests of spatial ability. Perceptual and Motor
Skills. 1968 , 22, 735-739.
Patchen, M. Absence and employee feeling about fair treatment.
Personnel Psychology. I960, 349-360.
Pettigrew, T.F. A profile of the Negro American. Princeton, New
Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1964.
Poussaint, A.F. and Atkinson, C.O. Negro youth and psychological
motivation. Journal of Negro Education. 1968, ¿2» 241-251.
Preston, M. and Bayton, J. Differential effects of a social variable
upon three levels of aspiration. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 1941, J29, 351-369.
Proshansky, H. M. and Newton, P. The nature and meaning of Negro
self-identity. In Deutsch, M., Katz, I. and Jensen, A.R.
(Eds.) Social class, race, and psychological development.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.
Radke, M. and Trager, H.G. Children's perceptions of the social roles
of Negroes and whites. Journal of Psychology. 1950, 29, 3-33.
Richards, S.A. and Cuffee, J.U. Behav-ioral correlates of leadership
effectiveness in interacting and counteracting groups. Unpub¬
lished manuscript, San Diego State College, 1971.
Richards, S.A. and Jaffee, C.L. Blacks supervising whites: A study
of inter-racial difficulties in working together in a simulated
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 234-240.

129
Rose, A. The Negro in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 1956.
Rosen, B.C. Race, ethnicity, and the achievement syndrome. American
Sociological Review. 1959 , ^7-60.
Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965.
Rotter, J.B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs. 1966, 80,
Whole No. 609, 1-28.
Ruhe, J.A. The effects of varying racial compositions upon attitudes
and behaviors of supervisors and subordinates in similated work
groups. University of Florida, Gainesville, 1972.
Sarason, S.B. and Gladwin, T. Psychological and cultural problems in
mental subnormality. Genetic Psychology Monographs. 1958,
3-290.
Sattler, J.M. Racial "experimenter effects" in experimentation,
testing, interviewing, and psychotherapy. Psychological
Bulletin. 1970, J2., 137-160.
Seeman, M. Social status and leadership: The case of the school
executive. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Education Research, The
Ohio State University, I960.
Shartle, C.L. Executive performance and leadership. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1956.
Shaw, M.E. Scaling group tasks: A method for dimensional analysis.
ONR Tech. Rep. No. 1. Contract NR 170-266, Non R-580(ll), 1963.
Shaw, M.E. Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Shuey, A.M. The testing of Negro intelligence. Lynchburg, Virginia:
Randolph-Macon Women's College, 1958.
Sistrunk, F. Negro-white comparisons in social conformity. Journal
of Social Psychology, 1971, 8¿, 77-85.
Smith, P.C. Criteria for evaluating executive effectiveness. In
Wickert, F.R. and McFarland, D.E. Measuring executive effective¬
ness. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hul in, C.L. The measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study
of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

130
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. Statistical methods. (6th Ed.).
Ames: The Iowa State University Press, 1967.
Soares, A.T. and Soares, L.M. Self-perception of culturally disad¬
vantaged children. American Educational Research Journal.
1969, 6, 31-45.
Solomon, D., Houlihan, K.A. and Pareluis, R.J. Intellectual achieve¬
ment responsibility in Negro and white children. Psycholoqical
Reports. 1969, 24, 479-483.
Spector, A.J., Clark, R.A. and Glickman, A.S. Supervisory characteris¬
tics and attitudes of subordinates. Personnel Psychology.
I960, J¿, 301-316.
Stanley, J.C. and Porter, A.C. Correlation of scholastic aptitude
test score with college grades for Negroes versus whites.
Journal of Educational Measurement. 1967, 4, 199-229.
Stanton, E.S. Company policies and supervisors' attitudes toward
supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology. I960, j{4, 22-26.
Stevenson, H.W. and Stewart, E.C. A developmental study of race
awareness in young children. Child Development. 1958, 29.
399-410.
Stogdill, R.M. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey
of the literature. Journal of Psychology. 1948, _2£, 35-71.
Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds.). Leader behavior: Its descrip¬
tion and measurement. Columbus, Ohio: College of Administrative
Science, The Ohio State University, 1957.
Stouffer, S.A., Borgatta, E.F., Hays, D.G. and Henry, A.F. A tech¬
nique for improving cumulative scales. Public Opinion Quarterly.
1952, J6, 273-291.
Stouffer, S.A., Suchman, E.A., DeVinney, L.C., Star, S.A. and
Williams, R.M., Jr. Studies in social psychology in World
War I I. Vol. 1, The American soldier: Adjustment during Army
1ife. Princeton, University Press, Í949.
Strauss, S. The effect of school integration on the self-concept of
Negro and Puerto Rican children. Graduate Research in Education
and Related Disciplines. 1967, 63-76.
Talley, P. The relation of group counseling to changes in the self-
concept of Negro eighth grade students. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 1968 , 28, 2524.

131
Taylor, C.P. Some changes in self-concept in the first year of
desegregated schooling: The outward walls and the inward scars.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 1968, 22, 821-822.
Tenopyr, M.L. Race and socioeconomic status as moderators in predicting
machineshop training success. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.,
September, 1967.
Thomas, E.J. and Fink, C.F. Effects of group size. Psychological
Bulletin. 1963, 60, 371-384. -
Thumin, F. and Goldman, S. Comparative test performance of Negro
and white job applicants. Journal of Cl inicai Psychology.
1968, 24, 455-457.
Tomlinson, T.M. Determinants of black politics: Riots and the
growth of militancy. Psychiatry. 1970, 247-264.
Triandis, H.C. and Malpass, R.S, Studies of black and white interaction
in job settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1971.
1, 101-117.
Tyler, L.E. The psychology of human differences. (2nd Ed.). New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956.
Veroff, J., Atkinson, J.W., Feld, S.C. and Gurin, G. The use of
thematic apperception to assess motivation in a nationwide
interview study. Psychological Monographs. I960, Jh (12,
Whole No. 499).
Wendland, M.M. Self-concept in Southern Negro and white adolescents
as related to rural-urban residence. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 1969, 22, 2642-B.
White, M.O. Alienation and self-esteem as they relate to race, sex,
socioeconomic and school variables in urban high school age
youth. Dissertation Abstracts International. 1971, 32(2-A) .
803-804.
Williams, R.L. and Byars, H. Negro self-esteem in a transitional
society. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1969, 4¿, 120-125.
Williams, R.L. and Byars, H. The effect of academic integration on
the self-esteem of Southern Negro students. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1970, J30, 183— 188.
Woodworth, R.S. Comparative psychology of races. Psychological
Bulletin. 1916, J¿, 388-397.

132
Wylie, R.C. and Hutchins, B. Schoolwork ability estimates and aspira¬
tions as a function of socio-economic level, race and sex.
Psychological Reports. 1967, _2]_, 781-808.
Yeatts, P.P. An analysis of developmental changes in the self-report
of Negro and white children, grades 3-12. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 1968, 29, 823.
Zdep, S.M. Intra group reinforcements and its effects on leadership
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1969,
4, 284-298.
Ziller, R.C. A theory of self-other orientation and interpersonal
conflict. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, 1968.
Ziller, R.C. Manual for self-other orientation tasks. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Florida, 1971.
Ziller, R.C. Homogeneity and heteogeneity of group membership. In
McClintock, C.G. (Ed.) Experimental social psychology. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
Ziller, R.C., Megas, J. and DeCencio, 0. Self-social constructs of
normals and acute neuropsychiatric patients. Journal of
Consulting Psychology. 1964, _28, 50-63.
Ziller, R.C., Hagey, J., Smith, M.D.C. and Long, B.H. Self-esteem:
A self-social construct. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 1969, ¿2, 84-95.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SQUAD LEADERS
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU BEGIN
We are going to ask you for some information. It is important
that every item be completed and that you follow the instructions.
This information is completely CONFIDENTIAL. It will be known only
to researchers at the University of Florida. There are no right or
wrong answers, but it is important that every item be answered
honestly.
Please ask if you have any questions. Do not rush. There is
no time 1imit.
13^

APPENDIX B
PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTIONS: It will help us to know something about you. Please
answer the following questions.
NAME AGE
Please indicate your marital status by checking one of the following
categor¡es.
Married? Divorced?
S ingle? Separated?
How many dependents do you have (exclude yourself)? ____________________
Where were you born? ______________________________________________
city state
Where were you raised?
city state
What type of community did you 1ive in during the time you were growing
up? (Please check one.)
farm community medium-sized or large city
small town _____ hard to say, we moved often
When you were growing up, what was your family's income? (Please check
one.)
higher than average for the country?
about average for the country?
less than average for the country?
very much below average for the country?
so low we were mostly on welfare?
135

136
Whan did you live with most of the time while you were growing up?
(Please check one.)
your mother and father
your mother only
your father only
others (please specify relationship to you, if any)
How many brothers and sisters do you have?
You have seen in the paper stories about social class differences. In
which of these classes do you think you really belong? (Please check one.)
upper class working class
middle class poverty class
What was your father's occupation or major job duty?
unskilled
semi-skilled
skilled
(Please check one.)
clerical or white
col lar
professional
INSTRUCTIONS: Now, please tell us how you feel about some things.
NEITHER
LIKE LIKE NOR DISLIKE
(Squad leaders and squad members VERY DON'T DON'T VERY
answer these) MUCH LIKE LIKE LIKE MUCH
The 1 ife at boot camp
What you do in your spare time
Your squad
Your family life _____
Friends at boot camp
Your company commander
Taking part in social activities _____
The way other recruits treat you _____ _____
Your 1 ife in general ____ _____
A 1 ife in the Navy _____
(Only squad members answer this)
Your squad leader
(answer above by checking how much you like each item)

137
h
What is the name of the best squad leader in your company? _____________
What rank would you like to reach during your first enlistment? _____
What do you think the odds are that you will make this rank? (circle one)
1 chance in 10
2 chances in 10
3 chances in 10
4 chances in 10
5 chances in 10
6 chances in 10
7 chances in 10
8 chances in 10
9 chances in 10
10 chances in 10

APPENDIX C
IEC
We're going to ask some questions, each of which has two parts,
a and b. For each question, we want to know which part you believe
more true. In some cases you may bel leve both parts are true. In
some cases you may think neither part is true. But, for every question,
we want you to choose the part which you believe is more true.
Be sure to choose the one you actually believe to be more true,
rather than the one you think you should choose or the one you would
1 ike to be true.
There are no right or wrong answers. This is a measure of your
own beliefs.
Read both parts of each question. Then circle the letter ¿ or J),
whichever part you bel ieve is more true. Each question should be
answered by itself. Don't worry about how you have answered the others.
Be sure to answer al 1 the questions.
REMEMBER
There are no right or wrong answers. Make the choice which you
believe to be more true.
1.a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much,
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are
too easy with them.
2.a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad
luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
3.a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't
take enough interest in politics.
b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent
them.
4.a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world,
b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no
matter how hard he tries.
138

139
5.a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are
influenced by accidental happenings.
6.a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage
of their opportunities.
7.a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to
get along with others.
8.a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality.
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like.
9.a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a
decision to take a definite course of action.
10.a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever
such a thing as an unfair test.
b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work
that studying is really useless.
11.a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or
nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at
the right time.
12.a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions,
b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not
much the little guy can do about it.
13.a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work,
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things
turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.
14.a. There are certain people who are just no good,
b. There is some good in everybody.
15.a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck,
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a
coin.
16.a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to
be in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck
has little or nothing to do with it.
17.a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims
of forces we can neither understand nor control,
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people
can control world events.

18.a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are
controlled by accidental happenings,
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."
19.a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes,
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.
20.a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many friends you have depends on how nice a person you are.
21.a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the
good ones.
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance,
laziness, or all three.
22.a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over things
politicians do in office.
23.a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades
they give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the
. , grades I get.
24.a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they
should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.
25.a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things
that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an
important role in my life.
26.a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they
1 ike you, they 1 ike you.
27.a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school,
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.
28.a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction
my life is taking.
29.a. Most of the time 1 can't understand why politicians behave the
way they do.
b. In the.'long runthe people are responsible for bad government on
a national as well as on a local level.

APPENDIX D
SOCIAL ORIENTATION TASKS
The diagrams which follow are designed to provide an indication
of the way you look at yourself and significant other people. In this
description of yourself and others, words are avoided. This is a social
psychological Instrument designed for research purposes only. Hopefully,
it will tell us something about differences among people in their
perceptions of self and others.
ZSE-1
The circles below stand for people. Mark each circle with the letter
standing for one of the people in the list. Do this in any way you
1 ike, but use each person only once and do not omit anyone.
A - a good athlete S - a student
N - a nurse Y - Yourself
P - a sad person B - a brother or someone who is
most 1 ike a brother
141

ZSE-2
142
The circles below stand for people. Mark each circle with the letter
standing for one of the people in the 1ist. Do this in any way you 1 ike,
but use each person only once and do not omit anyone.
T - a teacher M - Mother
Y - Yourself S - someone you feel sorry for
B - a beautiful person C - a cheerful person
ZSE-3
The circles below stand for people. Mark each circle with the letter
standing for one of the people in the list. Do this in any way you
like, but use each person only once and do not omit anyone.
F - a friend G - Grandmother
S - a selfish person L - someone you hope to be like
Y - Yourself
D - a dean of students

o
143
ZSE-4
The circles below stand for people. Mark each circle with the letter
standing for one of the people in the list. Do this in any way you like,
but use each person only once and do not omit anyone.
Y - Yourself C - a cruel person
S - your sister or someone W - someone who has learned
who is most like a a lot
sister
L - a lucky person
F - a fireman
ZSE-5
The circles below stand for people. Mark each circle with the letter
standing for one of the people in the list. Do this in any way you
like, but use each only once and do not omit anyone.
F - Father Y - Yourself
B - your best friend K - a kind person
D - Doctor
M - someone who makes mistakes

ZSE - 6
144
The circles below stand for people. Mark each circle with the letter
standing for one of the people in the list. Do this in any way you
like, but use each person only once and do not omit anyone.
U - someone who is not kind H - the happiest person you know
P - a polite person N - a neighbor
S - the strongest person Y - Yourself
you know

V
APPENDIX E
RSE
On the next 10 questions, be sure to choose the choice you
actually be!ieve to be more true, rather than the one you think you
should choose or the one you would 1 ike to be true.
There are no right or wrong answers. This is a measure of your
own beliefs.
1. I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least equal with others.
1 Strongly agree
2 Agree
3 Disagree
4 __________ Strongly disagree
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
1 Strongly agree
2 ________ Agree
3 ________ Disagree
4 Strongly disagree
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
1 ___________ Strongly agree
2 Agree
3 Disagree
4 _________ Strongly disagree
145

3
146
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
1 Strongly agree
2 _________ Agree
3 Disagree
4 Strongly disagree
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
1 Strongly agree
2 Agree
3 Disagree
4 Strongly disagree
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
1 Strongly agree
2 ________ Agree
3 _______ Disagree
4 Strongly disagree
7. On the whole, 1 am satisfied with myself.
1 Strongly agree
2 _________ Agree
3 _________ Disagree
4 Strongly disagree
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
1 Strongly agree
2 ________ Agree
3 _______ Disagree
4 Strongly disagree

147
9. I certainly feel useless at times.
1 Strongly agree
2 Agree
3 Disagree
4 ________ Strongly disagree
10. At times I think 1 am no good at all.
1 Strongly agree
2 Agree
3 _________ Disagree
4 Strongly disagree

APPENDIX F
LOQ
INSTRUCTIONS:
You have observed your own behavior and know pretty well how you operate.
In this questionnaire, you are simply to describe come of the things
you do with your squad (your work group).
For each item choose the choice which best describes how often you
do what that item says. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers
to these questions. The items simply describe your behavior; they
do not judge whether your behavior is desirable or undesirable.
Everyone is different and so is every squad, so we expect differences
in what different squad leaders do.
Answer the items by putting a circle around each item to indicate your
choice.
1. Refuse to compromise a point.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
2. Do personal favors for people in the work group.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
3. Speak in a manner not to be questioned.
1. Always 2. Often Ocasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
4. Ask for more than members of the work group can get done.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5.Very seldom
5. Help people in the work group with their personal problems.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
6. Stand up for those in the work group under you, even though it
makes you unpopular with others.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never

149
7. Insist that everything be done your way.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
8. Reject suggestions for change.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
9. Change the duties of people in the work group without first talking
it over with them.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
10. Resist changes in ways of doing things.
1. A great deal 2. Fairly much 3. To some degree
4. Comparatively little 5. Not at all
11. Refuse to explain your actions.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
12. Act without consulting the work group.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
13. Back up what people under you do.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
14. Be slow to accept new ideas.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
15. Treat all people in the work group as your equal.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
16. Criticize a specific act rather than a particular member of the
work group.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
17. Be willing to make changes.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
18. Put suggestions made by people in the work group into operation.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
19. Get the approval of the work group on important matters before
going ahead.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
20. Give in to others in discussions with your work group.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally. 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
21. Encourage overtime work.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom

n
150
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Try out your own new ideas in the work group.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
Rule with an iron hand.
1. Always 2. Often
3.
Occas ionally
4. Seldom
5.
Never
Criticize poor work.
1. Always 2. Often
3.
Occasional ly
4. Seldom
5.
Never
Talk about how much should be done.
1. A great deal 2. Fairly much 3. To some degree
4. Comparatively little 5. Not at all
Encourage slow-working people in the work group to work harder.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
Wait for people in the work group to push new ideas.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
Assign people in the work group to particular tasks.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
Ask for sacrifices from the men under you for the good of your
entire section.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
Ask that people under you follow to the letter those standard
routines handed down to you.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
Offer new approaches to problems.
1. Often 2. Fairly often 3. Occasionally 4. Once in a while
5. Very seldom
Put the section's welfare above the welfare of any member in it.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
Insist that you be informed on decisions made by people in the
work group under you.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
Let others do their work the way they think best.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
Stress being ahead of competing work groups.
1. A great deal 2. Fairly much 3. To some degree
4. Comparatively little 5. Not at all
35.

151
36. "Needle" people in the work group for greater effort.
1. A great deal 2. Fairly much 3. To some degree
4. Comparatively little 5. Not at all
37. Emphasize meeting of deadlines.
1; A great deal 2. Fairly much 3. To some degree
4. Comparatively little 5. Not at all
38. Decide in detail what shall be done and how it shall be done by
the work group.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
39. Meet with the group at regularly scheduled times.
1. Always 2. Often 3- Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never
40. See to it that people in the work group are working up to capacity.
1. Always 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4. Seldom 5. Never

APPENDIX G
SBD
INSTRUCTIONS:
You have observed your own squad leader and probably you know
pretty well how he operates. In this questionnaire, you are simply
to describe some of the things your own squad leader does with your
squad.
For each item, choose the choice which best describes how often
your squad leader does that that item says. Remember, there are no
right or wrong answers to these questions. The items simply describe
the behavior of the squad leader over you; they do not judge whether
his behavior is desirable or undesirable. Each squad leader is
different and so is every squad, so we expect differences in what
different squad leaders do.
Answer the items by putting a circle around each item to
indicate your choice.
1. He is easy to understand.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
2. He encourages overtime work.
a. a great deal b. fairly much c. to some degree
d. comparatively little 3. not at all
3. He tries out his new ideas.
a. often b. fairly much c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
U. He backs up what people in his squad do.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
5. He criticizes poor work.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
6. He demands more than we can do.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
152

153
7. He refuses to give In when people in the squad disagree with him.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
8. He expresses appreciation when one of us does a good job.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
9. He insists that people under him follow standard ways of doing
things in every detail.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
10. He helps people in the squad with their personal problems.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
11. He is slow to accept new ideas.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
12. He is friendly and can be easily approached.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
13. He gets the approval of the squad on important matters before going
ahead.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
14. He resists changes in ways of doing things.
a. a great deal b. fairly much c. to some degree
d. comparatively little e. not at all
15. He assigns people under him to particular tasks.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
16. He stresses being ahead of competing squads.
a. a great deal b. fairly much c. to some degree
d. comparatively little e. not at all
17. He criticizes a specific act rather than a particular individual.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
18. He lets others do their work the way they think best.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
19. He does personal favors for the people under him.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
20. He emphasizes meeting of deadlines.
a. a great deal b. fairly much c. to some degree
d. comparatively little e. not at all
21. He sees that a squad member is rewarded for a job well done.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never

22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
154
He treats people under him without considering their feelings,
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
He insists that he be informed on decisions made by the people
under him.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
He offers new approaches to problems.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
He treats all squad members under him as his equals.
a. always b. often c., occasionally d. seldom e. never
He is willing to make changes.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
He asks slower people to get more done.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
He criticizes people under him in front of others.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
He stresses the importance of high morale among those under him.
a. a great deal b. fairly much c. occasionally d. once in
a while e. very seldom
He talks about how much should be done.
a. a great deal b. fairly much c. to some degree
d. comparatively little é. not at all
He "rides" the person who makes a mistake.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
He waits for people under him to push new ideas before he does,
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
He rules with an iron hand.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
He tries to keep the people under him in good standing with those
in higher authority.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
He rejects suggestions for changes.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
He changes the duties of people under him without first talking it
over with them.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom

155
37. He decides in detail what shall be done and how it shall be done.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
38. He sees to it that people under him are working up to their limits.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
39. He stands up for people under him even though it makes him unpopular.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
UO. He makes those under him feel at ease when talking with him.
a, always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
41. He puts suggestions that are made by the people under him into
operat ion.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
42. He refuses to explain his actions.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
43. He emphasizes the quantity of work.
a great deal b. fairly much c. to some degree d. comparatively
1 ittle e. not at al 1
44. He asks for sacrifices from his people for the good of the entire
squad.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom
45. He "needles" people under him for greater effort.
a. a great deal b. fairly much c. to some degree
d. comparatively little e. not at all
46. He acts without consulting the people under him first.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
é. very seldom
47. He insists that everything be done his way.
a. always b. often c. occasionally d. seldom e. never
48. He encourages slow-working people to greater effort.
a. often b. fairly often c. occasionally d. once in a while
e. very seldom

APPENDIX H
JDI-GT
QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT GROUP TASKS
Think about the work you have just done. What was it like most of the
time? How well does each of the following words describe your work?
Circle Y for 'YES' if it describes your work, 1N1 for 'NO' if it does
NOT describe it, or ? if you cannot decide.
WORK IN THIS STUDY
fascinating
routine
sat isfying
boring
good
creative
respected
pleasant
useful
tiresome
chal 1enging
frustrating
s imple
gives sense of
accomplishment
YES
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
7
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
156

APPENDIX I
JDI-SL
QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT SQUAD LEADER
Think of the kind of supervision that you have just had on the group
tasks. How well does each of the following words describe your squad
leader? Circle Y for 'Yes" if it describes the supervision you have
recently received, N for 'No" if it does not describe it, or ? if
you cannot decide.
SUPERVISION ON GROUP TASKS
YES
asks my advice Y
hard to pi ease Y
impolite Y
praises good work Y
tactful Y
doesn't supervise enough Y
quick tempered Y
tells me where I stand Y
annoying Y
stubborn Y
knows job wel 1 Y
bad Y
intelligent Y
leaves me on my own Y
lazy Y
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
157

APPENDIX J
JDI-S
QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT SUBORDINATES
You have just finished supervising either two or four people in
the performance of two different tasks. We would like you to describe
each of these people. First, think of the person. Consider the way
he behaved on both of the tasks. How well does each of the following
words describe this person? Circle'Y for ‘YES1 if it describes him,
N for ‘NO1 if it does NOT describe him, or ? if you cannot decide.
PERSON NUMBER ONE
stimulating
boring
slow
ambitious
stupid
res pons ibl e
fast
intel1¡gent
easy to make enemies
talks too much
smart
lazy
unpleasant
no privacy
active
narrow interests
loyal
hard to meet
YES
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
158

it
159
PERSON NUMBER TWO
stimulating
boring
slow
ambitious
stupid
respons¡ble
fast
intel1igent
easy to make enemies
talks too much
smart
lazy
unpleasant
no privacy
active
narrow interests
loyal
hard to meet
YES
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
2
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
PERSON NUMBER THREE (do not fill this one out if you worked with only
two people)
st imulating
boring
slow
ambitious
stupid
responsible
fast
intel1igent
easy to make enemies
talks too much
smart
lazy
unpleasant
YES
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
7
?
?
?
?
?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

160
no privacy Y
active Y
narrow interests Y
1oya1 Y
hard to meet Y
PERSON NUMBER FOUR (do not fill this one out
two people)
YES
stimulating Y
boring Y
slow Y
ambitious Y
s tu p i d Y
responsible Y
fast Y
intelligent Y
easy to make enemies Y
talks too much Y
smart Y
lazy Y
unpleasant Y
no privacy Y
active Y
narrow interests Y
loyal Y
hard to meet Y
?
?
?
?
?
N
N
N
N
N
if you worked with only
l
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

APPENDIX K
JDI-FS
QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT FELLOW SUBORDINATES
You have just finished working with either one or three fellow
squad members in the performance of two different tasks. We would
like you to describe each of these people. How well does each of the
following words describe this person? Circle Y for 'YES' if it
describes him, N for 'No' if it does NOT describe him, or ? if you
cannot decide.
PERSON NUMBER ONE (do not fil
st imulat ing
boring
slow
ambitious
stupid
res ponsible
fast
intel1igent
easy to make enemies
talks too much
smart
lazy
unpleasant
no privacy
active
narrow interests
loyal
hard to meet
in if this was your number)
YES 7
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y 7
Y ?
Y ?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Thank you for your cooperation.
161

162
PERSON NUMBER TWO (do not fill
stimulating
boring
slow
ambitious
stupid
responsible
fast
intel1igent
easy to make enemies
talks too much
smart
lazy
unpleasant
no privacy
active
narrow interest
loyal
hard to meet
in if this was your number)
YES ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
Y ?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Thank you for your cooperation.
PERSON NUMBER THREE (do not fill in if this was your number or if only
two were in your group)
YES
stimulating Y
boring Y
slow Y
ambitious Y
stupid Y
responsible Y
fast Y
intelligent Y
easy to make enemies Y
talks too much Y
smart Y
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

163
lazy
unpleasant
no privacy
act¡ve
narrow interests
loyal
hard to meet
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
?
?
?
?
?
7
?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Thank you for your cooperation.
PERSON NUMBER FOUR (do not fill
two were in your group)
stimulating
boring
slow
amb i tious
stup id
respons¡ble
fast
intelligent
easy to make enemies
talks too much
smart
1 azy
unpleasant
no privacy
active
narrow interests
loyal
hard to meet
in if this was your number or if only
YES
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
7
?
?
?
?
?
NO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Thank you for your cooperation.

APPENDIX L
LAST PAGE
Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Is every item filled
out? Please check to make sure.
Remember the friendly competition? Do not tell any of the men back
in the barracks about what you did or what was asked. It may make them
do better than you did.
You may now turn this in to one of the men helping with this study.
Thanks again for helping us 1
164

APPENDIX M
INSTRUCTIONS
You are to teach each group member how to tie the knot shown below.
165

APPENDIX N
INSTRUCTIONS
(Please stand while giving all instructions.)
Introduction
Good (morning, afternoon, evening). Thank you for coming to
participate in this study. Will the squad leader please take the middle
seat? The squad members are to sit alphabetically starting with seat
number one. (Allow the men time to sit.)
As you probably know, the purpose of this study is to analyze the
problem-solving effectiveness of groups. In order to do this, we are
going to ask that you perform two different tasks. But first I need to
take your name. (Take names and list on form. Don't forget to indicate
race.)
Now I would like to explain a few points in connection with the
study. In order to help analyze the group processes, I'll be staying
in the room. In addition, the analysis requires two other people who
will be watching through that one-way window. (Point to window.) The
way this room is arranged they cannot watch the group too well from
inside the room therefore they are sitting outside and listening by
means of the microphone you see at the table. As you are performing
the tasks, please speak out where the mike will pick up the sound.
166

167
V
It is important that you perform both tasks as fast as you can
because you are in friendly competition with other squads here at the
Recruit Training Command. The faster you complete each task, the better
the group performance score. Your company commander will be told how
well you do compared to all the squads that participate in the study.
Your squad leader has been selected to be the person in charge of
the group. This is natural, of course, because of the way you are
organized here at boot camp. Now begin the first of the two problems.
(Give instructions for knot-tying.)
Instructions for KNOT-TYING TASK
We would 1 ike you to try a problem that requires you to work
together as a group in a physical task. Your squad leader will teach
you hew to tie a particular knot.
(To the squad leader.) The instructions for tying the knot are on
that sheet face down before you.
Follow the instructions of the squad leader because each of you
will be asked to successfully duplicate the knot. While one member is
tying the knot, someone else may talk anú give verbal help, but this
person cannot touch the rope and give physical help.
After each member of the group, including the squad leader, has
completed the duplication of the knot, lay the knot on the table. When
the last person has completed the knot, the squad leader should raise
his hand to signal completion of the task. We will then decide if all
the knots are properly tied.
Your group performance score will be the total elapsed time from the
beginning of the instruction by the squad leader to the time he raises his

168
hand to signal that the last person is done. Do not begin until I give
the signal.
Do you have any questions? (Make sure all group members fully
understand the instructions.)
(Seat yourself and be ready to start the stop watches.)
BEGIN.
(If not completed within 25 minutes, stop the watches. The squad
leader will be given special instructions in knot-tying. Seat yourself
and start watches again when you give signal to begin again.)
Instructions for SHIP-ROUTING TASK
We would like for you to try a problem that requires you to work
together as a group in a mental task. Your squad leader will direct
the group in figuring the shortest route between several ports.
Here are the general instructions. A ship is scheduled to leave
port A with destinations in ports B, C, D and E. There are several
routes that can be followed, but the ship's captain wants to pick the
shortest route. He must visit each port once and he doesn't want to
go to the same port twice. Your task is to find the shortest route in
order to visit these ports. You do not have to return to port A.
The distances between ports will be randomly distributed among
your group. The squad leader will receive a diagram that will assist
in arriving at a solution. Each squad member will receive a blank work
sheet.
You can solve the problem only by working together as a group. No
one of you can solve the problem by working alone because no one has
all the information needed to solve it. You must, therefore, communicate

169
with each other in order to reach the solution. You may talk freely among
yourselves, but you may not show each other the items of information that
you have been given.
The object of the task is for the group to agree on the answer in
the shortest possible time. When you have an answer that you as a group
are willing to accept, the squad leader should raise his hand to signal
a solution.
I will check for the correct solution. If your answer is not correct,
you must continue, after I tell you to begin again, until you find the
correct solution. The faster you find the solution, the better will be
the group's performance score. Do not begin until I give the signal.
Disregard Port F on the routing diagram.
Do you have any questions? (Make sure that all group members fully
understand the instructions.)
(For a three man group, hand each squad member six of the information'
cards. For a five man group, hand each squad member three of the
information cards. Hand the squad leader a copy of the ship-routing
diagram. Hand each of the squad members a blank work sheet. Seat
yourself and be ready to start the stop watches.)
BEGIN.
(If no solution after three attempts, stop the watches and repeat
instructions. Also remind the group to check their addition. Seat
yourself and start watches again when you give signal to begin again.)
(If no solution after two more attempts, stop the watches and give
squad leader a copy of the available route combinations. Give short
explanation of the form. Make sure that they understand. Seat yourself
and start watches again when you give signal to begin again.)

APPENDIX O
INSTRUCTIONS
You should use the diagram shown below to solve this problem. It
will show you the distances between ports, when filled in. It will also
show you the various route combinations. You may write on this paper.
170

APPENDIX P
SHIP-ROUTING INFORMATION
Note: Each informational item listed below was written individually
on a small index card; thus, there were a total of twelve information
cards. The solution to this problem is 450 miles.
1. The distance from A to B is 150 miles by direct route.
2. The distance from A to C is 100 miles by direct route.
3. There is no direct route from A to D.
4. The distance from A to E is 100 miles by direct route.
5. There is no direct route from B to C.
6. The distance from B to D is 50 miles by direct route.
7. The distance from B to E is 150 miles by direct route.
8. The distance from C to D is 200 miles by direct route.
9. The distance from C to E is 200 miles by direct route.
10. The distance from D to E is 100 miles by direct route.
11. There is no information on this card.
12. There is no information on this card.
171

APPENDIX Q
AVAILABLE ROUTE COMBINATIONS
E
C
D
C
E
B
D
B
C
B

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
William Robert Allen was born September 5, 1938, in Lamar
County, Alabama, near the town of Vernon. In 1956, upon graduation
from Robert E. Lee Senior High School in Jacksonville, Florida, he
entered the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut.
In I960, he received the Bachelor of Science degree, with Honors,
and was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard.
For the next four years he was in active military service.
From I960 to 1962 he served in both surface operations and engineering
assignments on the high endurance cutter SEBAGO out of Mobile, Alabama,
engaging primarily in search and rescue operations and patrol duties
in the Gulf of Mexico. From 1962 to 1964 he served in engineering
assignments on the polar icebreaker WESTWIND out of Brooklyn, New
York, participating in Arctic re-supply, escort and scientific
miss ions.
For the next six years he was employed in management positions
with ITT Rayonier, Inc., Fernandina Beach, Florida, first as a
project engineer and later, beginning in 1966, as the assistant
plant engineer. In 1970 he entered graduate school in the College
of Business Administration at the University of Florida.
In 1971, after receiving the Master of Business Adninistration
—degree, he entered the doctoral program in Business Administration.
173

174
In 1973, upon completing ail requirements except the dissertation,
he accepted the position of Assistant Professor of Organizational
Management and Industrial Relations at the University of Rhode
Island, Kingston.
William Robert Allen is married to the former Marl¡es Brutsch of
New York City. They have two sons, William and Robert, and a daughter,
Elizabeth, and now reside in Narragansett, Rhode Island.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
IJ. tí. 'M.
fack M. Feldman, Chairman
/Ass istant Professor of Management
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
(j/6mes F. Burns
Associate Professor of Industrial
and Systems Engineering and
Associate Director of Planning
and Analysis
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Management in the College of Business Administration and
to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
March, 1975

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1
262 08667 021 2